Steps towards Treaty: the Uluru Statement and Referendum Council Report

[Gethelred]

Alright.

We've had the Referendum into the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and the public rejected it.

From the notes to the Referendum Committee:

The Dialogues discussed who would be the parties to Treaty, as well as the process, content and enforcement questions that pursuing Treaty raises. In relation to process, these questions included whether a Treaty should be negotiated first as a national framework agreement under which regional and local treaties are made. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Would you be okay with any or all of the above? What do you think would be a reasonable means of reparations, or do you think reparations are not required at all?

Try and keep it civil from here. The last few pages have been as base as anywhere else on this forum.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Would you have if I didn't bring it up?

This is my point, and this is not just targeting you.

As I've said earlier itt, on this topic, clearly the talking point is kids stolen from their home by govt. sometimes for conspired reasons.

Rarely if ever is the discussion about the removing of children, even if against their wish is the better outcome.

Yet I bring it up and everyone immediately jumps on 'no one argues that sometimes it's necessary' like I'm disputing that, instead of reading my posts.

So, why does it need to be put to rest then?

I have spoken many times about the truth of the situation. I have also spoken many times about our 3 Foster kids who will stay with us forever. You realise there are reasons they will stay with us forever. They cannot go safely back to their north parents. A large percentage are not necessary and are based on a racist system.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I have spoken many times about the truth of the situation. I have also spoken many times about our 3 Foster kids who will stay with us forever. You realise there are reasons they will stay with us forever. They cannot go safely back to their north parents. A large percentage are not necessary and are based on a racist system.

And where have I disagreed with this?

 

[South of the Yarra]

And where have I disagreed with this?

You were asking would I have mentioned it if you didn’t. I was telling you I already had

 

[Carringbush2010]

You were asking would I have mentioned it if you didn’t. I was telling you I already had

Apologies, didn't see it. You're one of the very few, so my point still stands.

 

[Gethelred]

Carringbush2010, you've enunciated what you think the threshold for removal of children from their biological family should be, but I'm curious about something.

To what extent are you aware of the damage - comparatively speaking - that is done to children when you remove them from their parents?

I'm also going to ask you: please don't immediately try and deflect to 'it's less damage than allowing them to stay! or the like. I want to form a basis for why you think what you think; we know you think there's situations in which removal is the only option to improve the child's outcomes, but I want to know what you view as the better outcome in that scenario.

 

[Gethelred]

This series of excerpts is taken from a DOJ refresher (don't click on the link unless you potentially want to download a PDF) for lawyers in America, who have to deal with the removal of children from their families. It is not directly concerning First Nations experience - except for a single reference, which is illuminating - but it's useful to illustrate the psychological affect of being removed from your family:

HARM RESULTING FROM SEPARATION OF PARENT AND CHILD.

Introduction
This section of the memorandum explores three areas of research concerning the harms visited upon children as a result of forced removal from their parents. First, this section reviews the scientific literature discussing the general effects of removal on the child. As these resources indicate, the short- and long-term effects on the child’s mental and physical well-being are often devastating. These effects include severe anxiety, depression, PTSD, and toxic stress (reviewed separately in Part V below). Separation can also result in delays in cognitive development. Further, the child may suffer physical harm that is manifested as a result of stress-induced releases of hormones that impact brain and organ function. Second, this section summarizes key court decisions and law journal articles that recognize the deleterious effects of parent-child separation. With respect to the case law, this memorandum focuses principally on decisions concerning the challenges to the government’s policy of parent-child separation at the border. Those decisions recognize that even temporary separation can result in irreparable and grave harm. The law journal articles similarly build on and adopt the findings of the scientific community and advocate for the courts’ careful exercise of their discretion in child removal cases. Third, and finally, this section analyzes research specifically addressing the negative impact of placement into foster care and the negative effects associated with living in foster care.

Scientific Research on the Effects of Removal from Parents Generally
- Allison Eck, Psychological Damage Inflicted by Parent-Child Separation is Deep, Long Lasting, NOVA Next (June 20, 2018),http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/b...180623&utm_content=1608267756&linkId=53391996

In response to the separation of families at the border in 2018, this article explores the harm that can result when a child is removed from his or her parents. Citing statements released by the scientific community in response to current events, the article focuses on the devastating effects for both child and parent. The article quotes Erin C.Dunn, a social and psychiatric epidemiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center, who states that, “The scientific evidence against separating children from families is crystal clear,” and “[w]e all know it is bad for children to be separated from caregivers.” The article details the harm that can result from the “monsoon of stress hormones… flood[ing] the brain and body,” noting potential increased risks of developing heart disease, diabetes, and even certain forms of cancer. Quoting Carmen Rosa Norona, Child Trauma Clinical Services and Training Lead of Boston Medical Center’s Child Witness to Violence Project, the article states that even when children are in the care of parents who may not be able to meet their needs, they “still organize their behaviors and thinking around these relationships and go to great lengths to maintain them.”7As of January 2020 EAST\171419531.2

- Sara Goydarzi, Separating Families May Cause Lifelong Health Damage, Scientific American (June 2018), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/separating-familiesmay-cause-lifelong-health-damage/.

This article documents the potential long-term effects of family separation on children. The article includes an interview with Alan Shapiro, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in which he examines the various acute and long-term harms caused by family separation. According to Shapiro, separation can impact children in various ways, including developmental regression, difficulty sleeping, depression, and acute stress. Dr. Shapiro also notes that “[t]he younger you are when you’re exposed to stress . . . , the more likely you will have negative health outcomes caused by dysregulation of stress response.” That dysregulated stress response, in turn, “leads to architectural changes in the brain—which means that in the future children might end up with serious learning, developmental and health problems." Pointing to the results of a 17,000-patient study called Adverse Child Experiences (“ACEs”), Dr. Shapiro further asserts that family separation may also lead to long-term chronic medical conditions like cardiovascular disease, hypertension, obesity, and decreased longevity.
- National Center for Missing & Exploited Children key facts (2017),https://web.archive.org/web/20181016212108/http:/www.missingkids.org/KeyFacts.
Separating a child from their parents and putting them into the care of social services can increase a child’s risk of becoming a runaway and a victim of child sextrafficking. “Of the nearly 25,000 runaways reported to NCMEC in 2017, one in sevenwere likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 88 percent were in the care of socialservices when they went missing.”

- Kimberly Howard et al., Early Mother-Child Separation, Parenting, and Child WellBeing in Early Head Start Families, 13 Attachment & Human Development 5 (2009),https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115616/.

This study examines the impact of early mother-child separation on both maternal parenting and later child development through the lens of attachment theory, which generally posits “that caregivers must be present and accessible in order for their children to become attached to them.” The study defines separation broadly as any separation from the mother that lasts one week or more within the child’s first two years of life. The study concludes that any such separation—even those occurring for innocuous reasons—can “result in distress for a young child who lacks the cognitive abilities to understand the continuity of maternal availability.” The study’s findings were based on observations of 2,080 predominantly poor families collected over a period of five years. Controlling for baseline family characteristics and indicators of family instability, the study found that the separation of mother and child was related to higher levels of child negativity toward mothers (at age 3) and aggression (at ages 3 and 5).

- Marcia McNutt, Statement on Harmful Consequences of Separating Families at the U.S.Border, National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine (June 20, 2018),8As of January 2020 EAST\171419531.2http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=06202018&_ga=2.2927672.960183307.1530129958-713614449.1530129958.

This statement deals primarily with the separation of immigrant families at the border, but bases its conclusions on research concerning the effects of the removal of children from their parents more generally. Relying on a comprehensive study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (“NASEM”), the statement asserts that family separation “jeopardizes the short- and long-term health and wellbeing of the children involved.” The statement further notes NASEM’s finding that in light of the complex interactions among genetic, biological, psychological, and social processes during child development, family disruption can “hinder health development and increase[] the risk of future disorders.” This statement points the reader in the direction of several key resources:1. NASEM, Parenting Matters: Supporting Parents of Children Ages 0-8 (2016),https://www.nap.edu/read/21868/chapter/22. Nat’l Res. Council & Inst. of Med., Preventing Mental Emotional, and BehaviorDisorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities, Ch. 4 (2009),https://www.nap.edu/read/12480/chapter/7#743. Nat’l Res. Council & Inst. of Med., From Neurons to Neighborhoods: TheScience of Early Childhood Development, Ch. 20 (2000),https://www.nap.edu/read/9824/chapter/20#3874. Inst. of Med., Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative, Exec. Summ. (2002),https://www.nap.edu/read/10398/chapter/2

- NOVA PBS Official, Inside the Brains of Children Separated from Parents, YouTube(June 25, 2018), .

This short informational film provides a summary of the neurological processes that occur when a child is separated from her parents. Through visual aids, the film demonstrates how stress from separation can impact a child’s brain within the first few minutes of removal. According to psychologists Karlen Lyons-Ruth and Robin Deutsch, even very brief separations are stressful for infants and young children because cortisol (a stress hormone) floods the brain and begins to damage brain cells. Additionally, the overactivation of the amygdala, the portion of the brain responsible for fight-or-flight instincts, can compromise the child’s ability to evaluate risks and make good decisions. The ability to form an attachment with a reliable and consistent caregiver is fundamental to a child’s cognitive and social development. Time is very important when dealing with young children because deterioration of this attachment can take place very quickly; even a few weeks away from a parent is an enormous amount of time for an infant.

- William Wan, What Separation from Parents Does to Children: ‘The Effect is Catastrophic’, Washington Post (June 18, 2018),https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-separation-from-parents-9As of January 2020 EAST\171419531.2does-to-children-the-effect-is-catastrophic/2018/06/18/c00c30ec-732c-11e8-805c4b67019fcfe4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cf5ca597dc72

This article discusses generally the research on child-parent separation that “is driving pediatricians, psychologists, and other health experts to vehemently oppose the Trump administration’s new border crossing policy.” The cross-cultural research presented provides insight into the physical and psychological impact of child-parent separation in a wide range of circumstances. Of particular interest is the discussion of Charles Nelson’s research, which studied the neurological development of children in Romanian orphanages. A pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School, Nelson found that the children “separated from their parents at a young age had much less white matter, which is largely made up of fibers that transmit information throughout the brain, as well as much less gray matter, which contains brain-cell bodies that process information and solve problems.” Nelson also noted that children who were separated from their parents within the first two years of their life scored significantly lower on IQ tests later in life and their fight-or-flight response system appeared “permanently broken.” The article also references research on aboriginal children removed from their parents in Australia who, when compared to children who remained with their parents, were “nearly twice as likely to be arrested or criminally charged as adults, 60 percent more likely to have alcohol abuse problems, and more than twice as likely to struggle with gambling.” As the article notes, it is the duration of this damage that is the most troubling aspect of separating parents and children: “Unlike other parts of the body, most cells in the brain cannot renew or repair themselves.”

- The Science of Childhood Trauma and Family Separation: A Discussion of Short – and Long-Term Effects, Cynthia García Coll, Ph.D; Gabriela Livas Stein, Ph.D; Nim Tottenham, Ph.D; D, Youtube (June 28, 2018)

This webinar focuses primarily on the issue of separation in the immigration context, but also generally discusses the impact of separation on children. Of particular relevance here, Dr. Nim Tottenham details the neuroscientific tools used to show the changes that occur when children experience trauma. She explains that when humans, asa species, experience a major threat to survival, “we activate threat systems in our bodies” like the amygdala. She elaborates, noting “when we keep activating stress hormones and circuits, it is harder and harder to shut them off – particularly for children.” Dr. Tottenham also posits that as a species, we are conditioned to expect parental buffering to take care of our needs. Thus, children who have experienced trauma need immediate remediation. But for traumatized children who have been separated from their parents, the major stress buffering system is removed at the very time when it is needed most—i.e., while the brain is undergoing a period of serious development. This Webinar also discusses the long-term distress created by separation even after families are reunited. There is tremendous injury inflicted upon the family unit and parents. For both parents and children, separation leads to increased risks of depression, difficulty with social functioning, attachment issues, and PTSD.10As of January 2020 EAST\171419531.2

Stephanie Carnes, The Trauma of Family Separation Will Haunt Children for Decades, HUFFINGTON POST, June 22, 2018, (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...separation-trauma_us_5b2bf535e4b00295f15a96b2).

Exposure to trauma in childhood can both stunt cognitive development and alter the structure of a young brain in profound ways. Thanks to the groundbreaking Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, conducted by Kaiser Permanente and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we know that exposure to traumatic events in childhood is strongly correlated with increased risk of suicide attempts, drug addiction, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease and liver disease. More detailed information about the study can be found in “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults,” published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 1998, Volume 14, pages 245–258.

- J. Goldstein, A. Freud, & A. Solnit, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).https://www.jstor.org/stable/1121526?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This book is cited frequently in law review articles and appears to be a leading authority on the potential harms associated with removal of a child from the parental home. A full version of the book does not appear to be available online for free, though it is available on Amazon for around $15.

It's in the above, but I'd like to highlight it:

The article also references research on aboriginal children removed from their parents in Australia who, when compared to children who remained with their parents, were “nearly twice as likely to be arrested or criminally charged as adults, 60 percent more likely to have alcohol abuse problems, and more than twice as likely to struggle with gambling.” As the article notes, it is the duration of this damage that is the most troubling aspect of separating parents and children: “Unlike other parts of the body, most cells in the brain cannot renew or repair themselves.”

So this is what we're talking about when we're discussing the removal of children from their family.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Carringbush2010, you've enunciated what you think the threshold for removal of children from their biological family should be, but I'm curious about something.

To what extent are you aware of the damage - comparatively speaking - that is done to children when you remove them from their parents?

I'm also going to ask you: please don't immediately try and deflect to 'it's less damage than allowing them to stay! or the like. I want to form a basis for why you think what you think; we know you think there's situations in which removal is the only option to improve the child's outcomes, but I want to know what you view as the better outcome in that scenario.

So after all the explaining, some posters including you still think I'm advocating.

How many times do I have explain it, clearly in black and white?

As has been acknowledged, even by South of the Yarra , who knows more than the rest of us on here, that sometimes removing children is necessary.

^ So everyone immediately thinks I'm trying to make an argument that removing the child is necessary.

What I'm saying and have said from the start:

Rarely if ever, does anyone >talk about< it that sometimes the removal of children is the better outcome. The >talking point< is always, always 'stolen generation' and the narrative seems that this can't be challenged.

No ifs buts or maybes, the child is / was stolen, never ever is there possibly betterment.

That's all I'm saying, So my original question was to make the point about that everyone talks 'stolen generation' but rarely the sometimes least worst outcome, removing the child from a harmful environment.

Apologies if you didn't get it.

 

[Gethelred]

So after all the explaining, some posters including you still think I'm advocating.

How many times do I have explain it, clearly in black and white?

As has been acknowledged, even by South of the Yarra , who knows more than the rest of us on here, that sometimes removing children is necessary.

^ So everyone immediately thinks I'm trying to make an argument that removing the child is necessary.

What I'm saying and have said from the start:

Rarely if ever, does anyone >talk about< it that sometimes the removal of children is the better outcome. The >talking point< is always, always 'stolen generation' and the narrative seems that this can't be challenged.

No ifs buts or maybes, the child is / was stolen, never ever is there possibly betterment.

That's all I'm saying, So my original question was to make the point about that everyone talks 'stolen generation' but rarely the sometimes least worst outcome, removing the child from a harmful environment.

Apologies if you didn't get it.

Dude, I want to know what you're saying is the best case scenario for these kids you're saying are 100% better off leaving their families. I'm asking what that looks like to you; I'm not asking if you are or accusing you of advocating for it.

You're under no obligation to answer my question. Just, it makes it easier to take you seriously when you speak with such equivocation - and this is me being polite - when I know you know what you're talking about.

 

[CM86]

So after all the explaining, some posters including you still think I'm advocating.

How many times do I have explain it, clearly in black and white?

As has been acknowledged, even by South of the Yarra , who knows more than the rest of us on here, that sometimes removing children is necessary.

^ So everyone immediately thinks I'm trying to make an argument that removing the child is necessary.

What I'm saying and have said from the start:

Rarely if ever, does anyone >talk about< it that sometimes the removal of children is the better outcome. The >talking point< is always, always 'stolen generation' and the narrative seems that this can't be challenged.

No ifs buts or maybes, the child is / was stolen, never ever is there possibly betterment.

That's all I'm saying, So my original question was to make the point about that everyone talks 'stolen generation' but rarely the sometimes least worst outcome, removing the child from a harmful environment.

Apologies if you didn't get it.

Carringbush...
The 'talking point' you believe you've exposed this thread to... Is the entire basis for removing children in the first place.

It's not that people don't know or understand it. It's that they're discussing steps much farther beyond that.


What you're not understanding is that The Stolen Generation has been defended and excused for it's entire existence and up to even now, by saying that it was necessary and lead to a better outcome.
"Betterment" was the excuse that was also used by the people who had the intention of actual eradication of the Aboriginal population.


It's not a matter of people not understanding your point. It's that you don't understand this topic.
A child's welfare is paramount. Which is what's always 'justified' removal.
It's the nuance about what's actually more damaging, and what could be done instead of removal that is being discussed.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Dude, I want to know what you're saying is the best case scenario for these kids you're saying are 100% better off leaving their families. I'm asking what that looks like to you; I'm not asking if you are or accusing you of advocating for it.

You're under no obligation to answer my question. Just, it makes it easier to take you seriously when you speak with such equivocation - and this is me being polite - when I know you know what you're talking about.

Apologies Gethy.

Re read post 383, that post outlines my thoughts and I'll add to those.

IF these are regular and with intent.

Given that you've asked what is essentially my opinion then I'm going to fairly assume you haven't read that post. Obviously imv I'd deem them reasonable grounds to remove a child for their own protection.

Again, the reason I asked the original question is to shed light on that no one talks about this situation, it's always, the 'stolen'

 

[South of the Yarra]

And it is the what happens after removal that is crucial and this is where the system has failed in the past. The Principles are part of Victorian Law and must be adhered to. The failures to apply the below has torn apart many Aboriginal families. Aboriginal controlled organisations must run the placement.

The Aboriginal Child Placement Principles are paramount.

1. Removal of any Aboriginal child must be a last resort.
2. If, after consultation with a community controlled Aboriginal welfare organisation, removal of a child from its family is unavoidable then the authorities must have regard to the direction of the Aboriginal welfare organisation

3. If such a removal is necessary, then the child must be placed within the extended family, or if this is not possible, the child may be placed within the Aboriginal community within close proximity to the child’s natural family

4. If there is not an Aboriginal placement available, then, in consultation with Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agencies (AICCAs), the child may be placed with a non-Aboriginal family on the assurance that the child’s culture, identity and contact with the Aboriginal community are maintained.

 

[evolved2]

And it is the what happens after removal that is crucial and this is where the system has failed in the past. The Principles are part of Victorian Law and must be adhered to. The failures to apply the below has torn apart many Aboriginal families. Aboriginal controlled organisations must run the placement.

The Aboriginal Child Placement Principles are paramount.

1. Removal of any Aboriginal child must be a last resort.
2. If, after consultation with a community controlled Aboriginal welfare organisation, removal of a child from its family is unavoidable then the authorities must have regard to the direction of the Aboriginal welfare organisation

3. If such a removal is necessary, then the child must be placed within the extended family, or if this is not possible, the child may be placed within the Aboriginal community within close proximity to the child’s natural family

4. If there is not an Aboriginal placement available, then, in consultation with Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agencies (AICCAs), the child may be placed with a non-Aboriginal family on the assurance that the child’s culture, identity and contact with the Aboriginal community are maintained.

That seems very reasonable to me. To what extent are those principles currently being followed?

 

[Gethelred]

Apologies Gethy.

Re read post 383, that post outlines my thoughts and I'll add to those.

IF these are regular and with intent.

Given that you've asked what is essentially my opinion then I'm going to fairly assume you haven't read that post. Obviously imv I'd deem them reasonable grounds to remove a child for their own protection.

Again, the reason I asked the original question is to shed light on that no one talks about this situation, it's always, the 'stolen'

I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood. I'm not asking you what you think are the reasons a child should be removed, but what you know about the effect of that removal, even when it is 100% justified.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood. I'm not asking you what you think are the reasons a child should be removed, but what you know about the effect of that removal, even when it is 100% justified.

Well that's something I can't answer, doubt many on here could, apart from South of the Yarra who has shared his experience on here, of course I can fairly speculate it would not be ideal, however the least worst outcome possibly.

You probably already knew I couldn't.
You'd have to ask someone with analogous experience.

Even then, grading the effect would vary from person to person.

However me not knowing exactly shouldn't exclude me or anyone else to point out that these things aren't usually talked about.

That's all I'm pointing out.

 

[Carringbush2010]

And it is the what happens after removal that is crucial and this is where the system has failed in the past. The Principles are part of Victorian Law and must be adhered to. The failures to apply the below has torn apart many Aboriginal families. Aboriginal controlled organisations must run the placement.

The Aboriginal Child Placement Principles are paramount.

1. Removal of any Aboriginal child must be a last resort.
2. If, after consultation with a community controlled Aboriginal welfare organisation, removal of a child from its family is unavoidable then the authorities must have regard to the direction of the Aboriginal welfare organisation

3. If such a removal is necessary, then the child must be placed within the extended family, or if this is not possible, the child may be placed within the Aboriginal community within close proximity to the child’s natural family

4. If there is not an Aboriginal placement available, then, in consultation with Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agencies (AICCAs), the child may be placed with a non-Aboriginal family on the assurance that the child’s culture, identity and contact with the Aboriginal community are maintained.

This is disappointing that these regulations are not upheld.

And this needs to change, among the other eleventy million failures by govt. for Aboriginal people. It's either at a disappointing least utter incompetency on the part of whatever govt. department it is, or at worst conspiracy on behalf of staff member inside the whatever dept. Or in between a 'can't be bothered helping' from staffers in that department.

Wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of all three in case to case.

This is why I voted for a voice to parliament, to have people in the know that aren't.

• Utterly incompetent
• Bigoted and are using their position to conspire
• Couldn't care less

And, the people on the advisory body would be none of the above.

 

[Gethelred]

Well that's something I can't answer, doubt many on here could, apart from South of the Yarra who has shared his experience on here, of course I can fairly speculate it would not be ideal, however the least worst outcome possibly.

You probably already knew I couldn't.

But that's the thing: if I feel like I'm assuming something about something else, I try replace the assumption with clarity. If I don't know you don't know, I'm going to ask you if you do.

You'd have to ask someone with analogous experience.

There's problems with that too; ie, assuming that someone with analogous experience is comfortable sharing that experience.

Even then, grading the effect would vary from person to person.

True.

However me not knowing exactly shouldn't exclude me or anyone else to point out that these things aren't usually talked about.

I don't recall saying it did.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't recall saying it did.

Then I'm not sure what you want me to say, knowing that of course I wouldn't know, even before you posed the question to me.

I'm just pointing out the conversation is heavily focused on one perspective and not the opposite.

Of course now we're all discussing it, after I brought it up.

 

[Gethelred]

Then I'm not sure what you want me to say, knowing that of course I wouldn't know, even before you posed the question to me.

I'm just pointing out the conversation is heavily focused on one perspective and not the opposite.

Of course now we're all discussing it, after I brought it up.

Because without knowing what you're comparing the things you're willing to remove a child for against, you have no real basis to know what harm you might be doing.

It's hypothetical, a thought exercise. Your position isn't based on a careful, aware position developed on evidence; it's based on a series of assumptions, built from your own experiences and a desire to do the right thing.

But there's never anything so potentially harmful as someone wanting to do the right thing without being in possession of all the relevant information.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because without knowing what you're comparing the things you're willing to remove a child for against, you have no real basis to know what harm you might be doing.

It's hypothetical, a thought exercise. Your position isn't based on a careful, aware position developed on evidence; it's based on a series of assumptions, built from your own experiences and a desire to do the right thing.

But there's never anything so potentially harmful as someone wanting to do the right thing without being in possession of all the relevant information.

I don't disagree with your assumption of my position as I've already conceded.

My opinion / speculation of the talking points, from a totally uneducated position (like 99% of posters on here) is obviously not welcome or considered, I'll see myself out.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't disagree with your assumption of my position as I've already conceded.

My opinion / speculation of the talking points, from a totally uneducated position (like 99% of posters on here) is obviously not welcome or considered, I'll see myself out.

Not knowing something is not something to feel ashamed of, CB. Certainty without foundation is the bane of our times.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not knowing something is not something to feel ashamed of, CB. Certainty without foundation is the bane of our times.

Shame? Cmon Gethy, you know I don't view my lack of knowledge of about these scenarios as shame.

I will however concede that my views on the narrative of what the talking points are about, i:e heavily on the perspective that the talking points are about stolen and not necessarily the least worst outcome is somewhat not wanted around here.

So I'll leave the discussion there, if you or anyone else wishes to discuss what are and what are not the talking points then I will not oppose.

 

[South of the Yarra]

That seems very reasonable to me. To what extent are those principles currently being followed?

They are being followed better than in the past but the difficulties lie with the fact there are just not enough Aboriginal carers. This places great importance on the training and monitoring of non Aboriginal carers. There are also too many inconsistencies. The damage done to Aboriginal children for loss of family and culture is at times irreparable.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood. I'm not asking you what you think are the reasons a child should be removed, but what you know about the effect of that removal, even when it is 100% justified.

The removal of Aboriginal children when not placed with kin or other Aboriginal families can have devastating impact.

 

[burge13]

The removal of Aboriginal children when not placed with kin or other Aboriginal families can have devastating impact.

So can staying in unsafe environments I'd have thought. Childs safety surely trumps that of culture

The culture should be no more important than any other. If a white child would be removed for their betterment, surely the same standard apply to aboriginal kids?

 

[South of the Yarra]

So can staying in unsafe environments I'd have thought. Childs safety surely trumps that of culture

The culture should be no more important than any other. If a white child would be removed for their betterment, surely the same standard apply to aboriginal kids?

You seriously have no idea. Read my previous posts and then get back to me