Tuesday, 18 December 2007

Most Australians disagree with 'evil' used in any apology to the so-called 'Stolen Generation'

I doubt that even one in one hundred Australians knows the real story of the Stolen Generation. The issue has been caught up in the whole Aboriginal guilt-industry led by profoundly racist, immoral Aboriginal 'leaders' such as Pat O'Shane and Lowitja O'Donoghue.

The Stolen Generation Alliance sees O'Donoghue team with Australia's most feckless ever prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, to propose that not only should the Australian government apologise for something that happened 40 years ago but that it should use the words 'evil' and 'cruel'.

It's just my opinion but I would have thought that if you're looking for public support for your position then using such terms, which reflect on current society, doesn't seem the way to go about it.
The Rudd Government's apology to the Stolen Generation will concede that removing Aboriginal children from their families was "evil" and "cruel", if advice from an influential lobby group is taken.

The suggested speech, based on a similar apology in Canada, would use the word "sorry" and admit the Stolen Generation was a policy that could not be justified or excused.

The Stolen Generation Alliance, led by Aboriginal leader Lowitja O'Donoghue and former prime minister Malcolm Fraser, proposed the speech to Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin last week, The Australian reports.

Ms O'Donoghue has also backed a $1billion compensation fund to be established for the Stolen Generation, saying the compensation would stop "a litany of court cases" from occurring.

The wording of the Stolen Generation Alliance's suggested apology is based on a 1998 apology by the moderator of the United Church of Canada to children who were forced into church-run Indian Residential Schools.

That speech described a "cruel and ill-conceived system of assimilation", "evil acts" and a "horrendous period in Canadian history".

The Canadian Government launched a $1.9 billion compensation package in November 2005 for displaced Native Americans.

In addition to the suggested speech, Ms Macklin was reportedly told during the meeting that there was a difference between the words "sorry" and "apology".

"Some say that 'apology' comes from the head, whereas 'sorry' comes from the heart," she was told.
So what do Australians think of using the terms 'evil' and 'cruel' in an apology to the Stolen Generation?



I bet that 90% of those who voted Yes are under 25 years of age and/or have an arts degree.

(Nothing Follows)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Whatever the merits of the rest of your argument, it's embarrassingly immature to think you can guess what degree someone has from their opinion on something like this.

Jack Lacton said...

Funnily enough, 'intellectual immaturity' is the term I use to describe those who have arts degrees, of which 90% vote left of centre.

If you'd followed my views for a while you'd know that it takes someone with a university degree in the social sciences to be so morally confused as to vote Yes on this one.

Anonymous said...

If you could, give us a quick breakdown of which university degrees make you intellectually mature and which make you intellectually immature. And also tell us what you think of people with science degrees, of which at least 90% vote left of centre.