In case you're struggling for inspiration, here's a masterclass from The Metro:
A UN expert says Australia breached Aborigines' rights during a crackdown on child abuse in Outback communities.
The UN special rapporteur on indigenous human rights, James Anaya, said the country breached international obligations on human and indigenous rights by imposing radical restrictions on Aborigines during the crackdown.
He said his 12-day fact-finding tour of Australia revealed that the Aboriginal minority still suffers from "entrenched racism." But he said he was particularly concerned by restrictions imposed on Aborigines in the Northern Territory in response to a 2006 government-commissioned report that found child sex abuse was rampant in remote indigenous communities. The government suspended its own anti-discrimination law so it could ban alcohol and hard-core pornography in Aboriginal communities and restrict how Aborigines spend their welfare checks. The restrictions do not apply to Australians of other races*.
"These measures overtly discriminate against aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatize already stigmatised communities," Anaya told reporters in the national capital of Canberra.
The measures were too broad and had been imposed for too long, despite a lack of evidence that the ban on alcohol had reduced alcohol abuse, he said. Anaya described as "demeaning" the policy of forcing Aborigines to set aside a portion of their welfare checks for essentials such as food and rent. "They have to carry a card around that marks them as someone who can't manage their own funds," he said..
* The flipside of this is e.g. Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim (and increasingly Islamic) state, where the government allows non-Muslims to drink alcohol, but not Muslims. What does Mr J Anaya have to say about that? How is that any different? Clue: The Australians are "racists" and the Malaysians are "protecting their own religious and cultural identity".
Dismayed
1 hour ago
3 comments:
I'm sorry I don't get this one. It seems perfectly sensible to me.
If some Aborigines are commiting child abuse then arrest them. The idea that group punishment is acceptable is not only barking but in this case racist.
To an individualist, being non-racist is to be colour blind. To a collectivist, the unequal outcomes prove that racism has occurred so special treatment must be given to the underachieving group to bring them to the level of the normal group. This is a clash between the two different approaches.
The current policy is to take action at a collective level. ie grant or remove things at a group level. The collectivist policy is the idiotic one.
I can't help but oppose this.
The UN special rapporteur on indigenous human rights, James Anaya, said the country breached international obligations on human and indigenous rights by imposing radical restrictions on Aborigines during the crackdown.
This one has me fuming - I can't comment any further.
Anon, fair point, but what annoyed me is The Righteous sticking up for the rights of men to spend all their welfare cheques on kiddie porn and alcohol, simply because they are the right sort of men! Please note that your argument about 'individual rights' is valid but the UN's argument about 'group rights' is completely invalid.
Further, WTF is the UN sticking its nose into any country's purely domestic welfare system?
Post a Comment