the PRODOS blog

Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

I support Sophie Mirabella

[photopress:sophie_mirabella_03.jpg,full,pp_image]

Do you support Sophie’s refusal to say sorry?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

Show your support for Liberal Party parliamentarian, Sophie Mirabella, who stated her reasons for boycotting Sorry Day, Wednesday February 13 as follows …

On genuine concern for all Australians:

I … applaud any real attempt to improve the lives of Aboriginal people and abused or neglected children whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On the Rudd government’s lack of transparency:

… the government did not release its legal advice regarding compensation claims that may flow as a result of the apology.

This motion of apology sets a worrying precedent.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

[photopress:noel_pearson_01.jpg,full,pp_image]
Noel Pearson: Concerned about fostering Aboriginal victimhood

On the paternalistic nature of the Apology:

Noel Pearson spoke of his concern that the apology:

… will sanction a view of history that cements a detrimental psychology of victimhood, rather than a stronger one of defiance, survival and agency.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On the destructive effects of modern day welfare policies:

In Australian history there have been successive policies that have been detrimental to Aboriginal Australians – the policies that ensconced the welfare mentality and dependency into the subculture;

the failure to confront the harsh truths of life in Indigenous communities;

the misguided paternalism which did nothing to right the wrongs of past decades;

and the damaging mindset of the victim mentality, which pervaded the psyche of Indigenous affairs and made coming face to face with the more pressing problems of Aboriginal communities nigh on impossible.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On the flimsy basis on which the whole Apology is based:

The problem with the Bringing Them Home report upon which the apology and claims for financial compensation are based is described by well-known Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson when he states that the report:

… is not a rigorous history of the removal of Aboriginal children and the breaking up of families … it does not represent a defensible history.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On the lack of definition of key terms:

The very term ‘stolen generations’ is not defined, is not qualified and, as such, is troublesome.

It is a direct lift from the Bringing Them Home report. It is a term that is too simplistic and has become an unqualified phrase.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On Kevin Rudd (not necessarily deliberately) treating those who helped Indigenous children as criminals:

In purely legal terms, the word ‘stolen’ has specific meaning denoting criminality.

This gives rise to a host of troubling scenarios, not least of which is the question of whether welfare officers and other government employees are, by implication, to be held liable in some way for their involvement in saving children at risk of harm in local communities.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

That the welfare of the child is what should matter:

Every day in Australia there are children being separated from a parent because someone has deemed it to be in the child’s best interests.

Are these children stolen?

Some of the reasons that Aboriginal children were taken from their families in decades past are the same reasons that Aboriginal children are sadly taken away today.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

[photopress:bonnie_robertson.jpg,full,pp_image]
Bonnie Robertson, Indigenous academic has identified: ” … violent crime and child sexual assault amongst the Indigenous community across Central Australia.”

On the violence to which Aboriginal children are subjected:

It sickens me that young Aboriginal children are still being diagnosed with sexually transmitted diseases or identified as being in some other danger, yet some people would say removing them from such perilous environments would be creating the next stolen generation.

That Kevin Rudd and his staff have placed political posturing and partisanship above the good of children:

The protection of children is far more important than any individual’s political agenda, including that of the Prime Minister,

whose own staff led a back-turning campaign in Parliament House when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking in support of this motion.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On the lack of transparency and accountability, and the lack of bi-partisanship shown by the Rudd government

Any parliamentary motion has a significant implication; therefore, why hide the wording?

Why only release it some 15 hours before it is to be debated?

Why should we as parliamentarians be refused access to the legal advice that the government sought to allegedly protect it from compensation claims?

It was either rushed or deliberately withheld from debate.

There was no chance to analyse the wording and its implications, much less to proffer a differing or alternative point of view and wording.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

On the vicious treatment and maligning of dissenters, and the engineered divisiveness of the PM’s “Sorry”:

Many who have dared offer an alternative viewpoint, expressed a contrary opinion on the wording of the motion or called for more debate have been called uncompassionate, callous and racist,

as if compassion is strictly limited to those who endorse the Prime Minister’s ‘sorry’ motion—as if they have an exclusive monopoly on compassion.

This clearly shows that we are not dealing with a unifying motion, no matter how well intentioned it has been.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

The ill-defined ‘sorry’ motion is now the basis for compensation claims, which is to be expected as this was also recommended in the Bringing them home report.Tasmanian Aboriginal lawyer and activist Michael Mansell said: … we won’t rest until we get that compensation package.

Former Administrator of the Northern Territory Ted Egan said the government should consider compensation.

Pat Dodson called for a compensation fund in his speech at the National Press Club.

One local Bangerang representative stated on local radio in my electorate a couple of weeks ago that this apology was the first step towards compensation.

Just two days after the apology, the front page of the Herald Sun carried the news of a class action against the government for multimillion dollar compensation claims for members of what were referred to as ‘the stolen generation’.

These are the unintended consequences of the apology.

Already the claims have come in thick and fast.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

That the Apology will not have the claimed healing effect:

This apology will entrench the notion of Aboriginal disillusionment and more firmly ensconce the victim mentality right throughout Indigenous Australia, as was noted by Noel Pearson in his moving and eloquent piece in the Australian on the day prior to the motion’s presentation in parliament.Pearson wrote: One of my misgivings about the apology has been my belief that nothing good will come from viewing ourselves, and making our case on the basis of our status, as victims.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

[photopress:andrew_bolt_02.jpg,full,pp_image]
Andrew Bolt: “… the leading advocate of the ‘stolen generations’ still can not – after eight years of looking – name even 10 children stolen for racist reasons …”

That the “Sorry” misses the real point and does not contribute towards dealing with the real issues facing Aboriginal children today:

It is far more simple to offer apologies than give proper recognition of the more heartbreaking, unpalatable realities of life in Indigenous communities –

two-year-olds with gonorrhoea,

children as victims of gang rape,

squalid living conditions,

young minds diminished by an ugly mixture of booze and porn and all the other sorts of unutterable miseries that run rife and unencumbered.

An apology will not fix this, but a new mindset and better policy will go a long way.

To be lastingly compassionate is to make the hard, sometimes unpopular, decisions to tackle the horrific problems of systemic sexual abuse, substance dependence and lawlessness in Aboriginal communities.

Do you agree with Sophie?

Then join the “I SUPPORT SOPHIE” campaign list: click here.

[Update: Monday Feb 25 2008: The link to the North Eastern News News Poll asking “Do you support Sophie’s refusal to say sorry” has been removed since the poll has ended.]

Report This Post

4 Comments

  1. Graham Clements

    March 14, 2008 at 12:11 am

    No I don’t agree, and its time that people like the producer of this blog grew up and faced the facts rather than continuing to peddle the same discredited rubbish. I have already sent a letter, signed by two other Indi voters, expressing my disgust at Sophie’s ignorance, but as I said in that letter, what really mattered is the reaction of the Aboriginal people to the apology, which on the whole seemed welcoming. I am heartily sick of people like you who prey on the ignorance of others.

    Report This Comment

  2. Graham Clements

    March 14, 2008 at 12:13 am

    Are you too gutless to tell us who you are? No info in the about us, no contact addresses. Pathetic.

    Report This Comment

  3. Responding to Graham Clements ….

    Are you too gutless to tell us who you are? No info in the about us, no contact addresses. Pathetic.

    See the right hand column of this blog? See it Graham?

    See the link called “Contact”? Yes, there it is, Graham.

    See where it has my email address?

    See where it has my phone number?

    See where it has my snailmail address?

    Ehm … and the name of this blog is … “The PRODOS Blog”.

    “Prodos” happens to be my actual name. Fancy that!

    I demand an immediate, public Apology from you to all the people you misrepresent, malign, and insult.

    I will not rest until I receive your Apology.

    However, since you are probably an intolerant racist and a bigot, I’ll be most surprised if you deem to lower your High-and-Mightiness to the level of the common, courteous individual. Let’s see, shall we?

    … what really mattered is the reaction of the Aboriginal people to the apology, which on the whole seemed welcoming. I am heartily sick of people like you who prey on the ignorance of others.

    What about the reaction and the feelings of those Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal people who consider the “Apology” to be a load of bollocks?

    Do they matter to you? Do you have any tolerance of their beliefs?

    Why do you support the Apology?

    Is it because you believe there really was a Stolen Generation?

    I don’t.

    I don’t agree with all of Sophie’s positions on this matter, but I am, personally, not convinced that there ever was a “Stolen Generation”.

    As such, I’m not Sorry and consider the Apology to be wrong and bloody stupid.

    I believe THIS is the letter you refer to in your comment above. Correct?

    This letter states:

    … over the past few years the Age and the ABC have had hundreds of stories from Aborigines who were stolen from their parents.

    Do you mean they were removed from their parent(s) for racist reasons – rather than for their health, safety or security?

    If so, neither you or the ABC or The Age have proven it.

    Furthermore, all the most prominent cases of those who have claimed to have been “Stolen” do not stand up to further scrutiny.

    Typical examples of such flimsy claims are touched on HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

    And try some of THESE.

    Warning: The views expressed in the above links do not have the impeccable imprimatur of The Age or The ABC, so you may be exposed to troubling questions and facts that test your self-professed “tolerance” to its limit!

    In fact this would be a good time to simply abandon it entirely and just go berserk.

    Report This Comment

  4. It’s about looking behind the seemingly non-racist drafting of the legislation to see its true racist intentions. Yes the legislation applied to “wards” rather than directly to Aboriginal people, so in that sense, on a truely technical sense, you are right, it was not racist.

    But who were “wards” you ask? As deemed by the Parliament? Almost all Aboriginal people and a few crazy white people. Can you really say the legislation did not have intentions based on racist beliefs?

    Let’s not continue to hide behind a thin veil of disguise.

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2015 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog