Qld Slaves and stolen children: ABC article

[Chief]

Luckily we have Andrew Bolt to tell us the stolen generations never happened, hey?

The mystery of the laughing girl and the stern matriarch in my family photo album

Ellen Fanning had been looking at the photo for about eight years. The women were not sitting in the lush garden of that vast sheep station by choice. Why were they in her grandmother's photo album?

www.abc.net.au

My family’s reckoning
It was time to face the difficult truth about my family who lived on stolen land.

Despite that closeness, the family says Maria never spoke about being stolen from her own mother, about her early years working on the sheep stations, or about her culture, her language or her heritage.

"Never," says Loraine vehemently. "I knew nothing."

When pressed as to why, she offers: "I think she didn't want to draw attention to us in any way whatsoever. I think she was afraid that if she did, then they might come."

The government might come to steal the children, she feared, if she spoke to them in an Aboriginal language or spoke to them of her culture. So Maria hid that part of herself.

When her husband went to World War II, she'd also hide her youngest children in a cupboard if a stranger came to call.

Even so, she had to endure the loss of her son Johnny, sent to work on the stations at 14, just as she had been. His younger brother Ned recalls running behind the horse and cart, screaming and crying as he was taken away.
...


“They could take their children at any time. And they would not give you a reason,” she says.

“Even in the 1970s and ’80s, she was still scared. She was still scared up until the day she died.”

 

[HairyO]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

 

[campbell]

Disgusting racist pig.

I know it happened.
I still get flashbacks from being taken by police from our home and placed in a disgusting church run home.
Onlly two of us were taken, the other two little redheaded irish roses,got to stay.

 

[Pie eyed]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Seriously shouldn't you be HairyitererO.
Not cool man.

 

[kranky al]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Soooouuurrrccceee?

 

[kranky al]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

 

[chelseacarlton]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Sheesh you can be a real knob at times.

 

[Chief]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

You’re an idiot.

 

[kranky al]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Seriously post a source you intellectual pygmy

One decent source

you cant you papa oscar sierra

 

[Fire]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Links?

Educate me daddy.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I'm bored at work, so I thought I'd do a bit of a fact check on HairyO's claim that there's been "court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children". In summary, from what I found (and I should stress it wasn't an overly exhaustive search), that seems a pretty accurate statement in that nearly all court action relating to the stolen generation has failed.

Google search term: "stolen children court cases".

First result:

[1] https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...s/news-story/b78e059b128c0e61559740061e517499

This is the twentieth case in State, Federal and High Courts involving significant Stolen Generations claims, and the nineteenth to see the claims thrown out.

Ok ok, that is a blog by Bolt and HairyO specifically mentioned that it was not just Bolt that has made the claim.

These 3 seem more reputable to me, though tbh I have no idea who any of the authors are:

[2] https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1705728/32_2_2.pdf

Litigation for the so-called ‘Stolen Generations’ had been demonstrably unsuccessful until the recent case of Trevorrow v South Australia

[3] https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/defaul...ns-litigation-stolen-generation-cases_0_2.pdf

The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families found that forcible removal breached a range of domestic laws and international human rights standards. Yet, despite this finding, court action by members of the Stolen Generations has been unsuccessful.

[4] http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2011/2.html

This one is an entire paper, titled "The Stolen Generations in Court: Explaining the Lack of Widespread Successful Litigation by Members of the Stolen Generations"

So there seems to be evidence of HairyO's claim.

That said, an important quote from article 4 (bolding is mine for emphasis):

Cases are decided on the basis of evidence presented (or agreed to) by the parties. It is for the parties to present the evidence which supports their case. If a party does not present sufficient evidence to prove their case on balance, or effectively argue relevant issues in dispute, they will lose. This does not mean that the events alleged did not take place, although that is the legal effect of the court’s judgment.

I've not read all the articles above in full but from the little reading I did there are significant impediments to providing the required level of proof, best summed up in article 3:

The major limitations of the litigation process which we identify include the problem of overcoming statutory limitation periods, the difficulty of locating evidence, the emotional and psychological trauma experienced by claimants in the hostile environment of an adversarial court system, the enormous financial cost and time involved, the problem of establishing specific liability for harms that have been caused, and the problem of overcoming the judicial view that ‘standards of the time’ justified removal in the best interests of the child.

Article 4 also raised another good point regarding potential litigants:

Not all members of the Stolen Generations are potential litigants. Some have died. Some will be incapacitated by age, illness or disability. Others will be ignorant of their membership of the Stolen Generations. They may not know they were taken, or why, and may not suspect that they have Aboriginal heritage.

All in all, there have been many court cases finding no evidence of stolen children. But that isn't proof that it didn't occur.

Note: all these articles/papers are relatively old - I think the most recent was from 2013 (the Bolt one).

As an aside, I found it interesting that for the one successful case I found (Trevorrow v South Australia), article 1 had this to say:

It was Christmas 50 years ago when Joe Trevorrow left his hut of scrap iron and sacks on the Coorong to ask his neighbours - relatives of his partner, Thora - to drive his sick baby to Adelaide’s children’s hospital... Who knows what Thora’s relatives told the doctors, but the hospital’s notes say the baby, Bruce Trevorrow, was a “neglected child - without parents”, suffering from “malnutrition” and “infective diarrhoea“‘. The notes add: “The other two children are neglected. Mother has cleared out and father is boozing.” This is the baby that just two weeks later was given to an Adelaide family.. Unforgiveably, Joe and Thora were never asked for permission to give away their baby.

But again, Bolt, so...

Though it does fit with the idea that (from article 4, referrencing a different trial. Again, bolding is mine):

The High Court also rejected claims that the Ordinance was enacted for the purpose of genocide or was intended to destroy a racial group, but held on the contrary that it was beneficial in intent... Those people thought that they were acting in the best interests of the child. Subsequent events have shown that they were wrong.

Article 2 offers some level of proof that "they were wrong":

Bruce Trevorrow was almost an ‘ideal plaintiff’. The ‘authorities’ took baby Bruce Trevorrow from his family without their consent and placed him with a foster mother. His siblings remained with their parents. The circumstances provided an almost clinical setting in which the effect of family deprivation on Bruce’s achievements in life could be measured against those of his siblings. In effect, the siblings became the test control group. They fulfilled their potential; Bruce did not.

 

[Chief]

All in all, there have been many court cases finding no evidence of stolen children. But that isn't proof that it didn't occur.

And that claim itself is a bit iffy.

Issues around witnesses, statute of limitations, excusing behaviour at the time and so on are not "no evidence of stolen children".

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

And that claim itself is a bit iffy.

Issues around witnesses, statute of limitations, excusing behaviour at the time and so on are not "no evidence of stolen children".

Good point.

 

[Caesar]

And that claim itself is a bit iffy.

Issues around witnesses, statute of limitations, excusing behaviour at the time and so on are not "no evidence of stolen children".

I think it is also important not to conflate the use of 'stolen' contextually or in common parlance with the legal definition

Narrowing discussion to what constitutes a specific crime under some statute is disingenuous and reductive when the goal is to discuss a set of events that are defined more by their sociological outcomes than their strict legality

 

[South of the Yarra]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Would you like some firsthand evidence?

 

[nut]

Slavery was also legal at one point.
So kids taken away from families was probably legal at one point too… considering first nation people weren’t even considered human at one point.

Where is this thread going?

 

[Chief]

Would you like some firsthand evidence?

The dude was gone in the head years ago. This argument would not be productive.

 

[kranky al]

We also have court case after court case finding no evidence of stolen children. Not just Bolt, as an FYI.

Oh ffs.

And Donald trump won in 2020

Covid is just the flu


Vaccines cause autism



Dribblehead

 

[HairyO]

Oh ffs.

And Donald trump won in 2020

Covid is just the flu


Vaccines cause autism



Dribblehead

Nice rant. Which court cases have proven the claims of being stolen for no reason other than being Aboriginal ?

 

[owen87]

Nice rant. Which court cases have proven the claims of being stolen for no reason other than being Aboriginal ?

What exactly is your argument here, as I feel you really need to clarify it for us all.

 

[Chief]

Nice rant. Which court cases have proven the claims of being stolen

That was your bullshit claim.

You added more bullshit:

for no reason other than being Aboriginal ?

And there it is. The Andrew Bolt Argument.

You're aware that the reports made by authorities at the time were not subject to any scrutiny, yeah? Nor were they open to appeal.

So the written reasons on documents of the time are basically hearsay. Never confirmed through any sort of fair and transparent process, nor subject to appeal, as is required in any legal system in any decent democracy.

At their core the removals were due to Aboriginality - directly or due to Aboriginal people being put in circumstances by colonisers, then blamed for those circumstances. The enforced disconnection from language and culture are the final proof.

You are a racist person. We see you.

 

[campbell]

Nice rant. Which court cases have proven the claims of being stolen for no reason other than being Aboriginal ?

as and aboriginal lady who was ripped out of my families home with 3 of my sisters, and placed in a putrid orphanage, because I was born into the wrong coloured family.

I find your remarks offensive.

Luckily for me, them thar nuns, apologised for all the abuse I went through.

But hey, the stolen generation is a myth.

idiot.

 

[South of the Yarra]

as and aboriginal lady who was ripped out of my families home with 3 of my sisters, and placed in a putrid orphanage, because I was born into the wrong coloured family.

I find your remarks offensive.

Luckily for me, them thar nuns, apologised for all the abuse I went through.

But hey, the stolen generation is a myth.

idiot.

Stay strong sis, you are here because you are so strong. Always was ALWAYS Will be

 

[South of the Yarra]

Nice rant. Which court cases have proven the claims of being stolen for no reason other than being Aboriginal ?

Aboriginal children were stolen because well … they were Aboriginal. Happy memories (what’s left of them), a happy, caring, safe, beautiful family, ripped away. Your are an outright racist.

 

[kranky al]

Nice rant. Which court cases have proven the claims of being stolen for no reason other than being Aboriginal ?

Court votes YES to stolen generation class action settlement

This was a class action on behalf of persons the subject of, or affected by, the stolen generation in the Northern Territory on and after 8 January 1912. Following the commencement of the proceeding, the Commonwealth government introduced a redress scheme for certain victims.

www.mauriceblackburn.com.au

<<
This was a class action on behalf of persons the subject of, or affected by, the stolen generation in the Northern Territory on and after 8 January 1912. Following the commencement of the proceeding, the Commonwealth government introduced a redress scheme for certain victims. As a result, the class definition in the proceeding was amended so as to exclude those persons who were eligible to participate in the scheme. Thus, the class ultimately comprised, in essence:

• those members of the stolen generation who were deceased as at the date of inception of the redress scheme (Group 1);
• living parents and siblings of the victims of the stolen generation (Group 2); and
• deceased parents and siblings of the victims of the stolen generation (Group 3).

The parties agreed to a settlement of the proceeding in the amount of $50.45 million. Justice Beech-Jones approved the proposed settlement having regard to the significant (though not necessarily insurmountable) legal and practical obstacles which the claims faced, and stated:
[7] It suffices to state that, although at one level the payouts to group members will be relatively modest compared to the harm that was suffered, they still represent a very good outcome when consideration is given to the many legal and evidential hurdles the claims faced and the significant delay that was likely to ensue had the matter been litigated. The costs and fees that are deducted from the settlement are reasonable given the risks involved. This case represents a positive example of the benefits of representative actions.
[8] The First Nations children who were taken from their families in the Northern Territory during the period the subject of the plaintiff’s claim form part of what is commonly referred to as the “Stolen Generation”. That phrase refers to those First Nations children who were stolen from their families, communities and culture. However, that is far too brief a statement of the suffering that was occasioned. Cataloguing everything that was taken, and from whom, is simply not possible. The practice of removing First Nations children from their families and the reasons for that practice remain highly controversial. For many, this period of removals represents another dark chapter in this country’s treatment of its First Nations people. However, like many other instances in our history, such injustices do not necessarily sound in a legal remedy or vindication. Injustices within the law are not an unknown feature of this country’s treatment of First Nations people. Hopefully, this settlement will provide some measure of justice, or at least recognition of the harm that was done.
His Honour also approved:

• the proposed settlement distribution scheme, which provided for a ‘base amount’ to be paid to those class members in Group 3, twice that amount to be paid to class members in Group 2, and three times that amount to be paid to class members in Group 1 – based on the number of registrants, it was estimated that the ‘base amount’ would be approximately $11,800;
• legal costs of approximately $2.9 million (including reimbursement of $1 million paid for ATE insurance), and settlement administration costs of up to $3 million;
• a ‘special’ payment of $10,000 to the original lead plaintiff in the case, and $5,000 to the substituted lead plaintiff; and
• a funding commission of $5.5 million (representing 10.9% of the settlement sum (or 12.88% including the ATE premium reimbursement referred to above)).

The latter was sought on the basis of a ‘common fund order’. His Honour was satisfied that the Court has power to make such an order at the time of approving a settlement (at [51]), and was “overwhelmingly satisfied” that the total amount payable to the funder (including reimbursement of the ATE insurance premium) was reasonable (at [53]).

Ellis v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] NSWSC 550>>>​