Leading the charge on the History front is Sociology professor Colin Tatz (see previous entry) who asserts that the history of White Black relations in Australia is one of genocide. Then on the legal front there is firstly Ron Castan QC who was senior council for the Mabo case, which saw the introduction of the 'Native Title Act' as an outcome.
Now we have Dr Ben Saul of University of Sydney, Faculty of law, who is making assertions in his paper as follows: (1)
"Analyses of the Court's reasoning in Kruger have suggested a judiciary that is unfamiliar with contemporary international and comparative jurisprudence on the offence of genocide; insensitive to cross-cultural differences arising out of the meaning of genocidal statutory provisions; and bound by excessively legalistic methods of statutory interpretation. These difficulties arguably led the High Court to formalistically interpret the intention of an indigenous child removal ordinance as benevolent rather than destructive, contrary to the weight of international interpretation and ultimately to the detriment of the stolen generations claimants." (Ben Saul)
a)He criticizes our Legal system as 'unfamiliar' with 'international' jurisprudence. He seems not to realize that our courts and legal system are a product of the history of the country .. a sovereign country.
b)his reference point, is clearly not our sovereign situation, but "International Law". Even in invoking this, he is in error. No amount of special pleading and empty arguing can change well intended measures to protect aboriginal children into 'Genocide'. (Though Matthew Storey senior solicitor of the NTdept of Justice, is having a very good try at doing just that!) It seems bizarre that Storey, a white bloke, (?) would demonize his own 'tribe'? -especially those who are not alive to defend themselves. Seems a bit like a kick below the belt to this blog!
The plain fact of the UN convention on Genocide is that it's key element is "intent" to destroy.
His remarks above are in the context of some high court cases re the so-called 'stolen' generation where the court found that based on the "Aboriginal Ordnances 1918" which authorized the removal of some full blood, and most half castes for their protection and welfare. This is abundantly clear when actually reading the document. The Chief protector of Aboriginals was to supply provisions.. blankets, food etc for the welfare of the children. He was indeed authorized to take into custody any aboriginal or half caste child found on the premises of people.. presumably to prevent them being exploited.
Bleakley, chief protector of Aboriginals NT wrote a report on how to deal with the half caste/full blood issue:
"complete separation of half-castes from the Aboriginals with a view to their absorption by the white race; [and] complete segregation from both blacks and whites in colonies of their own and to marry amongst themselves."
The most that can be reasonably drawn from such an approach is "Apartide"
That such a procedure be charazterized as 'Genocide' is possibly one of the most heinous insults the Commonwealth of Australia and White Australians today could be subjected to. But this is what Saul (and Matthew Storey) is arguing. He is saying that because the 'Act' was benevolent and that our courts so interpret it.. that they are out of touch ! This patently ridiculous. Not only is it absurd and ridiculous, it's also dangerous!
It is ridiculous and absurd, because the convention he relies on to form this opinion specifically counters his argument. If Australia was guilty of Genocide in the legal sense of the UN convention, our own Ordinance would need to state "intent" to destroy. Not only does it not state such, it affirms the opposite.. the welfare of Aboriginal chidren.
Unlike the Nazi's who had very well documented material outlining or testifying to the planned destruction of the Jews as a race.. no such evidence is found in the Aboriginal Ordinance 1918. Considering the importance of the issue, ie.. race relations between white and aboriginal Australians, to suggest 'Genocide' happened, is, to quote Dr Ben Sauls own words:
The "enemy" here is clearly the White Australian population and Dr Saul is working in parallel with Dr Tatz to demonize White Australia by seeking to suggest that the UN Convention does not mean what it says, and that the Aboriginal Ordinance 1918 does not mean what it says, rather, they mean what Dr Saul and Dr Tatz want them to mean. Other than the printed word on paper, what does that leave us with for settling this issue? Is it no more than Dr Tatz and Dr Sauls personal opinions? Are those opinions possibly heavily weighted with a specific political agenda ?
It's worth pointing out that both Dr Saul and Dr Tatz are Jewish. They speak, act and write from their own ethno religious background context. Ron Castan of Marbo..is also Jewish. They surely do not speak for all Jewish people, but they definitely speak for themselves and any socio-political agenda close to their hearts. According to some, (bullet point 3)the "Jewish connection" in the field of human rights and aboriginal history stems from their own shared historical experiences. But that assertion seems to this blog to be inherently biased against the host society if actions and words mean anything. Dr Saul knows how dangerous such hateful rhetoric is, as his quote above clearly demonstrates, yet with the other hand, he is seeking to demonize and criminalize Australia for past deeds.
Does this mean Dr Saul, along with Dr Tatz are inciting hatred against white Australians ? It sure looks that way to this blog.
We have a complete right to ask "why?" .. "who" benefits? "who" loses? how would any party benefit? what would the impact be on national harmony if such incitement were to continue unchallenged?
When highly educated academics actively incite racial hatred between two groups in Australia, can there be a positive outcome?
If a small identifiable group of academics, characterized by certain common characteristics, is visibly undermining White Austalian solidarity, dignity and self esteem, is it not possible that there could be a rather strong (and unpredictable) reaction against them, and, God forbid, against those who share their background? Who would be to blame for such a thing? Is it those who unleash the monster of racial hatred, who attack the dignity or the dominant racial group, who insult them, who demonize them, or..those who simply react to that unleashing , to preserve their identity and dignity against a very emphatic, determined and articulate foe?
1. "The International Crime of Genocide in Australian law": Sydney Law Review vol 22 P. 534
2. Kruger Genocide claim.
3. Speaking of Terror: Criminalizing Incitement to violence: Page 1, Legal Studies Research Paper