Society/Culture Are we turning a blind eye to indigenous problems?

[kickazz]

We've been having some serious teething problems up to this point in time not including the one I posted about earlier.

Can i ask, in your opinion, why is this? Trying to bite off too much at once? Lack of quality female candidates? No real buy in from everyone?

 

[medusala]

That's the excepted position at both Australian law, and the accepted scientific consensus.

You might disagree, but no one really cares.

lol. Its quack sociology nonsense sprouted by the ignorant.

How are scientists (real ones) able to identify genetic groups via DNA if there is no such thing as ethnicity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

 

[Benny78]

The only thing I can really fault during Rudds tenure was apologizing to the aborigines. We didn't even do anything. I think it was like a 4 generation gap, where our supposedly guilty ancestors were long dead before we were born. I don't even know if my great great great grandfather killed any aborigines. It was too long ago.

While I don't think the apology is the reason for it, all it would do is empower aboriginies and incriminate white people as guilty of something they're not. Now we have indigenous blackmailing us into recognizing them more, which I'd attribute more to regressive left individuals over Rudds apology.

 

[medusala]

The only thing I can really fault during Rudds tenure was apologizing to the aborigines.

Everything else he did was brilliant

 

[Malifice]

Yeah, nah. You are cherry picking. It's clear that most court cases have determined that biological descent is required. And Aboriginal opinion is stronger than Federal court views on this issue.

I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

When a judge says 'biological decent is NOT required' we lawyers tend to listen.

 

[Malifice]

I think this misses quite a lot; having external circumstances that make it more difficult to end up with a good outcome, doesn’t preclude someone from making good decisions and improving their lot in life.

To say that free will is nonexistent and that people have no input in to their own life outcomes is quite a reach.

I didn't say it was nonexistent.

I said it was largely illusory.

Poor people can become millionaies. Millionaies can become petty crooks.

It's just they're the outliers. Not the rule.

 

[Malifice]

lol. Its quack sociology nonsense sprouted by the ignorant.

How are scientists (real ones) able to identify genetic groups via DNA if there is no such thing as ethnicity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

By using the social constrct as a measuring stick.

 

[Proud SJW]

By using the social constrct as a measuring stick.

Of what?

 

[HairyO]

That's the excepted position at both Australian law, and the accepted scientific consensus.

You might disagree, but no one really cares.

Is half Asian and half Caucasian fully Asian or fully Caucasian according to those scientists who have stated that there is no such thing as half Aboriginal?

Did all the real scientists laugh at those fake scientists for their stupidity?

 

[Malifice]

Is half Asian and half Caucasian fully Asian or fully Caucasian according to those scientists who have stated that there is no such thing as half Aboriginal?

How is this even a question?

 

[HairyO]

How is this even a question?

You are saying half Aboriginal isnt scientifically a thing.

Im wondering about other races.

And I agree its not a thing. Its bullshit.

If I can decide my gender then I can decide my race.

 

[Malifice]

You are saying half Aboriginal isnt scientifically a thing..

Yep.

 

[Cuzz09]

Honest question... Do Aboriginals/TSIs get more/fortnight for centrelink? Have to look for jobs?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[faible]

I didn't say it was nonexistent.

I said it was largely illusory.

Poor people can become millionaies. Millionaies can become petty crooks.

It's just they're the outliers. Not the rule.

I still disagree, you’re advocating a position which basically says where life ends is predetermined so don’t bother even trying to make good decisions.

Plenty of people who start life in poor situations can improve upon that with good choices, the same way plenty of people who start life in good situations never make the most of it.

Decisions matter; the same way where you start in life matters and having some luck along the way matters.

Trying to contrast abject poverty with becoming a millionaire is just an absurd way of looking at it, since both are outliers.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Yeah I've got a mate (male) who is a primary school teacher. Recons he can basically get a job wherever he wants.

I have a female sparky friend, same deal. She can call up any of the large, well paying electrical contractors and they will hand her the job on a platter.

Tip to any younger people reading this thread: consider getting yourself a career in a field dominated by the opposite sex.

 

[TimmeT]

I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

When a judge says 'biological decent is NOT required' we lawyers tend to listen.

Still doesn't change the fact that you were cherry picking.

Also ROFL at the bold. I remember being told by a number of lecturers and lawyers that many of their colleagues did not even bother to listen to judges such as Kirby because his positions were so extreme and non representative.

 

[TimmeT]

Yep.

So why isn't it when it would be the outcome of a full Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal having a child?

 

[HairyO]

Honest question... Do Aboriginals/TSIs get more/fortnight for centrelink? Have to look for jobs?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

You will find many of the remote ones are on pensions which are higher than the Dole.

BTW this thread seems to have been hijacked by a moderator.

It is about levels of abuse and neglect which would not be ignored if it were white kids and white women.

And various interest groups which always seem more interested in other areas.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

When a judge says 'biological decent is NOT required' we lawyers tend to listen.

For someone who claims to be a lawyer you are making a total hash of this.

From the concluding observations of Justice Merkel in Shaw v Wolf.

The present case offers a good example of the difficulties thrown up by issues of Aboriginal identification. That some descent may be an essential legal criterion required by the definition in the Act is be accepted. However in truth, the notion of "some" descent is a technical rather than a real criterion for identity, which after all in this day and age, is accepted as a social, rather than a genetic, construct. The solution to such problems is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.​

So he's saying the law is clear that some descent is an essential element of establishing Aboriginality. It is consistent with his findings in the case that
respondents Ms Oakford and Mr Lesage were not Aboriginal persons, as defined by the Act, because they could not establish Aboriginal descent.

I accept that Ms Oakford may genuinely identify as an Aboriginal person. Although her oral history offers some evidence in support of her hypothesis as to Aboriginal descent, I am not satisfied it is sufficient to overcome the case presented by the petitioners on that issue.

In view of the deficient evidence of Aboriginal descent available in relation to Mr Lesage, absence of evidence of genuine self-identification and communal identification as an Aboriginal person, on the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that the petitioners have discharged their onus of establishing that Mr Lesage is not an Aboriginal person for the purposes of the present case.

​

His remarks about 'notions of some descent being technical' are just his personal opinions about the topic being problematic. As he goes on to say, 'the solution to such problems is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts'.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The teaching one is strange to me.

Primary school in the 70s, about 50 / 50.

Secondary school in the 80s, about 65 / 35 in favour of men.

With my daughters at primary school and secondary school now. Primary school about 90 / 10 women. I know that the pedo has driven a lot of men out of primary teaching or discouraged them from doing it.

Secondary about 60 / 40 women.

I've had stays in hospital twice in the last year. With different shifts I probably had 40 different nurses look after me. Of all those there was only one male nurse.

I also went for some counselling recently. All 10 counsellors in the practice were female. I asked was it a female only practice. They said no, they just can't get qualified male counsellors.

I don't think it's a big issue that needs fixing. I think it reflects differing male/female interests. But by the same score engineering and technology companies should not feel the need to have gender targets.

 

[faible]

It is about levels of abuse and neglect which would not be ignored if it were white kids and white women.

And various interest groups which always seem more interested in other areas.

Is it that we don't care as much about Aboriginal Women / Children; or that there's some kind of awkward truth that must be confronted if we were to admit that higher rates of abuse occur in Aboriginal communities?

Certainly the more money a group has, the more power they have to make themselves heard, but we also have strange issues with confronting certain elements of the community having different challenges to overcome.

 

[HairyO]

Is it that we don't care as much about Aboriginal Women / Children; or that there's some kind of awkward truth that must be confronted if we were to admit that higher rates of abuse occur in Aboriginal communities?

Its absolutely this. England has seen the same thing in a number of cities where police and community workers were too afraid to act against sexual predators for fear of being called racist.

So instead little kids suffer.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Its absolutely this. England has seen the same thing in a number of cities where police and community workers were too afraid to act against sexual predators for fear of being called racist.

So instead little kids suffer.

The latest and possibly worst scandal is from Telford UK.

The Telford child sex abuse ring consisted of a group of British South Asian Muslim men grooming local children for sex between 2007 and 2009 in Telford in the English county of Shropshire. Up to 100 girls are believed to have been affected and around 200 perpetrators were suspected. According to the Home Office, as of 2015, Telford had the highest rate of sex crimes against children of any city in the United Kingdom.

In 2018, investigations by Daily Mirror have revealed that the extent of the Telford grooming gang was far more vast than had previously been revealed, with up to 1,000 girls, most of them white, having been victims of trafficking, drugging, beating, rape and even murder by members of the group and other groups, who are suspected to number in the hundreds, making it the largest of any grooming scandal to date. Similar with other grooming gang cases is the authority's failure to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of being seen as racist, with police having known about gang activities since the early 1990s.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sex_abuse_ring

 

[medusala]

By using the social constrct as a measuring stick.

FFS. DNA isnt a social construct.

Yep.

Stay out of the thread if you are going to continue to post nonsense like that.

Denying genetic diversity is up there flat earth theory.

 

[medusala]

For someone who claims to be a lawyer you are making a total hash of this.

From the concluding observations of Justice Merkel in Shaw v Wolf.

The present case offers a good example of the difficulties thrown up by issues of Aboriginal identification. That some descent may be an essential legal criterion required by the definition in the Act is be accepted. However in truth, the notion of "some" descent is a technical rather than a real criterion for identity, which after all in this day and age, is accepted as a social, rather than a genetic, construct. The solution to such problems is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.​

So he's saying the law is clear that some descent is an essential element of establishing Aboriginality. It is consistent with his findings in the case that
respondents Ms Oakford and Mr Lesage were not Aboriginal persons, as defined by the Act, because they could not establish Aboriginal descent.

.

I can remember this case.

http://www.hobartlegal.org.au/tasmanian-law-handbook/rights/aboriginal-law/what-aborigine

The Aboriginal Lands Act 1995 (Tas) defines an Aboriginal person as someone who can establish they have Aboriginal ancestry, self-identification as an Aboriginal person and communal recognition by members of the Aboriginal community (s3A). This is the same definition as accepted by the High Court of Australia in the 1983 ‘Tasmanian Dam Case’.

In 1996 two members of the Aboriginal Tasmanian community challenged the Aboriginal identity of 11 of the 34 candidates for the election of the Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Council. The case was dealt with by the Federal Court (Shaw & James v Wolf & Ors [1998] FCA 389). The court held that Aboriginal descent was essential but ‘self-identification’ and ‘communal recognition' could be relevant factors in any particular case. It also held that in this particular case it was up to the challengers to prove that the candidates were not Aborigines. The challenge was largely unsuccessful, and the decision has little practical effect in most areas particularly as the onus of proof and standard of proof made it practically impossible for the applicants to establish their case.

Generally the onus is on the person seeking to establish an entitlement, as an Aborigine, to funds, services and other things intended for Aborigines, to prove that they are an Aborigine. What proof is required varies with circumstances.