Should the Australian government compensate the Stolen Generations?

It is an encouraging first step for the Rudd government to make a formal apology to the Aboriginal community on past government’s successive wrongdoings, especially on the ‘Stolen Generations’ - a policy in which thousands of black and mixed children are forcibly removed from their biological family (which lasted from the 19th century to late 1960s).

While the apology should be lauded, the government has stopped short of monetary compensation, which some Aboriginal leaders, have called, a “cut-price sorry”.

Says a respected Aboriginal leader, Noel Pearson, “Blackfellas will get the words, the whitefellas keep the money.”

In this regard, human rights NGO, Amnesty International Australia, supports the 54 recommendations of the 1997, ‘Bringing Them Home’ report which includes, ‘restitution, rehabilitation, guarantees against repetition and compensation’.

In ‘Bringing Them Home’, on guarantees against repetition, it specifically proposes, ‘

That State and Territory Governments ensure that primary and secondary school curricula include substantial compulsory modules on the history and continuing effects of forcible removal;

That the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies be funded by the Commonwealth to develop these modules;

That all professionals who work with Indigenous children, families and communities receive in-service training about the history and effects of forcible removal;

That all under-graduates and trainees in relevant professions receive, as part of their core curriculum, education about the history and effects of forcible removal.

On monetary compensation, amongst other recommendations, it suggested,’

the Council of Australian Governments establish a Board to administer the National Compensation Fund; that the Board be constituted by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people appointed in consultation with Indigenous organisations in each State and Territory having particular responsibilities to people forcibly removed in childhood and their families. That the majority of members be Indigenous people and that the Board be chaired by an Indigenous person.’

The issue of monetary compensation is hotly debated.

It is argued that monetary compensation poses an unfair tax burden to current working Australians, of whom, many, are not directly responsible for past government’s racist policies. Moreover, money used for compensation, could better be used for educational efforts to reduce socio and institutional racism and prevention of future discriminatory racist policies.

===

References:

1. Australia apology to Aborigines, BBC, 13 February 2008

2. Apology: An essential first step, Amnesty International Australia, 13 February 2008

3. Bringing them Home, Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, April 1997

Sorry

Tomorrow a friend and myself are going to drive to Canberra to witness the apology to the stolen generations in person. I feel that this is a very important day in the life of my country and that I should be there.

I have mentioned it to a couple of the people in my office, and in general, they support what I am doing whilst at the same time not really feeling that we should be saying sorry.

I have not had a chance to read the complete report on the stolen generations call “Bringing them home“, but scanning the report the following couple of points highlight why I personally believe that we need to say sorry.

For certain periods in WA, NT, NSW, SA and QLD, indigenous children could be taken from their families without a court order, whereas under non-indigenous could only be taken after a court order was issued (for reasons such as neglect, destitution or uncontrollability). This was discriminatory.

Secondly, various commentators have question the need to apologies as the authorities at the time believed they were doing the right thing. The report found that the forcible removal of children contravened the Convention on Genocide, which specifically states that genocide includes “forcibly transferring children of [a] group to another group”. Under this convention - what we did to the indigenous people was an act of genocide.

One of the recommendations of the report is for the Australian parliaments to “acknowledge their responsibility and apologise to everyone affected by forcible removal”.

Tomorrow that will happen, and I hope that Australia can then move on and make life better for the rightful custodians of this land, the indigenous people of Australia.

The Relationship between Human Rights and Democracy - HRW 2008 Report

Kudos to Human Rights Watch (HRW) for its World Report 2008.

The NGO wrote in the report, ‘the United States, the European Union and other influential democracies risk undermining human rights worldwide’ by ‘accepting flawed and unfair elections for political expediency’. Its executive director, Kenneth Roth was quoted, “That’s because too many Western governments insist on elections and leave it at that. They don’t press governments on the key human rights issues that make democracy function – a free press, peaceful assembly, and a functioning civil society that can really challenge power.”

It gave the example of US supporting Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf despite the autocrat’s heavy handed efforts towards repressing civil society growth and firing its independent judiciary. Both the US and Britain have also pledged support to Musharraf without issuing conditions such as improving pre-electoral conditions.

HRW also accused the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for giving the chair to Kazakhstan in 2010. This is despite the fact that the organization, with the aims of promoting democracy, human rights, and security, found that the country’s last parliamentary election was conducted unfairly - censored media, suppressed Opposition and flawed counting.

The report also pointed out the hypocrisy of Western democracies supporting their ‘democrat’ rather than ‘democratic principles’. It cited the example of Georgia where the West continues to endorse President Mikheil Saakashvili even though his government faces allegations of human rights violations which culminated in a violent crackdown on protesters in November last year.

The release of this critical report is crucial and timely for promoting global human rights and democracy for both Western established democracies and authoritarian states in various aspects. Briefly, it can be explained as such:

1. Authoritarian or dictatorial states can no longer argue that human rights NGO such as HRW is biased towards promoting the Western agenda since they are critical towards both authoritarian and the Western democratic countries.

2. By highlighting the fact that Western established democracies share the responsibility of ‘condoning’ certain authoritarian states in their non-democratic efforts and human rights violations, it creates more pressure for the former to act and not just be vocal towards the latter’s human rights violations. Factors such as trade pressures and support towards authoritarian states who are allies in the fight against terror are not justifiable reasons to translating overwhelming support towards these states.

3. Conversely, authoritarian states can no longer claim that the endorsement that they obtain from the West automatically means that they are a member of the democratic league. As HRW pointed out, it is not elections, but free and fair elections which should be the determining factor of democratic credentials. That would include having a free press, functioning civil society and peaceful assembly.

4. More importantly, the report clarifies distinct differences and as well as the intimate relationship between human rights and democracy, terms which have often been mis-understood and mis-used. While it is commonly agreed that the US is an example of a democracy, its war against terrorism waged by the current aggressive administration has meant rollbacks in civil liberties and human rights violations, most obvious, with the illegal detention and torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. As such, even established democracies. like their authoritarian counterparts, can commit grave human rights violations.

===

References:

1. 2008 Report: Democracy Charade Undermines Rights; Human Rights Watch Highlights Abuses in Pakistan, Kenya, China, Somalia,Human Rights Watch, 31 January 2008

2. Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, Human Rights Watch