Howard whips Abos into shape. (recall, heaven, legislation, Zen)

[Ozzie]

With no Tampa likely to appear over the horizen a few months out from a Federal election, John Howard made a major policy announcement yesterday involving Federal acquisition of 60 remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Parliament will be recalled from its winter recess to pass legislation enabling this acquisition.

Howard has ignored reports of child abuse and social malaise in remote communities for years and now turns to playing a racist card in order to get re-elected in a few months for a new term once again. Echoes of his opportunist exploitation of Afghani and Iraqi refugees in returning to office in 2001 abound.

Amongst measures mooted as essential are compulsory medical assessment of every Aboriginal child under 16 for signs of sexual abuse. A mandatory ban on alcohol in these communities for 6 months is also planned. Heaven help Aboriginal families that do not rape their children or abuse alcohol! None exist according to Howard.

Interstate Police will enforce these measures with the Army as an organ of Executive Government held back to "provide support" as required.

Any comments?

[kadzbiz]

I don't know what to make of this. Putting aside the politcal bandwagon, certainly the figures (or at least what we are told) of abuse are appalling and something needs to be done, but I don't know if Howard's ideas are the be all and end all. I'm glad at least that there's a rethink on non-indigenous children in the same abusive situation being done. These types of problems abound through society and it will take much to alleviate the issues, but at least the government is making moves to do something, even if they're not quite right moves, maybe they'll lead to better ones down the track. As far as welfare payments being garnished to firstly go to the necessities that would see children being considered first in the family, I would have to say that I'm for it, because as a taxpayer, (a taxpayer who doesn't smoke, rarely drinks, doesn't take illicit drugs and rarely gambles) I would like to know that the money that I provide the government to disperse as welfare to less fortunate people isn't being squandered by some fool who is neglecting his family responsibilities.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by kadzbiz

I don't know what to make of this. Putting aside the politcal bandwagon, certainly the figures (or at least what we are told) of abuse are appalling and something needs to be done, but I don't know if Howard's ideas are the be all and end all. I'm glad at least that there's a rethink on non-indigenous children in the same abusive situation being done. These types of problems abound through society and it will take much to alleviate the issues, but at least the government is making moves to do something, even if they're not quite right moves, maybe they'll lead to better ones down the track. As far as welfare payments being garnished to firstly go to the necessities that would see children being considered first in the family, I would have to say that I'm for it, because as a taxpayer, (a taxpayer who doesn't smoke, rarely drinks, doesn't take illicit drugs and rarely gambles) I would like to know that the money that I provide the government to disperse as welfare to less fortunate people isn't being squandered by some fool who is neglecting his family responsibilities.

Off the "political bandwagon", Aboriginal welfare is a non-issue. Howard has put it squarely on his racist wagon-train for re-election as it suits him. Did you think about your squandered tax-payer dollars in relation to Aboriginal welfare before this story hit the press?

[kadzbiz]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Off the "political bandwagon", Aboriginal welfare is a non-issue. Howard has put it squarely on his racist wagon-train for re-election as it suits him. Did you think about your squandered tax-payer dollars in relation to Aboriginal welfare before this story hit the press?

The welfare of ALL Australians is an issue. I don't care if Howard has grabbed it for political purposes. I'm savvi enough to vote for people for my own reasons and I'm sure a lot of people are. In the end, people will vote for whoever they want to vote for. Not voting for someone purely because of a topic being politically hot is just as stupid.

I think about my squandered tax dollars in all areas, not just the welfare of Aboriginals.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by kadzbiz

The welfare of ALL Australians is an issue. I don't care if Howard has grabbed it for political purposes. I'm savvi enough to vote for people for my own reasons and I'm sure a lot of people are. In the end, people will vote for whoever they want to vote for. Not voting for someone purely because of a topic being politically hot is just as stupid.

I think about my squandered tax dollars in all areas, not just the welfare of Aboriginals.

The welfare of all Australians is not debated by Howard here. I do care that Howard has made a political stand of child rape in indigenous communities a few months out from an election after having ignored it for 10 years. It does not require you to be "savvy" to vote for people for your own reasons. It simply requires you to be selfish. That is the demographic Howard panders too. And a racist, insular, paranoid one at that.

[kadzbiz]

Actually, he only ignored it for 7 years. Howard taking this action doesn't make me want to vote for him or not. What do you mean by requiring one to be selfish?

[Quoth The Raven]

Whether you want to run out and vote for him based on this or not - and lets face it, you have to be a bit of a nitwit to vote based on a single action 4 months out from an election (though there's no denying there are plenty of nitwits registered to vote) - it was a situation that needed something done about it. Has he done it to further his own ends? Course he has, he's a politician...they're not exactly renowned for being motiveless in forming policy, especially this close to an election.
Perhaps we should focus less on the motive and just hope for a good end result. There are a lot of issues with regard to Aboriginal welfare, and while I can't speak for anyone else it was something I spent a lot of thought on before I even had tax to be sqaundered.
This reminds me of the invasion of Afghanistan. While people argued Bush did it to free the oppressed people, it seemed patently obvious to me that if he'd asked for Osama and the government of the time said,'There you go, he's in that cave there', he would have continued to not give a toss about the oppressed people.But they didn't, and now it appears the people are better off for it, even though that may not have been the prime motivator behind the invasion.
If the end result is desirable, should we focus more on that and less on the not quite so noble motives that achieved it?

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Quoth The Raven

Whether you want to run out and vote for him based on this or not - and lets face it, you have to be a bit of a nitwit to vote based on a single action 4 months out from an election (though there's no denying there are plenty of nitwits registered to vote) - it was a situation that needed something done about it. Has he done it to further his own ends? Course he has, he's a politician...they're not exactly renowned for being motiveless in forming policy, especially this close to an election.
Perhaps we should focus less on the motive and just hope for a good end result. There are a lot of issues with regard to Aboriginal welfare, and while I can't speak for anyone else it was something I spent a lot of thought on before I even had tax to be sqaundered.
This reminds me of the invasion of Afghanistan. While people argued Bush did it to free the oppressed people, it seemed patently obvious to me that if he'd asked for Osama and the government of the time said,'There you go, he's in that cave there', he would have continued to not give a toss about the oppressed people.But they didn't, and now it appears the people are better off for it, even though that may not have been the prime motivator behind the invasion.
If the end result is desirable, should we focus more on that and less on the not quite so noble motives that achieved it?

I could get really boring and philosophical and state the means justifies the end. But the end in view is Howard getting re-elected in a racist burst of inspiration to solve endemic problems of child abuse in Aboriginal settlements. What is there to recommend that?