text:
Why I won't celebrate the William Bugmy decision
William Bugmy's win in the High Court last week is significant, but it also highlights everything that's wrong with the way Aboriginal people are treated under the law, writes Sol Bellear.
The story of William Bugmy highlights everything that's wrong with justice for Aboriginal people The High Court decision in the case of William Bugmy handed down last week is a significant win for Mr Bugmy, his family and the NSW Aboriginal Legal Service.
They should all be congratulated for their efforts.
If you want to know why the Abbott government is considering ripping $42 million out of Aboriginal legal aide, the ALS's determination to challenge our racist institutions might provide some clue.
But despite the broad perception, the Bugmy decision is not a win for my people.
The decision has been widely misreported by mainstream media as giving Aboriginal people some sort of special advantage in the criminal justice system.
The High Court decision does no such thing, and in fact completely rejected that notion. It simply reinforces a long-standing legal principle that the circumstances of someone's background - regardless of their race - must be given proper weight by sentencing judges.
By way of background, Mr Bugmy was an inmate in the Broken Hill Correctional Centre on an eight-month stretch for assaulting police. In early 2011, he threw a pool ball at a prison guard, striking him in the eye socket and, ultimately, leaving him blind in one eye. Mr Bugmy was charged with a serious assault, convicted and given additional jail time, a non-parole period of four years and three months.
In sentencing, the judge took account of the fact that Mr Bugmy comes from a profoundly disadvantaged background - he was fostered at the age of 12 and in jail by the age of 13, where he has spent most of his adult life. Mr Bugmy has never celebrated an adult birthday outside prison walls. His mental health is fragile, and multiple requests to have him properly treated have fallen on deaf ears.
Despite this, the NSW Government appealed against the 'leniency' of the sentence.
The NSW Criminal Court of Appeal (CCA) agreed, and Mr Bugmy's non-parole period was increased by a year.
It would have been an otherwise uncontroversial ruling, except that the CCA judge, Justice Hoeben, remarked in his decision that "… with the passage of time, the extent to which social deprivation in a person's youth and background can be taken into account, must diminish".
Justice Hoeben, aged 66, grew up in Sydney and attended Riverview College (one of the nation's most prestigious schools) followed by Sydney University (one of the world's most prestigious universities).
Mr Bugmy's schooling, by contrast, was at Wilcannia, one of the poorest towns in NSW. It was interrupted, permanently, in Year 7 when Mr Bugmy was shipped off to jail. He's now aged 31, and his life expectancy is reportedly less than 37 years, according to a study by the Indigenous Law Bulletin.
My point being, Justice Hoeben is not well-qualified to sit in judgment on the affects of grinding poverty and disadvantage.
His outrageous comments left the door open for a High Court challenge by the Aboriginal Legal Service. And that belief - that somehow someone's disadvantage diminishes over time - is what the High Court struck down.
However, it did not agree with the ALS that Aboriginality - and all the entrenched disadvantage that goes with it - should also be a consideration in sentencing.
In short, black, white or brindle, if you cross the law and are sentenced, the courts must take into account your whole background, and they cannot given you a heavier sentence on the grounds that you're older and should know better.
So nothing has changed.
This is not a victory for Aboriginal people, it is a victory for a return to the status quo.
I would have thought that the courts would understand that the disadvantage suffered by an Aboriginal man or woman - or child - does not magically reduce the more times you sentence them to jail. In fact, I would have thought people with legal minds would understand that the more an Aboriginal person is sentenced to jail time, the more their disadvantage increases.
The arrogance of a criminal justice system that believes otherwise is staggering. I can only imagine the thinking that went into Justice Hoeben's comments: "Mr Bugmy, we've sentenced you to jail numerous times. Indeed you've spent most of your life behind bars. And yet you continue to offend. I am at a loss to understand why extended jail time has not set you straight. You clearly have not learned your lesson, nor, despite our repeated intervention, found a way to overcome your tragic background".
The logic is perverse and offensive.
Someone's past is their past - it can never change. All we can hope for is a better future. Yes, many, many Aboriginal people have risen above the crushing affects of the invasion, dispossession and brutality that is the truth of this nation's past and present. But in the case of Mr Bugmy - and many, many others - that has never come to pass.
His disadvantage has not shifted, and no amount of prison time is going to alter that reality.
In fact, he is more disadvantaged today than he was at the age of 12. He's more institutionalised, he has a greater sense of hopelessness, and he's more disconnected from his people and his culture. And as he serves more and more time in prison, he's less able to be re-integrated back into his community, and his family.
In the case of Aboriginal people more broadly, our past is also overwhelmingly one of tragedy. It's marked by dispossession and brutality, racism and mainstream indifference to our suffering.
This is our reality. We live with the affects of this every day, and we don't need a judge on a very high salary with a world class education to tell us that the reality of our disadvantage should "diminish over time".
This is also our reality – we are the most jailed people on earth.
Western Australia holds the distinction of having the highest Indigenous jailing rate on earth. It is so bad that Aboriginal people in WA are jailed at a rate eight times greater than the jailing rate for black males in Apartheid South Africa.
Nationally, that rate is five times greater, and no jurisdiction in Australia - not even the ACT - jails black males at a rate less than the days of Apartheid South Africa. Either Aboriginal people are the biggest criminals on earth, genetically pre-disposed to crime, or there's something seriously wrong with our criminal justice system.
Australians seem to think Aboriginal people should be able to forget the past, dust themselves off, accept defeat and get on with it. Except, of course, the past is ever present, both in the rate at which my people are jailed, and in the lingering effects of colonisation.
This view of the world is shared by many Australians, including those at the very top, and I'm not just referring to Supreme Court judges.
It was Tony Abbott, as Opposition leader, who sparked outrage at the 40th anniversary commemorations of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra in 2012 after he suggested that it was time for activists to 'move on'.
The irony that embassy activists were there protesting for land rights and sovereignty - precisely the things being protested in 1972 - seemed to be lost on Mr Abbott, and most of the mainstream media.
The fact is, very little has changed for my people, and almost nothing has changed for Mr Bugmy, unless you count the number of years he's notched up inside.
So I won't be celebrating the Bugmy decision.
The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people. And that's fundamentally what this should be all about - sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives.
That's the only way we will ever make progress in closing the gaps in the core issues that affect us - justice, land rights, compensation and the appalling jailing rate of our people.
And it's Aboriginal control of Aboriginal lives that will ever reduce the world record rates of self-harm and suicide which lay siege to our communities.
This enduring sense of hopelessness is what kills many of my people, and leads many more like Mr Bugmy to live short, miserable lives behind bars.
Sol Bellear is the Chairman of the Aboriginal Medical Service, Redfern and a long-time Aboriginal activist. View his full profile here.
Topics: courts-and-trials, law-crime-and-justice, aboriginal, poverty
First posted
Comments (379)
Comments for this story are closed.
10 Oct 2013 9:27:54am
High Aboriginal sentencing rates are due to high Aboriginal crime rates - which in turn are caused by dysfunctional families and broken communities.
No matter what a person's background may be, committing a crime is always a matter of choice. It cannot be blamed on other people.
It is in fact time for the Aboriginal grievance industry to move on - from blaming everyone else for Aboriginal problems, toward fixing your own communities.
10 Oct 2013 9:49:41am
"High Aboriginal sentencing rates are due to high Aboriginal crime rates "
No way, it must be some sort of conspiracy
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 10:23:02am
It's what happened 200 plus years ago, the whole enforced disadvantage thing, the vibe, the lack of compensation, the million other excuses.
10 Oct 2013 5:24:22pm
The same is happening out in the Western suburbs of Sydney where a certain recent "disadvantaged" group is being given discounted sentences based on the very same principles.
Is it right - only until very serious offences occur beyond the "minor".
As a society - we have duty of care obligations.
Multiple re-offending requires re-alignment - we only hope that it does not reach a Jill Meagher scenario.
10 Oct 2013 10:19:23pm
Many people where forcibly sent from Europe as prisoners and the disadvantage hasnt continued. These people where not given extra welfare rights, extra support services or extra anything. They also did not seek to constantly claim they needed leniency as they where disadvantaged.
A crime is a crime and unless you treat people equally for their actions, there will never be equality.
10 Oct 2013 10:33:46am
I see you stopped as soon as your bigotry was satisfied.
the second part of it read "which in turn are caused by dysfunctional families and broken communities."
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 12:07:25pm
Spot on Tom! Thats the problem that needs addressing whether embraced or fought. Everything else after the ship has sailed is just a pitiful justification.
Ensure the youth have a healthy upbringing by whatever means and the problems will remedy themselves for the majority.
Still, Rat only borders on Bigotry with his selective quoting. The old adage of don't do the crime if you can't do the time seems less pandering. Unless you wish to argue that people are somehow predisposed to repeatedly commit crimes that continually mean punitive measures to restrict their chosen harm on society needs to be taken. I'd argue personal responsibility trumps government protecting the many and that being so i'd argue a failing of that responsibility takes you out of the second category by your own fault.
11 Oct 2013 1:20:50am
I take your point. It isn't just Aboriginal communities that are "dysfunctional families and broken communities". It is a common theme in our top-end money-rich, ethics poor society. We've changed. We're not the lucky country. We've embraced snobbism and just snipe from the sidelines now. Our elected Government is a reflection of the community, so and therefore, don't expect anything good to happen any time soon, even in 4 years time with the next change of government. The system is not working.
11 Oct 2013 9:19:18am
no bigotry
try the statement
flood damage by water - from heavy rain
is is wrong to say that water caused the damage?
10 Oct 2013 11:53:23am
It's "some sort of conspiracy", ratatat? I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, but I must point out that "It's some sort of conspiracy" is one of the standard responses of people who don't like a situation, but can't find any evidence to support their objections.
11 Oct 2013 1:25:43am
there is no dishonour in admitting that the system on which you base all your hopes is seriously flawed. That's what gave rise to the US revolution. Maybe we need one too. So far everything has fallen into place just a little too conveniently to be believable in this country. It's not an X-files conspiracy .. not aliens or mutants .. just rich, greedy and lazy lawmakers who want the easy life.
10 Oct 2013 12:23:47pm
No matter where we look it seems we see layers and layers of hypocrisy and chauvinism on the part of Tony Abbott.
Maybe Aborigines should all join the Catholic Church and become priests. A small price to pay for reversal of prejudice and favourable treatment under the law, surely.
10 Oct 2013 5:05:46pm
when we see the last elections results of how any party could get elected into the senate it begs the question why there isn't an indigenous party in each state seeking a senator. would be interesting if we saw this happen and an indigenous sentator elected from the nt wa and qld. there are many well educated successful indigenous people who could start to get the ball rolling and not wait for disingenuous liberals to say blah blah.
the motoring party got elected in Victoria on .5% and for what????
10 Oct 2013 1:02:04pm
Ratatat, EvilPundit was merely showing that aboriginals are responsible for their high rate of incarceration. I am a retired copper and have dealt with aboriginals from Perth to the kimberley and have seen the senseless violence perpetrated by aboriginals against, firstly, their own and secondly, anyone else who happens to be near. In my experience these offences are mainly committed while they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If you want to lessen aboriginal imprisonment take away drinking rights. When stationed in Mullewa, I asked an old aboriginal bloke why he was drinking in the white bar when all his mob were in the black bar. He said, "I'm not drinking with those mad bastards, all they want to do is fight." He then told me he had the paper to allow him to drink before drinking rights.
I know mobs of aboriginals who hate the fact that their, mainly, menfolk spend their dole on booze.
10 Oct 2013 9:05:48pm
$uch a nice story.
I can tell you I have no experience of aboriginal life,other than the countless
docos,I have seen.and the countless photos,I have seen.One particular; photo
from last century,was a row of aboriginals, connected by chains around their necks
trying to cultivate land for some well off farmer.
I for one am very pleased that I have never,even remotely walked a mile in their shoes
and until one has done that, then no one will ever know just how they manage.
Of course there are plenty of know alls in this world,but not many people who actually
know any answers,for this problem and all the other unanswered social problems of this
world,and if by chance someone does hit on scheme to help a disadvantaged,person
or group,if it costs a little too much,it will probably be canned even if it works
Of course people like Trev,probably shouldn't be blamed to much for their views,as they are the people we
place between us and so called criminals,of any colour,and while they are doing that job,they wouldn't see too many
nice people.
Haveing said that,I don't know whose views we think could help,but I don't think people
who have had a career in arresting people should be the ones to plan the future,for
people with social disadvantages,just as they wouldn't be asked to plan anyones medical
11 Oct 2013 8:53:43am
You should have read his solution in their. Restricting drinking. You should also not put down his views when you have no solution of your own.
If Trev typed the truth, he is in a far better position than most to see what the actual issues are. Far more than you deciding not to let someone involved do anything from your un-experienced view.
I accept the argument that drugs lead to crime. That does not change the fact that the victim of the crime is still a victim. Drugs or not, they still suffer.
Also, there is only one person who can stop taking drugs. That is the drug user. I accept that for chemical and social reasons it is difficult. That is why support programs exist. That does not mean the drug user is absolved of responsibility in my eyes and fortunately, not the laws either.
Completing rehabilitation programs can help secure earlier release from prison. The problem is once on the outside, if one goes back to their drug using circle, what is going to happen?
The problem is there is little support from the community in stopping drug use when there are ongoing questions about whether more drugs should be legal and continued adds on TV supporting increased consumption.
10 Oct 2013 10:02:46am
You obviously haven't read the entire article, just cherry-picked what suits you.
The judgement was NOT about being aboriginal, but ...
" It simply reinforces a long-standing legal principle that the circumstances of someone?s background - regardless of their race - must be given proper weight by sentencing judges."
You sound like someone who judges an alcoholic or drug addict who thinks they have a choice about their lifestyle. Well, they don't!
Did you read the part of Mr Bugmy's mental health problems that the prison refused to help him with properly? Did you read about his life of incarceration?
Have you ever wondered why people become suicide bombers? Well, if their life has no meaning because of another country's terrorist actions against them, they've lost all hope.
10 Oct 2013 11:06:17am
I did in fact read the whole article. And none of it changes the fact that choosing to commit a crime is a personal decision - or the other facts I stated in my comment.
Aborigines commit more crimes perr capita than whites. Men commit more crimes per capita than women. These are statistical facts, and ignoring them by fiocusing on racist or sexist boogeymen will not solve any problems.
10 Oct 2013 12:22:01pm
If any crime is being committed more by one group than another, then you'd have to ask yourself, why? When you see university medical graduates coming more from one group than another, you'd also ask yourself, why?
The answer is that either they have a predisposition toward that kind of behaviour, some kind of natural tendency, or that circumstances are the main factor. The environment. The upbringing and opportunities. Maybe that's why poor kids don't become airline pilots. Why Sydney Uni alumni don't dominate prisons.
This isn't about whether or not one under educated yahoo chooses to commit a crime. It's about the social forces that affect groups within our society. No-one is blaming anyone.
10 Oct 2013 2:39:06pm
Or perhaps those predisposed to criminal behaviour tend not to want to study to get into Sydney Uni.
10 Oct 2013 3:12:01pm
Dove, I'm afraid you are preaching to denialists.
I deny the existence of god, they deny the existence of cause and effect.
10 Oct 2013 10:23:44pm
Atomou, no cause and effect has been established. Just because some might to believe something is cause and effect, it does not mean that it is.
10 Oct 2013 3:55:47pm
True Dove but don't we have to play the cards that are dealt us?
It is considered almost a crime to discuss why aboriginals are more prone to criminality and why they won't force their kids to go to school.
Both uni educated doctors and aboriginal criminals are a very small minority of the population. There are also plenty of uni educated drunks and drop outs on the streets.
10 Oct 2013 4:59:49pm
and culture. Wealth and the educational background of the parents are significant factors, but culture affects:
- not drinking when pregnant
- keeping your kids clean and free of illness
- good food and care for the young
- modelling the deferment of gratification towards distant ends
- emphasising education and thrift, and living these values
- not letting self-harming practices like walkabout, extended and repeated days off school for weddings/funerals/family business cruel the long-term outcomes
Too often indigenous cultural practices - and ones that are not imposed from outside but rather glorified from within - are producing world's worst outcomes in not just incarceration but in almost every other social indicator, and why it is most assimilated aborigines who far best.
Tassie boy:
10 Oct 2013 5:11:20pm
True, background can be one influencing factor that influences education and employment outcomes. But there are plenty of good unemployed, poorly educated people who are great law-abiding citizens.
10 Oct 2013 5:32:57pm
It's called responsible parenting.
Australians need to realise that just because the government pays you to breed, it doesn't mean they are also responsible for your kids upbringing.
11 Oct 2013 8:55:39am
Dove, here I thought the decision is about the prison officer who now has one eye. Most dont even give him a word of sympathy.
The next one eyed person could be you or someone you care about. That is why a prison term is justified. A person acts out violently.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 11:12:31am
Serenity, The absurdities of the case reaching the high court justifies Rats cyniscism. What the Author and indeed the entire High Court acceptance of this challenge justifies is that a Judge and his background is to far removed from the low end background of the individual for them to make a legitimate decision on sentencing. The precedent this sets is dangerous and the solution of matching judges backgrounds to defendants backgrounds for 'fairness' in sentencing decisions is ludicrous.
I take your point that his needs probably weren't met regarding his mental condition and in all likelyhood his lack of education, social skills, nutrition and a whole raft of other 'needs' weren't addressed properly, but this isn't a day spa we're talking about. It's a max security prison for violent offenders who take peoples eyes out with pool balls.
Governments aren't all that willing to spend billions on top of billions to re-educate and fix the poor helpless violent criminals when law abiding civillians could well do with the same health funding assistance.
Ratatats not judging poor Mr Bugmy. This and other judges have rightly judged him for his crimes. He's 'entitled' to a cot and 3 squares and not much else. If you believe firmly he should have more then maybe up your own tax rate to placate your bleeding heart.
10 Oct 2013 5:07:41pm
All well and good Tom, well it isn't really but lets assume it is. What is actually accomplished by the imprisonment of Mr Bugmy? It will not change him, it will not overcome the the disadvantage he has experienced all his life and it will not reform him or even start him out on a better future. So what was the whole point of it all?
Perhaps we should have sentenced him to a day spa?
As for the other crap, Governments have a duty of care to the people they imprison. Clearly the government and by implication the wider society (us) failed in that duty and have wronged Mr Bugmy as a result. So what do we do, wrong him some more and whack him back in prison! It isn't bleeding heart stuff but common decency to treat people (prinsoners included) humanely. One last point, people are not sentenced to prison for punishment, they are sentenced as punishment.
Michael Dixon:
10 Oct 2013 7:59:15pm
Imprisonment keeps him away from me and mine, that's the point. If you want the alternative, we the nice people will have to arm ourselves, to a very robust standard, and I'm not sure I want to see that in Australia.
11 Oct 2013 7:20:51am
A far better alternative would be to further extend medicare rebates beyond those now offered for psycological services to ALL whether incarcerated or not & regardless of appearance, age or any other arbitrary variable. The short term fiscal cost of prevention would far outweigh the fiscal & social cost of the damage caused by allowing things to continue as they are.
11 Oct 2013 8:57:23am
So one rule for the Indigenous people and another rule for the rest? What about when the crime crosses cultural boundaries? Who's system dominates then? The one who is permanently disabled or the one that caused the disability?
Peter of Melbourne:
10 Oct 2013 12:07:43pm
You sound like someone who judges an alcoholic or drug addict who thinks they have a choice about their lifestyle. Well, they don't!
Yes actually they do have a choice about their lifestyle and their choices are plain for everyone to see. No one forces people to drink themselves silly in this country nor do they force them to start taking drugs in this country! That is their choice, they have made poor choices in life and should not be protected from the consequences.
There are programs to help those who wish to put drugs and alcohol behind them all it takes is the will to use them.
10 Oct 2013 3:22:53pm
An alcoholic is someone who has lost all choice whether they drink or not, and lost control of their drinking.
Tell me where their choice is!
11 Oct 2013 8:11:12am
"An alcoholic is someone who has lost all choice whether they drink or not"
This is incorrect.
11 Oct 2013 8:58:16am
If that is the case, no alcoholic could ever become sober. There is a choice. It may be difficult to make, that does not mean it is a fantasy.
10 Oct 2013 2:06:13pm
EvilPundit does sound like someone who thinks that an alcoholic or a drug addict has a choice about their lifestyle, Serenity, and if he believes that way then well he should. Alcoholism and drug addiction are results of a choice. The idea that addiction isn't the result of a choice relies upon the idea that addiction is just something that happens to a person. It's not. A Mormon who's never even had a cup of coffee doesn't just wake up one morning addicted to crystal meth. Addicts made a choice to use. If they had made the choice to not use then they wouldn't be addicted.
10 Oct 2013 2:37:31pm
"Have you ever wondered why people become suicide bombers? Well, if their life has no meaning because of another country's terrorist actions against them, they've lost all hope."
No, they certainly DO have hope: the hope of getting laid with 72 beautiful virgins. And what terrorist actions did the U.S. commit against Saudi Arabia to warrant the Sept. 11 mass murders committed by Saudis? Your ignorant post reflects high school level political correctness, an indoctrination all too prevalent in the schools these days.
10 Oct 2013 3:07:47pm
Difference between violent offenders and drug users (drinkers obviosly included) is that it does not directly affect others (unless, of course, they are violent). Drug users only ruin their own bodies (and finances, but that is only due to the prohibition of drugs rather than their inherent production costs). But violence, as you point out, is like a contagious disease in all communities (indigenous and non-indigenous) and therefore the defence lawyers mantra of "disadvantaged background" actually causes a whole lot more people to experience a "disadvantaged background" and therefore life just gets easier and easier for defence lawyers as soon all their clients will be able to play that card. The only losers are prosecution lawyers, police and everyone in society that could be a victim of violent crime. But who do the judges (ex defence lawyers) side with? Yep, the defence lawyers.
10 Oct 2013 5:09:18pm
"You sound like someone who judges an alcoholic or drug addict who thinks they have a choice about their lifestyle. Well, they don't!"
People go to AA & other programs and manage to change their lives. Is it easy? No. Is it doable? Yes, but noone except the person themself can make it happen. The choice is theirs.
11 Oct 2013 12:17:28am
Colin, go to the library and read the AA book, especially the doctors opinion.
That will prove my point.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 10:24:55am
There is no legal foundation to The Crown and it's henchmen even being on these lands, never mind them gaoling the rightful residents.
From being a prison colony to the ex cons then stealing a whole continent, it makes no sense at law, even the imposed Crown Law struggles with it.
Who are the criminals?
10 Oct 2013 11:30:55am
Denying reality won't change it.
10 Oct 2013 11:57:43am
You're constantly claiming that the colonisation of Australia was and is illegal, dubious, but that's an argument that's been brought up multiple times in courts, both courts in Australia and courts outside of Australia, but with authority over Australia. It's an argument that's always been rejected. I know that you don't like the legal facts of the matter, but facts they still remain.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 2:01:24pm
Wow reaver.
Could you cite some cases, either in Australian or International Courts, so I can become educated about this.
10 Oct 2013 6:44:29pm
Of course I can, dubious. The significant ones were cases such as Cooper v Stuart before the Privy Council in London which found there to be no opposition to the colonisation in contemporary (ie 1889) British law or in British law at the time of colonisation, R v Bonjon which was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the District of Port Phillip (In Victoria) in 1841 in which the Court ruled that Australian courts had jurisdiction over offences committed by Aboriginal people and of course Mabo v Queensland (No 2) before the High Court of Australia in which, in a 7 to 0 opinion, the Justices ruled that the Crown acquired sovereignty over Australia and radical title upon settlement and that the acquisition of Australia can't be questioned in any municipal court. Of course the argument that the colonisation of Australia isn't legal isn't limited to the kind of landmark cases that determine law. As anyone who's familiar with the criminal justice system and who has constant interaction with it can tell you it's not that uncommon for Indigenous defendants to claim that "White man's law" doesn't apply to them. In those kinds of cases the claims don't go down well and the defendants are quickly informed that the law applies to them as much as everyone else. An example of this would be a 2011 case before the NSW Magistrate?s Court in which a woman by the name of Nicholson-Kitchener claimed immunity from prosecution based on a claim of the illegality of colonisation and a claim of continuing Indigenous sovereignty. This is just one case out of very, very many such cases.
There have been no cases dealing with Australian sovereignty before any International court as no International court has jurisdiction over the matter.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 8:55:28pm
The Old Privy Council decision in Cooper V Stuart [1889]was based on the factual errors that Australia was peacefully settled and that Aborigines were never in possession of the land. That case was also inconsistent with the common law decisions of the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. In short, it was wrongly decided. An Unruly Child, A History of Law in Australia. Professor Bruce Kercher, 1994.
[13] Cooper V Stuart [1889]: The Aborigines of New Holland had ?no land law?.
1889 ? 3 April, London: Lord Watson, Lord Fitazgerald, Lord Hobhouse, Lord MacNaghton, Sir William Grove in Cooper V Stuart [1889] 14 AC, Privy Council (snip)
10 Oct 2013 7:12:29pm
Don't get ahead of yourself, Dubious.
You need to educate yourself on the wrongness of your own opinions before you educate yourself on the correctness of reaver's opinion.
Cite some cases indicating that the Crown is anything but sovereign. Either in Australian or International Courts. After you try and fail, things will become a little easier for you to understand.
11 Oct 2013 6:40:08am
Zing, may I avail you of your expertise and ask who had sovereignty over the states occupied by the Germans in WWII?
10 Oct 2013 4:19:32pm
the fact of the matter is that the argument has not been rejected completely, Kirby in Mabo had to concede that if the law was followed through to its logical conclusion there would be disasterous results for the 'invaders', that is basically why native title runs concurrently with other title granted by the crown, a recent case granted aboriginal owners the right to run a commercial enterprise on their native titled land, or in this case sea. Dont think that the logical conclusion will not be reached in some way, some day.
10 Oct 2013 7:28:19pm
I find that hard to believe, bobtonnor, given that the ruling in Mabo was delivered on the 3rd of June, 1992 and Kirby wasn't on the High Court until 1996. The Justices of the High Court who heard Mabo were Justice Brennan, Justice Deane, Justice Gaudron, Justice Toohey, Justice Dawson, Justice McHugh and Chief Justice Mason.
10 Oct 2013 9:18:10pm
reaver, if you don't allow posters to make things up there won't be many people on the Drum. The bulk of the opinions stated are based on fact free beliefs.
I tend to only correct the ones that are completely ludicrous or that might confuse the children.
Only joking, but it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 10:09:29pm
attribution for the "not judicable in a domestic court" quote is to Justice Brennan, so too
"fracture the skeleton of principle which gives the body of our law its shape and internal consistency".
scotty a:
10 Oct 2013 10:58:57pm
Nice work reaver. Nothing like a few facts to throw a cat amongst the pigeins
10 Oct 2013 12:10:56pm
Go ask the Melians. You'll get your answer there. The criminals are the ones who throw billiard balls at other people, blinding them. That's who.
10 Oct 2013 3:26:34pm
Vegan, you surprise me with your reference to he Melians. Are you talking about the Melians of Thucydides or some other people?
Because, as I see it, the plight of the Melians is very similar to that of the indigenous people, particularly in this litigation.
The colonising Athenians, in pursuit of preserving their empire slaughtered all the men of Melos and sold the women and children to slavery.
They gave the Melians the opportunity to speak in Kangaroo-type Court where in effect, the Melians had no chance of escaping their brutal fate, even if they won the argument.
Is this what you are trying to say with this reference?
10 Oct 2013 8:58:59pm
Exactly. Dubious asks what right white people have to live on 'his/her' land. I hope that the example of the Melians might give him/her reason to consider the pointlessness of his/her comment. The aborigines must have invaded these lands at some time. Did they exterminate a race which was already here? By his/her logic, we should all walk back to the African savannah - whence we emerged many thousands of years ago.
There is no right and wrong in international politics, only victory and defeat.
dubious the third:
11 Oct 2013 9:59:47am
"Dubious asks what right white people have to live on 'his/her' land."
Do I? As a whitefella, I am aware that I live on lands stolen by The Crown from their rightful owners, and I acknowledge where I have the privilege to live.
Just as I will advocate for anyone who has their property stolen by the state for no reason, I advocate here.
DNA evidence points to any whitefella wished for invasion before the 1830s one, to be sometime prior to pyramids being built in Egypt, if ever.
Ben the lawyer:
10 Oct 2013 12:22:34pm
The ones who violently blind others.
10 Oct 2013 12:29:25pm
Whatever you want to call it, but it's time to live in reality. This is our reality, for ALL Australians. You're living in the distant past.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 1:59:19pm
We're living on stolen lands, presently, even according to Crown Law, settled wrongly.
10 Oct 2013 6:54:41pm
No, dubious, it wasn't. Given that you've been given case law after case law that disproves your claims that the colonisation of Australia was illegal under Crown law I can only assume that you're wilfully misleading people.
10 Oct 2013 5:33:50pm
You can't change the past so it is no use living in it.
10 Oct 2013 5:37:45pm
Lionel I have no idea what your reality is, nor does anyone else. Your reality is constructed in your head, as is mine. Hopefully they have sufficient commonality with everyone elses to allow society to function. But you cannot ignore that individual realities do do differ, there is no common reality for ALL Australians. Mr Bugmy is a case in point, I have conception of what it would be like to spend half of my life in jail and his experience is not common for ALL Australians (which is probably a good thing for most of us).
However your call for a common reality is to deny Mr Bugmy his life experience and to assert that they are living in the past is to deny aboriginal history. If we want reconciliation we have to at least acknowledge the sins and errors of the past.
10 Oct 2013 9:04:39pm
Mr Bugmy's 'life experience' has been violence and drug addiction. I think that I would be quite happy to deny him that. As you say, we all have different 'realities', that is why the law should not discriminate. I cannot agree with this decision, but as a law-abiding citizen, I shall obey it.
As for living in the past, the majority of aborigines are doing just that, abetted by academics, bureaucrats and politicians who have a vested interest in them doing so. The only way to improve the lives of aborigines is for them to get with the program and join the rest of the country. As long as they are left as museum pieces to be coddled and studied, people like Mr Bugmy stand no chance.
10 Oct 2013 12:46:51pm
There is a simple legal principle for why the Crown is sovereign over this land.
1. The Crown imposed it's authority by fiat;
2. No other authority was capable of resisting it;
3. So by definition the Crown is sovereign.
Nobody else seems to struggle with this principle, dubious. Certainly not the High Court, who has reinforced the legitimacy of the Crown at every stage.
You can argue it's unfair, but it doesn't change the legal reality.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 7:08:31pm
1. And immediately broke it's own body of Laws thereafter.
2. Might is not necessarily right, especially in an unprovoked attack on people minding their own businesses.
3. So by definition, The Crown is liable.
10 Oct 2013 12:58:47pm
And yet here you are today Dubious, enjoying the protections offered by the Crown and its henchmen. Should we only be gaoling Mr Bugmy's white componentry? Whose authority do you have to speak on behalf of all the Aboriginal nations, living and dead? Do you imagine our Aboriginal citizens would prefer to be noble savages, still living off the land, that they do not want the protection of the law? Where does the absurdity of your position end?
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 7:05:59pm
I am not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. At no time have I claimed otherwise.
What I do find fascinating is the reaction I get at my attempts at truth telling.
It is easy to call my position absurd, when it is not my based on my stated position.
"our Aboriginal citizens" is somewhat patronising, IMO. I much prefer, "rightful residents" or "Peoples indigenous to these lands", but you write as if they are but chattels.
You sure it's me that's being absurd OUB?
10 Oct 2013 1:19:11pm
Am I to conclude from your ranting that the next time we (Anglos) "invade" a place, we should take no prisoners? Particularly justified if 200 years later, nothing but high costs (both $ and socially) can be expected.
Another Aussie:
10 Oct 2013 1:22:31pm
Is your only option to leave this country then Dubious III?
10 Oct 2013 2:23:31pm
Different time, different set of rules; might = right.
The strong takes the land from the weak.
Has been happening since the dawn of time.
Only recently has humanity started to change and not that much, just the playing field has been evened.
Right and wrong, legal and illegal are forever changing concepts.
Maybe one day society will see the invasion of Australia by whites as illegal but I doubt it.
How far do you want to go back in time to claim rightful ownership. 100 yrs, 1000yrs?
Do we give the Mediterranean back to the Rome, or the decedents of Carthage?
10 Oct 2013 3:59:38pm
The judges who sentenced those early convicts have yet to get a brain, let alone a heart.
Looking down from a high bench must give one a boundless feeling of superiority!
It's time we tore those bastards down from those ethereal positions and make them live like the people they are passing judgement on. At least for a little while.
10 Oct 2013 10:37:45am
EvipPundits comments are illogical and deny the truths in Sols commentry.
How does most Aboriginal "dysfunction" arise? From colonisation/invasion, brutal oppression and ongoing discrimination and racism. I dont see violent behaviour as dysfunction..just a reaction to all the traumas experienced by too many people. In many cases, using violence is how we all may overcome threats...real or perceived. Violence is possibly illogical in retrospect but who really knows what happened and why anyone lashes out in anger.
Disdavantage leads to disadvantage and the police and justice and prison system sadly often makes it worse.
"Choice" is a weak measure of a persons ability to overcome disadvantage and trauma. Choice assumes the ability to think straight, not react in anger and not feel threatened when challenged. Its all too easy to reduce an action down to good and evil. Why the name evil pundit? Irony, sarcasm or wit? A poor choice of name within the context of this story. Why "fixing your own community"?
Are Aboriginal people not part of our community?
To call a support system an "industry" is a slur and a denial of Australias black history and an ongoing institutionalised violence towards a group of people who were violently invaded in the first place. Grievance is an emotion and a reaction to a loss.
Self determination is one solution. Cynicism is a poor thinking persons refuge the same way as violence is. Never justified but understood. Like vilence, cynicism needs to be dealt with fairly. Not locked up and brutalised again and again and again.
Australia still has a long way to go as many of these comments demonstrate.
10 Oct 2013 12:01:10pm
Things that happened over 200 years ago, involving people who are long dead, do not excuse irresponsible and criminal behaviour today.
It's time to move on from the past.
10 Oct 2013 1:51:57pm
Spoken like a man who was lucky enough to not have his homeland invaded and occupied, to not have a legacy of trauma, to have received a good education etc etc.
Your education appears to have missed Australian history and the effects of disadvantage and advantage.
Your words show a lack of compassion too but that arises from your lack of knowledge.
We all inherit our past from our families. Many of us are lucky and have built upon this inherited privilege.
Many of us are not so lucky and many achieve despite a lack of privilege. But not all do and that is the simple message here that you do not undersatnd !!!
Telling someone else to "move on..it was in the past" shows ignorance of this whole issue.
This whole article is not about irresponabilty and excuses. Thats your reading only.
The article is about understanding past traumas will effect the present and the best judges of this land support that concept. Not an excuse but an understanding.
Your privilege was a stroke of luck. Possibly hard earnt but a stroke of luck only.
One challenge is for us all is to to understand the different life journies we are all on.
We are not all born equal !! One size does not fit all.
10 Oct 2013 7:22:34pm
Muzz I am pretty sure the lands of my multiple antecedents were invaded numerous times. The Poms had to deal with Romans, Norsemen, Gaels, Picts, the Irish had their Pom problem, everyone had to go through France to get anywhere interesting. The invaders were absorbed, life took on a new normality. In Australia there were wars between many tribes, people killed, new lands taken by force. Pre-European Australia was a violent place.
Please don't gild the lily. Face reality or display your own ignorance.
10 Oct 2013 8:36:23pm
Thats rich. My mob did it and so should you !!!
I see the logic but I do not see the reality around me.
You can view all people in jail as bad or weak or wrong or stupid or self pitying cheats but I choose to view the world as it presents to me.
We all make those choices based upon what we have learnt.
I have learnt that Aboriginal people are diverse, many are traumatised, many are well adjusted and way too many are in jail.
I also see a legacy of the "english invasion" that still effects us all.
You are not suggesting that the invasion of your family lands was OK are you?
I read this as saying..." It was OK for my people so it should be OK for your people"
Who is gilding what lily, creating what personal reality and asserting what ignorance!!
Tassie Boy:
10 Oct 2013 10:32:12pm
Muzz you make a whole of claims (with the usual rhetoric 'legacy of trauma') and are unable to substantiate any of them. Many Aboriginal have moved on from the past. They have not forgotten it, they just don't make it an excuse for bad behaviour.
"Many of us are not so lucky and many achieve despite a lack of privilege." And that proves that it is not disadvantage or history that causes a person to commit crime. If it was disadvantage or history then a lot more would be committing crime. Let's keep things in perspective, the majority of Aboriginal people do not commit crimes and are good people. That blows out theory out of the water.
When people hear messages like the ones you keep preaching then they think they have an excuse for bad behaviour.
10 Oct 2013 3:11:37pm
Well that's fairly ignorant. Last I heard the removal of indigenous children from their families was still happening up until around the 1960s, although in some areas it has been reported as being even later than that. So try maybe 50 years ago, within the scope of a white person's lifetime but not an indigenous person's given mortality figures.
Do you think perhaps the ongoing racist policies of the Australian government had some influence on the position which indigenous Australians occupy today?
It's easy to say just move on, but what solutions do you propose in order for them to change their situation? In saying that everyone has a choice, you make it sound like they have all the opportunities in the world. Crime is obviously not the correct choice but you are oversimplifying a complex issue.
10 Oct 2013 4:03:00pm
The things that happened 200 years ago are still happening now, if not even more brutally so, if one is to look at this case as an example. NOW! Not 200 years ago!
Tassie Boy:
10 Oct 2013 10:33:21pm
Well then please tell us and give us some examples of "The things that happened 200 years ago" that "are still happening now,"
10 Oct 2013 5:41:29pm
But it wasn't 200 years ago, for Mr Bugmy it's probably been most days of his life, possibly even yesterday or today.
Acknowledging multiple factors in the causation of antisocial or criminal behaviour is to excusing or condoning it. Moving on from the past is to deny it's existence.
10 Oct 2013 12:24:44pm
Everyone has a choice, muzz, whether or not they take the time to think straight, are angry or feel threatened when challenged. The fact that someone made the wrong choice doesn't excuse them from the consequences of that choice.
10 Oct 2013 1:53:47pm
No excuse...just an understanding and the need to adapt to take this into account.
Our laws and systems, when they work well, do support this concept.
10 Oct 2013 6:24:18pm
Not all resources to make choices are equal.
To say that "its all about choice" is too simple.
There are lots of examples where we accept that different people have different strengths and weakness'.
For example, the bashed woman who kills her partner
The 15 year old who breaks the law or the under 12 year old
The person with a brain injury or with an active psychosis
I think its called mitigation...to show that not all people are equal in their ability to made a choice.
Our justice system makes it worse. Sadly it all part of our convict cultural history.
Love it or hate it, its where we all come from.
10 Oct 2013 8:19:05pm
The mitigating circumstance of a minor, a person with a brain injury or with an active psychosis is the lessened ability to make an informed decision, muzz. The mitigating circumstance of an abused woman who kills her partner is one of defence of self. Neither of these mitigating circumstances applies to Bugmy's offences as an adult. Not considering the law to apply to one's self is not considered to be a mitigating circumstance nor is a general disinterest in obeying the law.
10 Oct 2013 5:07:25pm
"How does most Aboriginal "dysfunction" arise? From colonisation/invasion, brutal oppression and ongoing discrimination and racism."
Yet the 'brutal oppression' of Europe's Jews exceeded those of an aboriginal parent in say Redfern - yet on balance such migrants hugely outperformed Aborigines: 4 of the 10 wealthiest Australians are children of Jewish emigres.
Yet the 'discrimination and racism' first shown to Vietnamese was significant - until their hard work, thrift and educational determination silenced the critics.
Australia is a living refutation of SOl's weak excuse-making: we have scores of cultures whose individuals suffered greatly (and often more so than Aborigines) but in a generation or two have done well, sometimes better than average.
But not Aborigines. The excuses are ringing hollow.
10 Oct 2013 11:26:16am
Committing a crime a matter of choice? In the case of the young people out here, I beg to differ. Many of the young people who roam the streets out here at night - not most, but many - are out there because they are not safe at "home". There's too much grog, plenty of violence, no food, filthy conditions and usually a gaggle of kids to each dirty mattress on the floor. Then there's the adult who's not drinking, just waiting for the others to drink themselves to sleep. So the young people hit the streets, where they feel safer. They're tired, dirty, cold, scared and hungry. If they can find food, they'll eat it. If they can find a volatile substance, they won't be scared or hungry for a while. If they have to break into somewhere to get food or petrol, they probably will and so their involvement with the justice system begins. They go to detention, they go home and nothing's changed, they roam the streets again, they go back to detention and by then, it's an appealing alternative.
It's easy to blame the dysfunctional families and the broken communities on the people. What industry is the single biggest employer of whitefellas in the NT? Misery. There are more bureaucrats, NGOs, service providers, tradesmen and others who rely on the welfare system remaining strong for their lovely standard of living than mining, fishing, tourism or anything else. Out here, it's called White Toyota Dreaming.
Fix your own communities? There was a big meeting at one of our communities last week. The White Toyotas came from everywhere, some even from Canberra. It was all about planning a new Community Safety Policy. It went all day and a great plan was drawn up. Then everyone jumped in their White Toyotas and returned to their comfortable suburban lifestyles, full of stories about the poverty they had witnessed.
There was one small problem - nobody who actually lived there was invited. But the Canberra mob got some lovely pictures of themselves standing in front of the art gallery, so the meeting was a roaring success.
Do any of you who are in high dudgeon over the author's sentiments know anyone who drinks too much? What are you doing about that? Any of you have a neighbour who abuses their spouse? Any of you ever see kids roaming the streets at night? Any of you ever see vandalism or under-age kids drinking? Know anybody who drinks and drives or commits any other "minor" crime?
Yeah, we'll start fixing our communities when we're allowed to - and you start fixing yours.
Goode Speler:
10 Oct 2013 1:23:54pm
I spent time on the streets. I didn't see it as an excuse to commit crimes.
10 Oct 2013 2:22:50pm
Your post is an excellent example of the problem, PeterC. The "White Toyota" types aren't responsible for what you do in your own community. As such they can't really change much. The only real way that a community can change is by changing its own behaviour as a group. You're allowed to do this and change your community whenever you like. It's up to you to make the changes you think necessary. If you wait for the government employees from Canberra to turn up in their white Toyotas and invite you to their meetings nothing will ever change.
The underage drinking, the violence and "the adult who's not drinking, just waiting for the others to drink themselves to sleep" are less of a problem in our communities than they clearly are in yours because we don't tolerate it. It happens, but when it happens and when we know about it we make a specific point to make sure that it's stopped. The question is why your community doesn't do the same.
10 Oct 2013 4:11:57pm
Please tell me how you are not allowed to fix your communities?
10 Oct 2013 12:01:00pm
This is my understanding why In Australia Aboriginals,
are incarcerated at a much higher rate then the black south Africans,
Yes it sounds shocking,
but when you look at the context,
It is sadly the logical and most likely outcome.
1) Prisons..
they further damage the inmates and make them more likely to reoffend,
leading to full prsions, needing more prison, more inmates and hence mor reoffenders,
Sure it makes a lucrative Prison industyr, but look at the US, with one of the highes incarceration and parole rates in the world (5%) of population Where thousands of less violent crims are having to be released just to make space for new ones :P
this makes Multi Multi BILLION dollar industry at a great social cost.
this is why prisons will always tend towards being full.
2) People from poor disadvataged backgrounds are much more likely to end up in jail,
due to a combination of lack of hope, poor social support, envrionemnt and Yes their own choices.
you have to be an idiot though to think that their own choices is the only factor
Aboriginals in Australia are generally at the very bottom of social advantage in Australia and will tend to end up in Jail more.
3) This is the Context Kicker, In Australia Aboriginals are a tiny fraction (3%) of the populaiton that sits at the very bottom of the social advantage pyramid.
In our prisons full situation, we can fit a very high proportion of this 3% of our population in prison.
In Apartheid South Africa,
The South Africans of African origin where the MAJORITY
there is no way they could have had the enough prisons to fit them all,
Prisons will always be full, then you can't fit any more
Then people get let out on parole, Judges give shorter or non custodial senteces
The scream and shout and complain (forgetting the prisons are already FULL)
10 Oct 2013 12:12:11pm
Despite what rabid right wingers like Andrew Bolt would have you believe, there is no Aboriginal grievance industry, and there are many of us working towards fixing our own communities.
Tassie boy:
10 Oct 2013 5:15:19pm
Yes Phil, there are many working towards fixing communities and many do outstanding jobs. But there is an Aboriginal grievance industry, and it is not just Bolt and others who recognise. It is made up of people like Bollear.
10 Oct 2013 12:18:18pm
So what you're saying is that a person, who for example, has learned to hate themselves through being horrendously abused as a child, commits crime through choice rather than a form of self-abuse.
Where exactly do you suppose people who have never known kindness or respect acquire the self-esteem and respect necessary for them to empathise with other people?
10 Oct 2013 2:27:38pm
Fudge, the reason why someone's making a choice, be it as a form of self-abuse or otherwise, doesn't change the fact that it's a choice.
The ability to empathise with other people isn't necessary to make the choice not to commit a crime as the ability to empathise with other people isn't necessary to know that something's illegal.
Tassie boy:
10 Oct 2013 5:16:25pm
The person who has been abused has many people form which to learn self-respect from. Many have been abused and yet go on to be great citizens.
10 Oct 2013 1:38:52pm
The author seems to believe that indigenous Australians should be free to attack, rape and rob the rest of society without having to answer to society's judgement.
I'll admit that I've never been convinced by the arguments of indigenous activists. But it's been a while since I've read an argument so disgusting, it actually made it more difficult to entertain their point of view.
I'll assume that it was a careless use of words on the author's part. But I sadly suspect that his words were truthful and based on some underlying resentment towards Australian society.
10 Oct 2013 3:46:05pm
It is in fact time for those causing grief to the Aboriginal people to move on, to stop brutalising them at every turn and then blame them for that brutality.
How badly the highly privileged education that the highly
privileged Justice reflects on those educational institutions!
They have obviously taught nothing of value, at least to this... highly privileged white man!
11 Oct 2013 12:47:15am
Absolutely correct. For how long , aboriginal community hide behind the cover of being victim of racism. They have to respond to society with strong character rather than always blaming others
Ben the lawyer:
10 Oct 2013 9:30:40am
'The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people'
Sweet - I trust you won't accept any Australian taxpayer funded handouts then. You know, to remain consistent.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 10:26:47am
As soon as Australian taxes are garnished from things other than the exploitation and expropriation of stolen lands, then you've got a really good argument Ben.
Ben the lawyer:
10 Oct 2013 12:18:32pm
You find me a court case that says the land was stolen (in the legal sense of the word) and we can have that discussion. Until then, your point is moot and mine continues to stand.
10 Oct 2013 3:20:44pm
Ben have you actually read any of the judgments concerning native title and the extinguishing of indigenous land ownership rights?
If you were truly 'a lawyer,' I imagine you would be making a more cohesive argument rather than saying 'stolen in the legal sense.' Have you read the obiter in regards to terra nullius in Mabo and Wik?
10 Oct 2013 6:55:53pm
If land is not stolen in the legal sense, it is not "stolen" in any sense worth discussing.
I would give the same answer I give to anyone else on this subject: Read the conclusive findings of the Mabo decision and stop wasting peoples' time.
10 Oct 2013 4:46:48pm
you will be aware that there are three ways to aquire land as a country under international law, it is either conquered, compensation required, ceded, compensation required or colonised, no compensation required, the reason there is no compensation required is because there was no one to pay the compensation to, that is why Austalia was not colonised, because there were people here prior to invasion, terra nullius is and always was a myth, simple. Now the word stolen, under what legislation are you talking about, theft as in s93 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) or larceny, which form of larceny? As your are well aware theft, larceny and stolen are terms that have to be determined under 'meanings' in most Acts, so you let me know under what Act and ill try find you a case
10 Oct 2013 8:32:50pm
International law can't be applied retroactively, bobtonnor, so it simply doesn't apply to past situations.
You can try to make whatever case you like based on whatever definition of "stolen" that you like, but it wouldn't change the fact that Australian law doesn't regard the colonisation of Australia as stealing.
10 Oct 2013 12:41:04pm
Conquered lands... not stolen.
10 Oct 2013 4:14:25pm
Invaded not conquered... then oppressed and slaughtered the invaded relentlessly... less than half a dozen generations ago.
The blood is still visible on the soil.
10 Oct 2013 7:45:05pm
Australia was conquered.
If it wasn't, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Wagner Von Trot:
10 Oct 2013 12:46:02pm
so, dubious, are you suggesting that Aborigines should be handed back the entire continent?
Or maybe you are saying that they should recive the revenue from all land based taxes/levies etc?
Hmm...only problem is that most of the Aboriginal people who may have been able to claim ownership of much of the continent have died (alongwith their lines).
As a result, you would be vesting ownership/profits of the many, solely in the (relative) few. I think that has been tried before...Tsarist Russia comes to mind...not sure how that worked out...can you perhaps remind me?
Also, if they have the land, they cannot make use of any structures on it, they must go back to their nomadic lifestyles...you know, just how it was before all the land was "stolen".
10 Oct 2013 1:08:19pm
Not stolen - conquered. That is why native title exists.
10 Oct 2013 10:47:03am
Ben the Lawyer,
Sweet. I trust you won't mind the government not receiving any mining royalties, taxes from mining companies or income taxes from people who work on the mines.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 11:53:45am
The contractual agreements are bartered between the mining companies and the Lands Council of any particular area where land title claims have been successful. I think you'll find the taxation is placed on the mining companies.
"exploitation and expropriation of stolen lands" doesn't come into it because the traditional owners have agreed to the specs for the operation and are duely compensated by the companies. If the companies breach the agreement they are liable to legal challenges from the land councils. What your unwittingly championing is all Aborigional lands ceceding from mainland Australia. Even the author is only after self determination probably because self governing communities within Australia would still require government assistance and services to survive.
10 Oct 2013 3:09:06pm
'Exploitation and expropriation of stolen lands' doesn't come into it because indigenous peoples are forced to operate within the restrictions imposed by the Native Title Act, a piece of legislation which is grossly inadequate compared to overseas legislation regarding the concept of indigenous ownership of land (see US legislation for example).
You're ignoring that native title is a notoriously difficult to prove in Australia, so I would say that the majority of the historical indigenous land is being exploited without compensation.
10 Oct 2013 12:41:17pm
To the victors go the spoils.
10 Oct 2013 10:49:24am
Seems to me that the amount of tax-payer money funneled into Indigenous handouts is doing nothing to improve or lessen the so-called Aboriginal Disadvantage. It would be interesting to see what the actual impact of cutting handouts would be.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 12:18:28pm
Indeed it would, but which hand-outs do you want to cut?
The royalties paid to state governments are a huge hand out. How about that money stay with the rightful owners of those resources?
And the free land handed out to "settlers" who now pay Land tax as a hand-out to the states.
These hand-outs are all taking away from the rightful owners, yet you wish to begrudge them the few crumbs they get that fall off the rich man's table.
10 Oct 2013 2:49:15pm
Dubious, we all, whether black white or brindle are the rightful owners of Australia, the current generation of aboriginals are no more the rightful owners of Australia as I am the rightful owner of Wales where my ancestors came from before the Roman invasion. Perhaps I should go to the world court and demand it back. It's people like you who perpetrate a lot of the racial problems in this country by harping on about something that no longer exists and will never be reinstated.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 6:42:56pm
fugly, you misunderstand.
Either all these lands belong to the Monarch of Britain and Crown Corporation affiliates, or they belong to the sovereign first peoples that have been here for over 1000 generations.
It's not my arguments that is causing the "us and them", it is the willingness of many peoples in the settler society to cling to The Crown's claim over these lands.
What happens in Wales is their affair. Take it up with the Prince of Wales if it means so much to you, but don't think it gives you permission to it to other folk.
10 Oct 2013 4:14:56pm
The rightful owners of these resources are Australians, not black, not white, but all Australians.
Tassie boy:
10 Oct 2013 5:18:17pm
Give it a break Dubious. Give them royalties, rent money, etc, and you have a recipe for disaster. Many Aboriginal people are doing just fine without your suggestions.
Another Aussie:
10 Oct 2013 1:26:36pm
The Aboriginal Industry is doing very nicely because of the generous nature of taxpayers.
Kevin McNulty:
10 Oct 2013 10:50:01am
That we can do 'Sweet' but you Mob can pay rent for living on our land; u know that was stolen after the invasion...
10 Oct 2013 11:58:45am
it's funny you call it invasion
because you need it to be colonsiation
Ben the lawyer:
10 Oct 2013 12:20:08pm
Settlement, not invasion. Do some legal research and you'll see what I mean.
In any event, I imagine the billions that have been sunk into the aboriginal industry more than pays for any 'rent' that is owing.
10 Oct 2013 4:21:19pm
Ben, I don't know where you do your research but I do know that one must first obtain a piece of land before one can settle upon it.
Australia was obtained by a colonising invasion by the poms to use it as a brutal dung heap for their convicts, most of whom had received the same sort of brutal judgement meted out by the likes of Hoeben.
11 Oct 2013 9:15:40am
it's a legal technicality
if you invade, you automatically extinguish the rights and laws of thoes already there, but if you colonise they exist side by side
10 Oct 2013 4:54:56pm
the land was invaded, the reasoning given by the British courts was that because there was no aboriginal soveriegn the land could not be ceded by a soveriegn or conquered. Colonisation was based on the terra nullius myth as stated by Kirby in Mabo 2, do some legal research, thus compensation is required under international law.
10 Oct 2013 9:18:16pm
As I've pointed out before, bobtonnor, Kirby had nothing to do with the High Court ruling in Mabo 2. The ruling in Mabo was delivered on the 3rd of June, 1992. Kirby wasn't on the High Court until 1996. Additionally, as I've also pointed out before, International law can't be applied retroactively. As Australia was colonised before the relevant International law was created the law doesn't apply to the colonisation of Australia. It's not hard to find this stuff out so there really isn't any excuse for not knowing it.
10 Oct 2013 12:21:38pm
Kev great sympathy for the position you guys find yourself in, but if it hadn't been the Brits it would have been the Dutch or the Portugese maybe the French. My roots are in Guineau Bissau and the Portuguese shipped us all off to the Cape Verde Islands to ship up the sugar cane!! Be thankful for small mercies. Nobodies going away and I guess the answer is lets get on with it. In the end we are all brothers..we all came out of Africa, carry the same single male gene and therefore come from the same place. Channel that anger into something positive in the end we are all responsible for our own actions,
10 Oct 2013 12:27:14pm
It's not your land, Kevin, any more than the land taken in the Norman invasion of England or land taken in the English invasion of Ireland is my land.
10 Oct 2013 12:38:31pm
Therin lies the rub. All land, everywhere, was stolen from someone. There are very few countries that haven't been invaded or colonised. Hell, look at the history of England!
Those who are to blame have long since died. You can't punish dead men. There needs to be a focus on how to make sustainable, functional communities in the present and the future.
10 Oct 2013 3:08:27pm
But you can always punish the descendants of the invaders. Well at least punish the people who look like the original invaders.
Rest assured soon after the descendants of the white elites that perpetrated the original crime have left the white racial group behind and taken up positions of power in other racial groups they will call upon the peoples of world to exact their revenge on white people for the evils of colonisation. You see, someone always has to pay the price for these things and it is better for that someone to be someone else.
10 Oct 2013 12:43:06pm
But how will we know which tribe to pay too considering various tribes fought and conquered other tribes and their lands.
Do the most recently victorious tribe get the rights and the spoils/rent?
Would the most recently victorious tribe be the "english" tribe?
10 Oct 2013 12:48:33pm
No not stolen conquered just like many other lands in many other places . Was it fair no probably not , whites had guns aboriginals had spears and crude clubs , but it happened and it will not be reversed.
10 Oct 2013 8:40:09pm
The fact that the British had guns and the Aborigines only had spears and clubs had less to do with the British victory than the fact that the British were organised and the Aborigines weren't, Marty. The Maori of New Zealand didn't have guns, but they were organised enough to fight the British to a standstill and thus be in a position to negotiate. That's why the Maori traded their sovereignty whereas the Aborigines had theirs extinguished.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 12:54:34pm
Kev, It seems that Recognition of origional Inhabitants is correct terminology. Land ownership was for all intents and purposes a foreign concept to the origional inhabitants. Interestingly it was only when 'granted land holders' started shooting Aborigionals who 'tresspassed' along once well travelled hunting and travelling routes did the first concept of 'ownership' become an issue for Aborigionals. Obviously whitey was well established by this point and gradually the missunderstanding of the difference between sharing the land and land ownership led to conflict of two established races. I'm just saying it sounds more like civil war rather than invasion but the passed past is the past yeah?
Australia missed out on being a French colony by a matter of hours and a thunderstorm. Neither have a great history when it comes to being civil to the locals. The disposession would have happened regardless is my point, unless the locals had a large enough force to actively repel, forcing an actual choice to 'invade' or leave an occupied continent rather than just set up shop.
11 Oct 2013 7:12:49am
Tom Matyr, Aborigines had their own concept of land ownership. Each group had an area that was recognised by other groups. Early in the British occupation this was recognsed by the new arrivals and early exploration teams would take an Aborine with them to negotiate the right to enter each group's country when they arrived at it.
See such records as the writings of Captain Watkin Tench, a Royal Marine who arrived on the the First Fleet, for more.
10 Oct 2013 12:55:59pm
You do realise that insisting on calling it an invasion means that you effectively lost a war, and hence the ownership of your lands goes to the victors.
It's best to keep it a legally ambiguous "settlement", since it means that the question of ownership was never decided.
10 Oct 2013 9:31:55am
I am all for programs that provide assistance to Aboriginals in education and health in fact any method that can bring the first people along to the standards most Australians enjoy. What I do not condone is violence we see perpetrated within Aboriginal communities. That should be treated just as is treated in mainstream Australia, by the full extent of the law. No more, no less. That is true equality. There are many fine Aboriginal people who are an asset to this country but I do not see how treating disadvantaged indigenous differently when they break the law is supposed to enhance their lives or the people who suffer because of their actions.
10 Oct 2013 10:04:48am
Koori Courts in Victoria are actually designated to hear Aboriginal only cases. The indigenous offender gets a much lighter sentence than the non-indigenous offender.
Next we will have, as is being pushed, Sharia Courts in Victoria designated to hear Moslem only cases.
Whatever happened to all of us being equal before the law.
10 Oct 2013 11:15:37am
Sol talks about
"This view of the world is shared by many Australians"
I wonder what Sol's view of the world. Of a highly resource constrained world with over 7 Billion people heading to about 10 billion by 2050. I wonder if Sol has considered what this means for his people.
One thing is for sure, by 2050 we are all going to be living in a completely different world. Different politically. Different culturally. Different Ethnically and with different countries with different borders. The world we live in is in transition and it is not a transition for the better. Together, Australia may stand but divided Australia will most certainly fall.
10 Oct 2013 11:16:33am
some of us are more equal than others, seemingly.
10 Oct 2013 11:59:06am
You also fail to mention that in Koori Courts the accused normally has to "man up" and take responsibility for their actions for a lighter sentence to be imposed. Doesn't happen in open court, the defendant is allowed to take no responsibility for his actions and in turn gets a heavier sentence.
10 Oct 2013 1:47:39pm
Im interested in the application of the Koori courts style being applied to the wider community, particularly for youth crime (except for perhaps the most serious forms of it) and for all non serious crimes committed by adults.
10 Oct 2013 2:37:05pm
Are there any figures if 'manning up' has an impact on re-offending rates?
10 Oct 2013 12:15:49pm
ah but they make you pretend to feel shame
that's the difference
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 12:21:51pm
Koori Courts are set-up as a set-up to double punish indigenous Crown Law breakers.
The "elders" who offenders have to face, have no say in sentencing, but eye ball any offenders to shame them, and Koori Courts only apply if the defendant pleads guilty.
The rate of incarceration of kooris in Victoria has sky rocketed, since their introduction.
10 Oct 2013 6:57:23pm
To me it seems that the indigenous culture is fractured to the extent that the elders aka "Aunties" and "uncles" are not respected by the young indigenous.
To say otherwise is a cliched view of the indigenous ("Noble Savage") held by the trendy inner city Greenie chardonnay drinking and latte sipping set.
Look at Alice Springs and Fitzroy Crossing if you are in any doubt.
Just like many non-indigenous young have no respect for their elders, whether they be parents, grandparents etc.
10 Oct 2013 12:27:30pm
It would be great if we were treated just as white Australians are treated in the justice system. But we're not. Here's one recent example:
A young, upper middle class white law student glasses another young man in a drunken fight. He has attended the best schools, the best university, had the best networks and family connections. He receives excellent legal representation from a well paid lawyer, and the judge decides he is "too privileged" to go to jail. He goes on with his life after a slap on the wrists.
A young Aboriginal man is sitting in the park having a drink with friends. They're being a bit noisy, and passers by call the police on them. The police charge him with public nuisance and drinking in a public place. The police pour his alcohol out, which he protests against and is arrested for obstructing police. In the process of being arrested, he strikes a police officer, and they add charges of assaulting police and resisting arrest. The police manhandle him and throw him in the back of a paddywagon. When they get to the police station, they drag him into the police station, taser him, and forcibly subdue him before locking him in a police cell and leaving him there for hours without allowing him to call for legal representation. There he dies of massive internal bleeding.
And that is what Australia calls justice.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 2:52:16pm
No thats not justice Phil but we also can't compare apples with Oranges. One was a trial, one was a fatal beating by thugs in uniform.
Ironically you argue against what the author is arguing for with your first case. In sentencing of the individual the judge has obviously taken into account the track record of the accused, his likelyhood of re-offending, how a prison sentence will all but kill his future chances of reputable employment and probably a whole raft of other seemingly unfair considerations. The pricey lawyers probably helped thin the case also.
In essence the judge looked at how he was advantaged in life and how one big mistake could ruin his entire bright future and he was sentenced on the side of contrition and mercy. In Bugmys case they are asking the courts to look at his disadvantage and excuse his constant repeated criminal behaviour because of it. I assure you if the first case repeatedly glassed people after this let off his potential to move past the incident would be far less of a consideration to the courts.
10 Oct 2013 6:31:36pm
And in Alice Springs an indigenous man beat his missus and stabbed her to death in broad daylight just outside the CBD and received a 15 month jail term.
Peter Falconio's killer will probably never be released.
Happens both ways, my friend.
Tassie Boy:
10 Oct 2013 7:09:03pm
Phil, no they are not always treated the same. Consider the following and ask what would have happened had the perpetrator been white: In 2005, a "traditional" man who anally raped his 14-year-old promised bride was convicted to 24 months for "assault and unlawful sexual intercourse", which in effect had him released after one month. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory heard the appeal and marginally increased the sentence. Sitting in the old man's settlement of Yarralin for sentencing, Brian Martin, then chief justice of the NT Supreme Court, made the following sentencing remarks to the convicted man. "I accept that these offences occurred because the young child had been promised to you. This is not a case where you simply sought out a young child for sexual gratification ... I have a great deal of sympathy for you and the difficulties attached to transition from traditional Aboriginal culture and laws as you understand them to be, to obeying the Northern Territory law."
Wagner Von Trot:
10 Oct 2013 9:38:35am
"And that's fundamentally what this should be all about - sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives."
Own laws, own rules and control? Ok - then Aboriginal people can fend for themselves fully. Only taxes paid by Aboriginal people can be accessed by Aboriginal people.
Also, any institution, service or technological advance created or implememtned by a non-Aboriginal Person will be denied to all Aboriginal persons.
That is sovereignty; autonomy.
Of course you will be free to buy these things from the rest of us at market rates.
10 Oct 2013 10:48:48am
And you'll quite happily give them back their land will you?
I'm sure they'd be happy to rent some of it back to you, at market rates of course
10 Oct 2013 12:05:52pm
Sure, as soon as *my* ancestral lands in Scotland and Ireland are returned.
Or maybe, just maybe, we can all grow up and accept that, for better or worse we are all simply citizens of our nation.
Wagner Von Trot:
10 Oct 2013 12:36:53pm
If the individual Aboriginal people who "owned" my land in the 1770's are still alive, I will gladly give it back to them.
Apart from that, no. You see its a completely separate issue.
Whle the concept of terra nullius has been overturned by the High Court, the same court (and Cth and State legislation) has made it clear that any grant of freehold extinguishes native title.
Now without getting too technical, a grant comes from the State and so therefore any Aboriginal claimant would need to take action against them to get it back...not against me.
If this occurred, and the State decided to give it back to them, they would need to pay me compensation for the land, So it's a much better outcome for me to go down that road than to hand it back for nothing.
Is this greedy on my part? no; it's the law, and I'm not the one advocating change.
Now if the Aboriginal people want sovereignty and to be outside the scope of the current law, then the above process does not change, as they would not have jurisdiction over my land.
You see, I have personally not done anything to the detriment of Aborignal people (nor has my family since it came here in the 1860s), and so I fail to see why I should feel guilty.
10 Oct 2013 5:59:38pm
I love legal arguments, they're not as much fun as politics but on an otherwise dull day they will do,
" the same court (and Cth and State legislation) has made it clear that any grant of freehold extinguishes native title"
Not a problem Wagner, we'll just constitute another court to overturn grants of freehold, and if that's not enough we will declare such grants to be nul and void, any holders of freehold will have to cede ownership to the original owners and, because your right to use the land did not exist, you will have to pay compensation to the original owners.
It's the law, and it can be changed, and if it can't be changed, that's why we have revolutions and invasions!
10 Oct 2013 8:46:15pm
If you're going to argue the law then you should learn a thing or two about it first, Mycal. You can't constitute another court to overturn the rulings of the High Court without a referendum due to the High Court being recognised in the Australian Constitution as the ultimate Court in Australia, with its rulings being legally final. There's simply no way that Australian voters are going to vote for an Amendment to the Constitution in order to do what you want.
Wagner Von Trot:
11 Oct 2013 8:34:13am
Mycal, you obviously have nol idea how the legal system works.
I see that reaver has set you straight already, but just to add, I would question the likelihood of an "invasion" or "revolution".
Leaving aside the fact that you can't invade a place in which you already reside; the Aboriginal population accounts for approximately 2.5% if the total Australian population.
I think that it may have a hard time starting and maintaining a revolution. Especially if, as we are led to believe, life span, health and education are at much lower levels than the rest of the population.
10 Oct 2013 12:46:58pm
Give the land back to whom?
The tribe that won the last battle/war over control over said land?
Or the first group of humans that immigrated to Australia?
Or the most recent group of humans that immigrated to Australia?
Or some other group of humans that immigrated to Australia some time between the first wave of immigration and the most recent arrivals (today)?
Do the various tribes need to also give conquered lands back to defeated tribes?
10 Oct 2013 1:00:32pm
I will wait till you do so, start paying rent to your local aboriginal council.
Then, and only then can you tell other people to do so. Until the you are simply full of self righteous hot air.
10 Oct 2013 11:22:29am
Except, under your model, 'they' own the land, and 'we' will be purchasing it back at 'market rates' Can you afford the back rent on your houseblock for 200 years of disposession?
Like lots of over-reactions, this comes no where near adressing the complexity of the situation.
We all need to take this seriously and find a dignified and workable solution..
10 Oct 2013 2:45:03pm
In what way is that part of Wagner's model, Leafygreens? You're just imposing that on his model because you want it there. Sorry, Leafy, but it doesn't work like that.
Wagner Von Trot:
10 Oct 2013 11:00:12pm
Leafygreens, you forget that out money was also forced on the Aborigines, they didn't have it beforehand.
Therefore I don't have to pay them anything for "back rent".
Unless they can point to an amount of rent that they would have charged me in 1772 then there is no rent to be paid.
Cranky of Croydon:
10 Oct 2013 11:34:30am
If we had paid them for the land we stole, there wouldn't be a need for additional assistance, we could ask they buy things at market rates.
A dispossessed community asks for a help in getting back to par with its invaders, and they are being unreasonble? Puh-lease......
10 Oct 2013 2:50:49pm
You're assuming that if the colonisers has paid for the land that those alive today would still have the money, Cranky. History has shown that the private ownership of wealth rarely survives three generations let alone for over 200 years. Doubtlessly if the land had been paid for then the same people making demands for "compensation" today would still be making the very same demands.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 9:11:17pm
It was the Crown that claimed all the lands as their possession, and chose to give it away or sell it off as if it had no previous resident owners.....
....and I believe, The Crown still has a whole motza of money
10 Oct 2013 9:48:06am
We cannot have one set of laws and sentencing proceedures for indigenous people, and another set for everybody else.
And we cannot have indigenous people serving less time (or no time) for crimes than other people -- even though, by all accounts, this is already happens a fair bit.
Why can't we have this? Because this sets very dangerous precedents, and very dangerous double-standards.
The disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing many indigenous people experience is very sad. But they should still experience the full weight of the law for crimes they commit, along with everyone else. And frankly, indigenous communities should take a hell of a lot more responsibility for improving the dysfunction in their communities rather than sitting back and blaming everbody and everything else.
In conclusion, upsetting though this may be, my comment is that if there are too many indigenous people in jail, and we want this to decline, then indigenous people should stop committing so much crime. The answer is NOT to treat them with extra leniency in the criminal system.
The other avenues of addressing their problems, including self-responsibility, are the avenues that need pursuing instead.
10 Oct 2013 12:21:38pm
One set of laws yes but a fair system for all ??
How about rich people being able to buy the best lawyers? Is that not unfair? ALS and Legal Aid struggle to deliver a good service.
How about white collar crime receiving fair penalties?
This comment is another motherhood statement taht has little meaning in the real world.
The laws do not change. Privilidge and disadvantage are real and need undersatnding not oversimplification.
10 Oct 2013 1:39:54pm
I think that this view that we should have one strict system of criminal sentencing leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't take into account the original disadvantage that leads to criminal acts. Yes we must treat everyone as equals, but this should be in terms of the basic human rights afforded to everyone and not how many years in prison we dish out. Imposing a culturally inappropriate and unyielding justice system on a group of people shows a complete lack of empathy and understanding of the importance of culture and context in law. What's more, from the statistics it seems (unsurprisingly) not to be working! So should we be so concerned about someone receiving "the full weight of the law" under any circumstances, whether it is working or not, just because of some dogmatic and misguided sense of morality? Or should we be pragmatic and human, and try to find a solution that takes into account cultural difference and societal disadvantage? It has to be said, that if someone is to experience the "full weight of the law" in committing a crime, then by rights they should also have experienced the benefits: socially, economically and spiritually, in a way that is equal to the rest of the society that is bound by those laws.
10 Oct 2013 3:46:23pm
Simon that is exactly what the High Court has said. All people should be subject to the same law and the same principles of sentencing.
In sentencing ANYONE the High Court said that the judge must take into acocunt the circumstances of their background. For example if someone kills another becasue of a history of domestic violence it is recognised that this level of disadvantage must be taken into account when sentencing. Otherwise you are saying that the effects of domestic violence diminish over time and one should get used to it.
Forget that Bugmy was aboriginal. The same principle applies to anyone with significant disadvantage.
10 Oct 2013 6:04:56pm
"Why can't we have this? Because this sets very dangerous precedents, and very dangerous double-standards"
What you really mean Simon is that we can't have double standards that advantage aboriginals, clearly we already have double standards that disadvantage them. Why aren't you concerned about that?
Also, what evidence do you cite for the extrodinary propensity for aboriginal criminality? Or did you mean something else when you said " ... indigenous people should stop committing so much crime."
10 Oct 2013 8:48:04pm
The evidence you seek can be found in the case law of any court and behind the bars of any prison, Mycal.
leigh of Tregevis:
10 Oct 2013 9:50:46am
And while mainstream Australia has this distorted view of Aboriginal life we will not be able to recognise the valuable contribution to the wealth and culture (incl humour) of our nation by it's original inhabitants.
And we are much the weaker Nation because of that omission.
I am looking forward to the next series of Redfern!
10 Oct 2013 11:51:14am
Gee, what sort of contribution can we expect from a violent repeat offender who has spent 19 out of 31 years in gaol, and is diconnected from his people and his culture ?
Get off your soapbox and open your eyes.
10 Oct 2013 2:54:30pm
Perhaps then, leigh, you might educate us, in great detail, about these valuable contributions? Keep in mind that any contribution that can't be quantified and detailed is no contribution at all.
10 Oct 2013 9:52:43am
Do non-aboriginals with a similar level of poverty and disadvantage criminally offend at the same level as aboriginals?
For the same background, and the same offending, are aboriginals treated any differently?
They're the key questions I'd have been keen to learn the answers to. Until we know that, it's disingenuous to throw around the claim of racism.
Kevin McNulty:
10 Oct 2013 10:47:19am
Lad u need to walk a day in our lives and u might get it......
10 Oct 2013 11:58:03am
I'm not being sarcastic or snarky or denying that many aboriginals have had a truly tough time.
I'm just wondering if the criminality reported is due to the system treating aborigines differently, or if it is due to socio-economic factors where people who aren't aborigines but are similarly poor offend at the same rates
10 Oct 2013 2:08:29pm
Andy 1 in 100 Americans are currently in prisons mostly blacks, hispanics and poorer people
The rates are rising with declining wages as both parents have to work and often have a second or even a third job. The kids are being raised by TV. Out on the streets they get up to strife.
11 Oct 2013 8:37:02am
some 80% of prisoners in the US system are there for simple drug possession
11 Oct 2013 9:12:48am
@Gorgon: how does that relate to the story (Aboriginal over-representation in "Australian" prisons)? Unless you can draw a line to similar incarceration rates in Australia, it is merely an interesting factoid.
11 Oct 2013 9:59:40am
was in response to Rae, offering clarification as to the factors leading to high incarceration rates in the US, indicating Rae's analogy does not apply to Australia
Ben the lawyer:
10 Oct 2013 12:21:45pm
I note you didn't answer any of his questions.
10 Oct 2013 2:52:53pm
How you tell who's the lawyer in the room?
Don't need to, because they will definitely tell you.
10 Oct 2013 12:42:11pm
and in return would you like to walk a day in mine?
Our pain always seems greater because it is our own. An inability to empathise with others, to see things only from our own perspective, is what causes so much mess in the first place.
10 Oct 2013 12:47:33pm
We do.
It's called being a human being.
10 Oct 2013 11:00:00am
Well like the subject of this piece, I am an Aboriginal male, born into an impoverished family background in country NSW.
Unlike the subject of this piece I was taught by my family that hard work, honesty and kindness where the virtues to aspire to, rather than resorting to criminality and violence as a way of life. Consequently all 7 of my brother and sister are highly educated, healthy, happy and have never spent a day in jail, let alone our entire adult lives!!
This latest offence against my people has less to do with racial identity, and more to do with left wing socialists wanting to keep Aboriginal people in their place, downtrodden and dysfunctional, so as to make those people feel like they have a cause to support.
Aboriginality is not a license to crime, it is a proud racial identity that has survived 60 000 years in this country, including the last 200+ and I reject any notion that my racial background gives me or my children permission to behave like thugs and cretins.
10 Oct 2013 12:12:15pm
Sean - *I* am a left wing socialist, and even I love what you wrote and couldn't agree more.
10 Oct 2013 12:20:27pm
Hear, hear! This is the attitude that will empower Aborigines and assure the future of their communities.
10 Oct 2013 12:25:37pm
I thought this was about recognising and understanding disadantage. your strengths were a matter of luck and chance.
Being taught a survival skill was to your benefit. Your ethnicity did not decide your life skills.
The man at the centre of this story was not so lucky.
Using your life story to tell others how their lives should be, appears unfair and judgemental.
10 Oct 2013 3:26:23pm
My "strengths" were a result of my parents making a rational decision to create a better future for themselves and their children, rather than wallowing in self pity and despair.
You call this "luck"?? I think most people would say luck has nothing to do with being a decent human being who creates a decent future for their children.
Oh, and you must have missed the part where I stated that my family background is very much similar to this mans, an impoverished rural Aboriginal background. I didnt have the "luck" to be born into an edgy middle class inner city family of left wing pseudo-intellectuals...
You exemplify everything I despise about left wing socialists and their "causes"...stay out of the business of Aboriginal people!!
10 Oct 2013 8:19:05pm
Luck is true for all of us.
Your parents were fortunate to stay strong and to pass on those qualities to you. I dont know their story.
I do know many other peoples stories where they did not do so well.
Poverty and trauma is part of many peoples lives. Many survive and thrive. Many do not do well.
You are saying that every one should be like you because you have succeeded? Thats pretty selfcentred.
Good for you. I make no excuses for violence and crime. I still suggest that you were lucky to survive and thrive.
I agree that "wallowing in self pity and despair" is not helpful but it takes more than an order to "get over it" or "work harder" or "forget the past" for people to move through pain and trauma. What has worked for you does not have to work for everyone else.
I am sorry that you "despise" what these words represent for you. They are only words. Yes words have power but your reaction appears "over the top"
Your opinionated "stay out of the business..." comments shows an intolerance for other world views.Like all of us, you appear to have some personal work to do.
Your views do not represent all people.
The same way that the Courts saw fit to reduce this mans punishment. One judgment was overrulled by anothers.
Brutal punishment is an "old world" view of getting justice. There are other ways of seeing the world too.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 12:32:04pm
Couldn't agree more.
Every man or woman has the right and opportunity to be proud of themselves and their history in this country.
Using it as an excuse to demand bias due to perceived bias and absolve yourself of criminal actions just tarnishes all of that groups pride in their identity. Not to say you should but if I were Aborigional I'd feel affronted by this case and the position the author takes. I'd rather be a proud individual and Aborigional person than be continually telling everybody I'm a victim of it and how it justifies my poor behaviour and lack of personal progression in life.
10 Oct 2013 12:48:55pm
You sound just like the vast majority of human beings on this planet.
10 Oct 2013 12:55:09pm
Well said mate.
I wish people like you were the primary voice for indigenous culture in this country.
10 Oct 2013 12:55:59pm
Exactly - Aborignality does not pre-determine whether you will be a criminal - it's about your upbringing and the choices you make.
As long as some members of the aboriginal population (and white apologists) continue to play the victim-from-birth card and pass on intergenerational hatred and excuses, nothing will change.
More voice needs to given to people like Sean and his family who are rightfully proud of their heritage - but don't use it as a convenient excuse for their criminal behaviour.
10 Oct 2013 12:57:40pm
41 yr old Aboriginal male here I too was born into poverty in a alcohol domestic violence background, NEVER once did I EVER think it was alright to do the wrong thing by the law, I have never thought being Aboriginal and poor made it less of an offense if you break the law. I just had to look around and see what was right and wrong by the law and this society. I was told by many different people what was legal and illegal. I too suffered all the self loathing you have as a young aboriginal male in a non-aboriginal dominated society. I got over it and realized to be happy in this society I had to leave all the negative cultural things learned in my community and in the broader community behind (Unfortunately the most horrible ugly racism still exists in this society its a real shock I know right). I got educated and have found gainful employment and function within the law. The things that stick with me the most is my single mother being turned down application after application for a rental house with two aboriginal kids in tow in the 70's, and the determination to keep trying until she got one. Her example of how to succeed in this country is what drove me on to be the man I am today. It is simply wrong to have 2 sets of rules in this society. Taking into consideration ones background is all well and good for sentencing but its a very slippery slope in my honest opinion. It is simply NOT right to blind another human being in this society and get a reduced sentence because of background. While there are legal grounds for this and most of society do not understand the nuances of law myself included this simply cannot be right. The law needs to be applied equally to all Australians regardless of background.
10 Oct 2013 1:21:05pm
Thank you for your balanced and realistic comments.
10 Oct 2013 2:23:14pm
It is a shame that not many people think like you though, Sean.
I believe that the Indigenous people have the will power to rise against the terrible backgrounds that they may come from, much like you.
I also believe, however, that the way to teach them that is not to treat them like children who need their diapers changed.
It is because I believe in this that I disagree with specialist laws and exceptions that treat one race of people differently from another, as I believe that it contributes to the problem, rather than solving it.
10 Oct 2013 5:07:34pm
Sean, I have a work colleague, black Aborigine with university degree. He has got exactly the same view as you have. He has repeated many times that the 'Aboriginal professional blame industry' has done enormous harm to the Aboriginal people. It has made a lot of money, mainly for 'the blame industry' itself, while not doing anything for the future of the Aboriginal people. It made them welfare dependant and it made the rest of the Australians believe that ALL Aborigines are lazy, welfare recipients, drunken child molesters, continuously complaining for more money benefits and privileges. Because of that, most Australians are no longer sympathetic about the plight of the Australian Aborigines. They hate them as the lazy, privileged race, living on the welfare and always complain for more.
I am really glad about your post. It confirms everything I heard from my work colleague. I wish more white Australians would be in position to meet and hear from people like yourselves. I can assure you that public opinion about the Aboriginal people would be quite different.
10 Oct 2013 6:34:32pm
I suppose I should applaud, but the fact is I don't believe your experience is characteristic of most aboriginals. Some, no doubt but not a signifcant proprtion.
I remember a discussion about the injustices suffered by disadvantaged people, the context was developing a campaign to increase public awareness of disability. One suggestion was that we should focus on disadvantaged people who have made enormous social contributions (Ceaser suffered from epilepsy, President Roosevelt had polio, Milton was blind, Stephen Hawkins has Motornueron disease etc - you get the picture). It was pointed out (by the disabled people at the meeting) that it was wrong to focus on what they referred to as the "super crips", whose life experience is nothing like that the vast majority of disadvantaged people.
Just because you are exceptional person doesn't mean everyone else is and your personal experience is not a good basis for public policy. I also note that you don't actually indicate what you think might be an appropriate social policy to lift your bretheren out of poverty and disadvantage. And as a person with socially progressive views I totally reject your view that " left wing socialists wanting to keep Aboriginal people in their place, downtrodden and dysfunctional, so as to make those people feel like they have a cause to support" because it's not about you or aboriginals, it's about how I relate to other people and how I want society to reflect my values.
10 Oct 2013 9:28:35pm
Well this is once again the reason why there is so much Aboriginal disadvantage...
Firstly at no stage did I suggest that I am an "exceptional person", nor that my life experience should be used as a template for any government policy. I stated that the solution relies in parenting and building a future, not remaining in some self centred quagmire of despair (usually externally imposed), where the cycle of dysfunction continues.
Just in case you missed it, there are MANY Aboriginal people who work hard, educate their children and raise them in safe and loving environments looking to the future. Im sorry if you in your limited experience believe that all Aboriginal people are disadvantaged illiterate drunks rolling in the dust, but I believe that this says more about your experience and outlook than about Aboriginal people.
As for framing any public policy, I offer no suggestion apart from rejecting this notion that Aboriginal people are so inadequate that we need some whitefella with dreads to speak on behalf of us, as though we are all perpetual children without any idea of the wider world just needing our betters to wrap us up in a bit more cotton wool.
Aboriginal people are finally finding our voice and we wont be spoken on our behalf by inner city sophisticates more intent on gaining social cachet than achieving any real change for Aboriginal people. You say its not about you or Aboriginal people, but this is not how we see it. DONT speak on OUR behalf!
And for your further information, its Aboriginal, with a capital A...
Anthony Dillon:
10 Oct 2013 10:36:10pm
Nicely said Sean. Soon the usual suspects will be calling you a coconut, a sell-out, and an uncle Tom. Stories like yours are not uncommon.
Jungle Boy:
10 Oct 2013 11:36:29am
The answer to each of your questions is essentially yes.
That is the clear recollection from my Criminal Justice Studies.
Unfortunately Aboriginals tend to be significantly poorer and less educated than the average Australian, and so Aboriginals figure higher in the crime statistics.
The racism comes from those who ignore these fundamental causes and persist in highlighting the higher crime rate among Aboriginals as if its inherent (either in Aboriginals or in the justice system).
10 Oct 2013 2:17:12pm
I don't believe this Jungle Boy.
If all the closet aboriginal descendants identified themselves I think you might be surprised.
It isn't a problem of ability but of circumstance.
Specialised schooling and targeted services need to be provided with the input of the people involved.
Quit talking about them and start talking to them.
social anathema:
10 Oct 2013 4:31:32pm
A couple of examples, eh?
There was a mixed group of male teenagers waiting for a bus to go home after seeing a movie. The police came along and picked up the Aboriginal kid and left the white boys standing at the bus stop. If there was any evidence of wrong doing, why weren't the white boys under equal suspicion?
A respected and respectable Aboriginal public servant went on official business to speak to a well known Aboriginal radical, who was often in trouble for his outspoken radicalism. The Aboriginal public servant was arrested and spent a night in the lockup for "consorting with criminals." The white officials who were with him were not arrested.
I'm sure that there are many such examples of criminalising Aboriginal people around.
10 Oct 2013 9:55:14am
I was fairly sympathetic to Mr Bellear's article until once again the "aboriginals are somehow different" was dragged into the mix.
Nobody would be even mildly interested in the case if all it did was to re-emphasise that background must be taken into account when sentencing. (Though I do think that 4 years for an unprovoked attack that left a man blinded for life is not too harsh).
What has concerned people is the well justified belief that now the case will be used as a blanket precedent for leniency based on race. It was when Mr Bennear wheeled out this argument that he lost me.
(I sincerely hope that his call for a completely separate legal system for some citizens is not serious. A race based legal system: and no doubt Mr Sollowear criticised South Africa's apartheid! )
As a final point, Mr Sollear states:
"In fact, he is more disadvantaged today than he was at the age of 12. He's more institutionalised, he has a greater sense of hopelessness, and he's more disconnected from his people and his culture."
Yet his argument is based on the fact that Mr Bugmy's present situation has been caused by the very background that he now claims would have saved Mr Bugmy. Having heard about the early life of Mr Bugmy, I was struck by the fact that had a non-Aboriginal child been found in such a condition, he or she would have been taken into care. "Stolen" if you like. There is a good chance that Mr Bugmny would not be in jail now had this occurred.
My despair is that because of the sentimental evidence-free "Stolen Children" report, hundreds of Mr Bugmys are being led into lives of despair rather than promise.
"Either Aboriginal people are the biggest criminals on earth, genetically pre-disposed to crime, or there's something seriously wrong with our criminal justice system."
There is another explanation: that encouraging people to absolve themselves of responsibility will lead to offences against society. Not racism, but the encouragement of a culture that cannot exist in a modern multi-cultural society. (Please note, I am not referring to traditional Aboriginal culture but the "poor fella me" culture encouraged by the ALS and other race based institutions.)
The biggest thing that could help the Mr Bugmy's of our society would be to wipe out all race based legislation (such as that incorporating the ALS) and treat people as individuals with both rights and responsibilities.
10 Oct 2013 12:03:19pm
Sadly, Terry, the demand for a completely separate legal system for some citizens is quite serious. Aboriginal activists like Bellear consider themselves above the law based solely on their membership in their particular racial identity group.
10 Oct 2013 2:55:40pm
Closer to identifying with aboriginality than membership of a group I expect. Makes no sense to me either way.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 12:30:34pm
from the article
" he was fostered at the age of 12 and in jail by the age of 13, where he has spent most of his adult life"
from Terry's analysis
"I was struck by the fact that had a non-Aboriginal child been found in such a condition, he or she would have been taken into care. "Stolen" if you like. There is a good chance that Mr Bugmny would not be in jail now had this occurred."
um, er, foster care?
Isn't that what happened?
10 Oct 2013 2:40:17pm
Dubious - unfortunately for many aboriginal youth, "foster care" for them just means a relative or another aboriginal person who just gets a few extra dollars to "foster" these kids. Because of the rules regarding fostering indigenous youth they are usually placed with a relative or another aboriginal foster carer to ensure they have a connection with their racial background. This may mean that they may not be set up with the best of carers and instead be sent to live with someone just looking for a cash payment. It is a sad insight into the foster care industry.
10 Oct 2013 4:58:13pm
I believe he was fostered after seeing his father stab his mother multiple times. I am not sure, but I believe she died.
In other words, only removed when there was no alternative. The racism that condemns young aboriginals to live in conditions no other child would be forced to endure has been increasing since the "Stolen Children" report. No other "race" has such "rights". As far as I know, there is no requirement that a child of say anglo-celtic background must be fostered/adopted by a family of the same heritage. Why must aboriginal children be treated differently?
When parents show they are incapable or unwilling to provide a secure and healthy upbringing, the State must step in, regardless of emotive nonsense about "inherent" and undetectable heritages. Children are human beings first, and cultural artefacts way down the list.
10 Oct 2013 6:39:32pm
In the NT at least, indigenous kids are nearly always fostered out to someone in their own family. Extremely rarely are they fostered away from their family group.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 9:19:47pm
Latest figures I saw was that less than half the kids are removed to culturally appropriate settings.
As to the "quality" of white foster parents, there are probably some in it for the money, some for more gallant reasons, and some for reasons that a Royal Commission is now being conducted.
10 Oct 2013 12:43:50pm
"There is another explanation: that encouraging people to absolve themselves of responsibility will lead to offences against society. "
This is probably the most intelligent thing I've heard in the comment section for ages!
10 Oct 2013 10:01:47am
What's missing here is the lack of justice for the Correctional Officer who lost an eye due to the actions of this person. The truth is that if it had been a white man who committed this act of grievous bodily harm he would have been given at the very least 8 years and declared a serious violent offender and made to serve at least 6 years before being considered for parole. The fact that this person had a bad upbringing in no way mitigates his offence.
10 Oct 2013 10:01:58am
The main reason that Aboriginals are doing so poorly is tat all the incentives that they are given encourage them to do so. When you are given free housing and money for being unwilling to work where is the incentive to get a job. Combined with additional money for having children, with the money not dependent on those children achieving anything with there lives and you get the current circumstances, although this is a problem that applies to all welfare communities and not just Aboriginals. Australia must provide food and shelter for those that can not provide it for themselves and quality schooling for children. However, this should be done by giving those that need it actual food and shelter, not just a lump of money which gets used on drugs and alcohol and the children go hungry and get abused.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 11:23:05am
The Government has tried that with the modern day food stamp equivellent. the 'Basics Credit Card'. It's seen as completely racist by the majority, as the majority institution of the program was directed at Aborigionals. Forget the fact it was targetted at areas of disadvantage and high rates of youth malnutrition due to mis-spent welfare instead of at one race. Not sure if it was scrapped or not but apparently you can't target welfare control methods where it's needed because it's racist somehow.
10 Oct 2013 3:50:02pm
Living in a town like mine, I can tell you that the Basics Credit Card is still in force.
10 Oct 2013 6:41:19pm
Love your consistency Tom, you want aboriginals to live like modern Australians and "move on from the past", yet it's okay to implement "welfare control" methods that only apply to them.
And yes, it is racist when it's applied only to aboriginals, it's parternalist when it's applied to all welfare recipients . But I guess both are acceptable to you.
Can't wait for the "work for the dole" program.
10 Oct 2013 10:04:34am
I get it. But all I can think of is the guard who has lost sight in one eye. How is such behaviour excusable regardless of ethnicity? I am concerned that such an article creates a justification and a victim mentality which helps no-one.
white man from Ipswich :
10 Oct 2013 10:06:53am
Thanks Sol for reminding me again about the reality between the diffrences in opportunity that aboriginal people have and the middle classes and the wealthy in our society have.
As the old lament used to go" its the same the whole world over its the poor what gets the blame! its the rich what gets the pleasure, aint it all a bloomin shame "
10 Oct 2013 12:06:34pm
It's not really an Aboriginal/ indigenous issue, although they are over-represented in the statistical analysis. As others have commented, the statistical analysis might prove nothing more than more indigenous offenders commit more serious crimes in Australia than other jurisdictions.
Walk down to your nearest public housing estate and you also will find children from non-indigenous backgrounds growing up in a blended family with drug addicted/ alcoholic/ violent/ frequently incarcerated fathers or a cycle of different step-fathers.
This is the result of 100 years of socially experimenting with the idea that anything goes and everyone is entitled to claim on the State for the whole of their lives, without any responsibility for personal decisions they have made.
It has reached the stage where we cannot afford the resources to monitor or protect more than a few of the children so affected.
The High Court judgement accepts that as a matter of principle, that sort of socio-economic background has an effect on the limited opportunities people have. Thats OK.
The issue is why Mr. Bellear thinks "his" people have a special entitlement to be treated separately on the basis of their "race"; and how odd that seems coming from a person opposed to "racist institutions".
10 Oct 2013 10:10:40am
It is a bold claim, Sol Bellear, that Aboriginal control is the ONLY remedy. There also has to be sustained and adequately funded provision of the pre-conditions for human well-being. Many of these pre-conditions such as healthy food, clean water, sanitation services will inevitably be supplied by mainstream governments and operatives.
Wholesome food deserves a special mention and should be race-neutral. No person can function as a capable human being unless they receive adequate supplies of the essential nutrients necessary for physical health and mental stability. Let's run food programs in schools and ban caffeinated drinks from tuckshops then see if this has any effect on antisocial behaviour and individual disadvantage . This is one pre-condition that is not sufficient by itself but is quite essential for well-being.
spook weno:
10 Oct 2013 10:12:28am
@Wagner Von Trot
"Of course you will be free to buy these things from us at market rates" No worries Wagner, you will be free to buy the minerals from Aboriginal land that are currently propping up the Australian economy...At market rates of course
big joe:
10 Oct 2013 11:32:03am
And what aboriginal land would that be Spook? Aboriginals have the right to obtain the ownership of land using the same method as the rest of us do, buying it. All land not privately owned is crown land and theoretically belongs to us all, notice I say all, not one particular racial group. This free lunch mentality needs to disappear before the aboriginal people can expect to be accepted as equals.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 11:34:09am
Aborigional groups representing Land titled Aborigional lands meet with the representatives of the Mining companies and barter deals for mining rights. Wagner would be buying the minerals from the mining companies like everybody else. Generally these are sold O/S or at or above market rates at home depending on the market price. Unless Wagner is a prospecting mining company your point is moot.
Hypothetically if the Aborigional Land consortiums inflated the price of mining rights as, opposed to the cost of the actual minerals, then the mining companies would look elsewhere O/S to go digging where the cost of exploration and extraction is lowest when compared to the market price of the minerals to extract maximum profit. This is why the mining tax stifled mining in this country and why they would be extremely silly to do so under any sort of tit for tat because they'd kill the investment potential entirely and Wagner would still have his minerals, they'd just be from Brazil or Africa.
10 Oct 2013 12:58:24pm
I think that will be balanced out when you look at the services, support and handouts that Aboriginal and mixed race people have been given over the years.
10 Oct 2013 1:39:23pm
Who do you imagine will dig the minerals up?
10 Oct 2013 10:16:25am
I can appreciate the thinking behind the Court's decision, and assume the same logic would apply to any disadvantaged person, irrespective of whether they are aboriginal or not. I also assume it wouldn't apply to those aborigines who are not disadvantaged.
I am concerned, however, about whether the idea that the assailant should have disadvantage taken into account, really is fair to the victims. Many of the victims are aborigines themselves, often the wives and children, and they are as disadvantaged as those who assault them. Does reduced sentencing for the perpetrator not increase the victims' future risks? How does that all balance out? How do the rights of one aborigine weigh up against the rights of others not to have to put up with violence?
Incidentally, I have a lot of trouble with the author's argument that he looks forward to a High Court decision that would find that no court has a right to sit in judgement on his people. First, because I think there should be one code of justice for all. Second, because, logically, an aborigine who commits a crime in a non-aboriginal area against non-aborigines should no more expect exemption from the law on grounds of being a "sovereign nation" than he would if he'd committed the offence in Italy or China. And third, because, if the Court rules it has not authority over aborigines, then its ruling surely negates its right to make such a ruling in the first place.
10 Oct 2013 12:08:58pm
I wouldn't worry about the demand for sovereignty and for Indigenous Australians to be above the law, frangipani. In their judgement in Mabo II all seven Justices of the High Court found against Aboriginal sovereignty and there's very, VERY little possibility that any future makeup of the High Court will ever rule that one racial identity group is above the law.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 2:15:18pm
They found that the unceded Sovereignty of the First Peoples was not judicable in a Crown Court, since they are but servants of their Crown Sovereign.
That is not the same as finding against it.
Just because the western concept of Sovereignty is so inexplicably entwined in bloodline and race, does not make this a question of race, it's a matter of Sovereignty.
10 Oct 2013 7:08:42pm
@Dubious: From reading your comments, I don't think you have a clue what the western definition of sovereignty is. I'd have said the definition you attribute to western society is in fact far more applicable to aboriginal societies, not just here but in Africa, the Americas and the Polar regions.
10 Oct 2013 12:18:08pm
The High Court decision has been published and is available for reading. The majority judgement stands for the logical thinking you refer to.
The case does not stand for the proposition that every Aboriginal accused should be treated differently (which apparently is what Mr. Bellear wants); but for the proposition that a person with a disadvantaged background is entitiled to have that background considered, sometimes in a way that will mitigate the sentence, regardless of the passage of time.
The effect of the decision was to return Mr. Bugmy's case to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, because the High Court ruled that in NSW, the CCA had not found the original sentence to be "manifestly inadequate" which was the actual ground of the appeal brought by the NSW DPP.
The end result may still be that the original sentence is increased, if the CCA finds it to have been "manifestly inadequate" (although in coming to that decision, the CCA will need to consider the effect of Mr. Bugmy's childhood experiences on an appropriate sentence).
10 Oct 2013 1:50:57pm
Points well made I think frangipani. The thought that victims of aboriginal violence are mainly aboriginal and, more often than not, women occurred to me as well. As you point out the consequence of more lenient sentencing of aboriginal men is that their victims enjoy less justice and are placed at risk again sooner. Why does Mr Bellear not care about the victims?
10 Oct 2013 6:48:18pm
"I can appreciate the thinking behind the Court's decision, and assume the same logic would apply to any disadvantaged person, irrespective of whether they are aboriginal or not. "
One thing I do find curious about this debate, if disadvanatge has to be taken into account, particularly for redcused sentencing. How come advantage is not taken into account for increased sentencing? I mean it seems only fair. I do note that it occurs sometimes, particularly when the crime also involves a "breech of the public trust" but I am thinking it should be uiversal. Might lead to things like ... Oh don't know, more care with travel expenses perhaps?
10 Oct 2013 10:16:26am
Aboriginal or not, Mr Bugmy is one of us - an Australian. His patent stupidity or insouciance in failing to learn from past incarceration is his choice. The partial blindness of his victim is also his choice. Mr Bugmy's claimed mental inadequacy could not possibly blind him to the fact that billiard balls to the face are dangerous things.
I too, Mr Bellear will not celebrate Mr Bugmy's win in the courts.
10 Oct 2013 6:51:06pm
chauvin it is patently obvious that Mr Bugmy has learnt many things from his incarceration. That they were lessons we did not want him to learn should have told you something about Mr Bellear's article but obviously not.
10 Oct 2013 10:16:54am
The message here seems to be 'Aboriginals only commit crimes because they're disadvantaged, so they shouldn't get jail time for it.' I don't see any reason to agree with this. Would Bellear make the same argument in defence of white offenders? Of course he wouldn't.
Bellear says:
--'Either Aboriginal people are the biggest criminals on earth, genetically pre-disposed to crime, or there's something seriously wrong with our criminal justice system.'
This is a false dichotomy. It's a fact that the Aboriginal crime rate is higher than that of any other ethnicity in Australia. The reasons are complex and cannot be reduced to any single factor.
Bellear refers to the high rate of Aboriginals in custody as if it has nothing to do with the high rate of Aboriginal crime. It's almost as if he believes they're being locked up arbitrarily. Needless to say, he offers no solution.
Reducing disadvantage will reduce crime, but disadvantage itself should not be used as am automatic get-out-of-jail-free card. Here's a thought: if we stopped jailing Aboriginal offenders, would the Aboriginal crime rate drop or increase?
10 Oct 2013 6:52:37pm
Dave if you want the crime rate to drop, just repeal the criminal code.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 10:17:20am
"He's more institutionalised, he has a greater sense of hopelessness, and he's more disconnected from his people and his culture. And as he serves more and more time in prison, he's less able to be re-integrated back into his community, and his family." Yes, Correct, he's in jail for breaking the law his whole life and hurting numerous people.
Personally i blame the evil prison guard who victimised him by stepping in front of the pool ball hurled at his face causing him to lose his sight in that eye forever. Obviously a selfish racist in cahoots with a swanky judge looking to stitch up the black man.
Unfortunately Judges are usually well educated and the majority come from schooling and means to obtain good education. Bogan Halfwit judges won't cure perceived racism and multi-million dollar taxpayer funded High court challenges on behalf of thugs and
dangerous criminals under the guise of fighting racism won't bridge any gaps toward bias either. Let him rot for his crimes and spend the excessive taxpayer funds handed out on educating the Aborigional youth so they don't follow his life path. Hold him up as an example of what NOT to become instead of holding him up as a poor martyr victimised by whitey and an excuse for all to never strive to acheive.
10 Oct 2013 10:17:36am
The extension of this argument is that offenders like Mr Bugmy are essentially given imunity from prosecution/sentencing because of their disadvantaged background. Where is the 'justice' then (let alone protection) for the victims of the violent crime which are, more often than not, aboriginal women and children?
While I understand it is a vexed issue, there are so many problems with this article/arguments. If anything it seems to demonstrate that a large problem for the aboriginal community is that they have advocates like Sol Bellear arguing their case. 100% victimhood and no responsibility.
10 Oct 2013 6:57:37pm
"The extension of this argument ..."
Then lets not extend it, lets deal with it on its merits and consider the evidence on its face value?
Bugmy was disadvantaged and victimised all his life and give very little chance to develop as a normal person.
Incarcertation of Bugmy made his anti-social and criminal conduct worse
These two facts whould be taken into account when sentencing Mr Bugmy
Doesn't sound like the end of civilisation to me.
10 Oct 2013 10:19:15am
And your alternative is ... ?
10 Oct 2013 10:20:38am
"The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people."
The role of a court is to sit in judgement of one person (the accused), not "my people". A mature community looks for opportunity and inspiration to succeed, not blame everyone else for their failure.
Aboriginal incarceration is high because Aboriginal commit crime in a far higher proportion of the population than other peoples: unlike South Africa's apartheid which you so cravenly compare your community to, there is no political element in relation to Australian indigenous incarceration.
10 Oct 2013 7:02:09pm
"Aboriginal incarceration is high because Aboriginal commit crime in a far higher proportion of the population than other peoples"
You mean they're nothing more than natural borne criminals!? I think there's a Phd and a Nobel prize for the reasearcher that can identify the gene!
Of course if it's not genetic you might have to ask what is so different about the life experience of aboriginals that leads to such criminality? Or perhaps they're just getting back at us for us getting at them?
10 Oct 2013 10:22:05am
Feel free to correct me if you think I have got this wrong.
Two boys grow up together in an Australian country town one is causation the other from aboriginal decent due to an error of judgment they both become involved in a criminal offense.
Taken before the courts found guilty the causation boy gets a custodial sentence the aboriginal boy gets a suspended sentence that's the Australian version of justice. MMMM.
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 12:54:46pm
I believe you are putting causation where there isn't any.
It would depend on the level of disadvantaged background of the white kid too, would it not?
10 Oct 2013 1:52:29pm
You've got it wrong, yes.
The fact is that it is far more likely the indigenous youth will be incarcerated if the current statistics are anything to go by. The Australian version of justice is to heavily punish indigenous males, incarcerating them in circumstances where rehabilitation is more appropriate. It's the same situation in the USA with African American and Native American males, the same in New Zealand with Maoris, the same in South Africa, the same everywhere where white people have settled and disenfranchised the native people.
What nobody in the comments has mentioned is the fact that education is the key. If you want to solve the problem, you have to start to resolve the disparity between access to education for white Australians and indigenous Australians. Once everyone is on a level playing field from birth, only then will things change.
Punishment is a bandaid and so long as people continue to believe that indigenous Australians want to be poor and uneducated because they get everything "handed to them" then these crime statistics will not change. It is ridiculous to believe that Aboriginal people choose to be socially disadvantaged and not have the opportunities that their white counterparts receive to succeed. That is just wrong.
If you choose to ignore the fact that this is a problem globally where white settlement has ravished entire populations, then you will never see an answer. The truth is that 200 years in a 60,000 year history is merely a dot in time. It will take a long time to undo the massive damage that was done by white settlement and it takes an open mind to start.
Lehan Ramsay:
10 Oct 2013 10:22:34am
There was a huge effort put into looking at aboriginal deaths in prisons, a huge finding that said that it was an issue that was really hurting aboriginal people, a huge wave of sentiment and a determination to have a better way for aboriginal people to live and thrive. That was years ago. But we are still so heavily reliant on the legal system, the prison system, systems of punishment, exile and forgetting. It isn't surprising really that the systems that were used on us, to make us fit to the outside of England, to contribute as serfs and labourers, should have difficulty thinking back up to an equal level and so to a different system. Sometimes I wonder if this refugee issue makes us blind to what we are as a society. Now we import others.
10 Oct 2013 11:46:50am
Are you aware that the Royal Commission found that an aboriginal in custody was actually less likely to die than one outside custody, others things being equal? In other words, that taking an aboriginal into custody actually extended his or her life expectancy?
That bit was never publicised.
But it is well known that nobody was ever convicted an offence. Plenty of baseless accusations, but nothing more. Proof of entrenched racism? Or that there never were any offences? Given the complete lack of evidence of any criminal behaviour the latter seems the most reasonable.
I suggest less trying to blame everything on Western society and a little more concentration on facts and solutions.
10 Oct 2013 12:18:25pm
Perhaps you should re-read that report, Lehan. It stated that Indigenous Australians are NOT overrepresented when it comes to deaths in custody. An Indigenous prisoner has statistically no more chance of dying in custody than a prisoner of any other race. There are a greater number of Indigenous deaths in custody ONLY because there are a greater number of Indigenous Australians in custody just as there are far fewer Indian deaths in custody because there are far fewer Indians in custody .
dubious the third:
10 Oct 2013 2:18:33pm
Which led to one of the major recommendations of the Royal Commission which was to reduce incarceration rates, however, these have increased markedly over the subsequent decades
10 Oct 2013 8:55:41pm
We don't and shouldn't reduce the incarceration rate of one group just because that group commits a greater number of crimes, dubious. Men commit more crimes in general then women, far more violent crimes than women and far, far more sexual crimes than women. Would you also support a reduction in the incarceration rate of men or does your idea only apply to people of the "right" race?
Lehan Ramsay:
10 Oct 2013 5:31:50pm
Well I can't exactly reply to reaver and Terry as I never read the report. Yep. I never read the report. I think it was a bit early in my adult life, that one. So rightfully you should disregard what I have to say.
But as to blaming everything on Western society, what do you mean? What is this Western society. Ours? Or the one that made ours. As far as I can see we're kind of second generation "Western Society". A Western society that spawned a Western society. And that's what I'm talking about here Terry, and that's what you didn't address.
Please don't expect me to follow you on this one, if you cannot follow my thinking you should refrain from commenting on it.
It was found that aboriginal people were not corrected by our Corrections systems. It was a good finding. It could have led us to the realization that we ourselves are not corrected by our Corrections systems. But of course we did not think of that.
10 Oct 2013 10:22:49am
Thanks for this article. I haven't been following this story but the few passing headlines I have noticed gave a very clear impression that the High Court ruling related to consideration for Aboriginal people only.
10 Oct 2013 12:57:12pm
No it was clearly stated in the ruling that a persons state of being disadvantaged should or could be taken into consideration when sentencing. I think you will find it was just highlighted that this case involved an aboriginal man and many jumped on the bandwagon. It has some merit in early crimes where there is a chance of turning the offending activities around , however I dont believe that a repeat or serial offender should be able to use it is any sort of defence regardless of their ethnicity
10 Oct 2013 10:25:13am
At times you wonder if High Court judges become are like football umpires they just crave attention and a poor decision assures it.
10 Oct 2013 1:56:10pm
I don't think the decision was necessarily a poor one; I think this article is, though.
10 Oct 2013 10:31:21am
Justice Hoeben's comments: "Mr Bugmy, we've sentenced you to jail numerous times. Indeed you've spent most of your life behind bars. And yet you continue to offend. I am at a loss to understand why extended jail time has not set you straight. You clearly have not learned your lesson, nor, despite our repeated intervention, found a way to overcome your tragic background".
Justice Hoeben needs to listen to Johnny Cash's, San Quentin.
The line
"And may all the world regret that you did no good"
needs to be heard. Extended jail time is not going to set anyone straight.
10 Oct 2013 4:32:54pm
Maybe not, but it certainly protects the public.
10 Oct 2013 10:31:26am
There are so many examples of people (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) that have experienced terribly deprived and abusive childhoods that have gone on to lead basically decent adult lives. Equally, there are numerous examples of murderers, rapists and violent thugs that have come from decent families.
Why do we focus on the criminal and not the innocent victims?
Race has nothing to do with it. Stop making excuses, and start accepting responsibility for ones own actions.
10 Oct 2013 10:32:18am
I find the author's logic is 'perverse and offensive'. The courts primary role is to protect the public from lawbreakers. If this man cannot cannot stop breaking the law, then society is better off with him behind bars more often. The author basically says society is to blame so he should be free to continue his life of crime. Bugmy is said to be such an habitual crook that jail won't deter him so again, he should be allowed to continue this life of crime. Bugmy's welfare is not as important as the welfare of the people he commits offenses against. By privileging Bugmy's victimhood, he condemns other innocent people to be victims - most of whom I imagine would be Aboriginal. I cannot accept that initial social deprivation entitles one to evade all notions of personal responsibility for life. Bugmy's behaviour is predictable and common sense dictates this should count against him in sentencing.
10 Oct 2013 11:58:00am
Ask yourself, how is the court system protecting Aboriginal people?
10 Oct 2013 1:30:29pm
By locking up those that preform the greatest number of assaults against them and their children, which is predominantly Aboriginal men.
10 Oct 2013 1:57:34pm
@Joe - but that's the conundrum. A lot of violence is directed towards other aborigines, especially women and kids. Does giving the assailants lighter sentences because of their background protect their victims?
10 Oct 2013 2:31:58pm
considering much of Aboriginal crime is against other Aboriginals I'd say keeping the man in gaol is one way the courts are protecting Aboriginal people
10 Oct 2013 3:43:14pm
I thought I answered that by saying Aboriginal people are usually victims of other Aboriginals which means that leniency makes for more aboriginal victims and the cycle of social deprivation continues.
10 Oct 2013 7:10:21pm
"By privileging Bugmy's victimhood" wow, that's a concept and a half antipostmodernism, I will have to remember it for future use. But in this context I don't think it applies, all that is happening is that disadvantage has to be taken into account. You know, "You've had a very unfortunate experience in third grade, and this is your first offense, so 2 years hard time should fix you up".
10 Oct 2013 10:32:27am
Well it is all good to say that we should pay what has been done.
So to the boat people have come here over the years when are going to pay, I am geeting sick of Aboriginal peole being blame for this and that and how they dont know how to look after them self and disfunctional people. We were a Nation without any disease, it was brough from the boat poeple from lower classes.
So when are of you's going to clean your own back yards, you go over sea to other wanting to bring drugs here, and i have notic it not the Aboriginal poeple going over sea.
10 Oct 2013 10:32:45am
A good read , thanks.
I still want to know if Mr Bugmy had access to educational or vocational training whilst in gaol? plus all the other supervision and Govt funded policies relating to released prisoners.
I realise this doesn't suit the argument but shouldn't Mr Bugmy have at least tried to engage in some of these activities and when will he take whole responsibility for his life and actions? Or does Aboriginality mean he's NOT expected to?
At the end of the day a guard went to work and came home permanently and severely handicapped. No depth perception and the fact he'll never be the same again.
I wonder what that gentleman does for a living now?
Gratuitous Adviser:
10 Oct 2013 10:40:05am
A sad and continuing example of a culture in demise. As long as our indiginous people are treated like children and are special cases the closer they get to the cliff.
Individualy and as a race the must join the 21st Century or, in my opinion, they will perish. This recovery can only be driven by their own family's influence, not by the various hangers on and patronisers.
By the by: I wonder how Sol Bellear or his family would think if he had lost an eye in circumstances similar to the mentioned prison guard.
10 Oct 2013 10:42:23am
Let me get this right, you're saying that aboriginal people shouldn't be held responsible for choosing to be violent toward others because of their social and economic disadvantage?
Sorry Sol, you lost me. Turn the lights off when you leave would you.
Hudson Godfrey:
10 Oct 2013 11:00:32am
I think the pivotal statement in this is as follows:
"The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people."
Sol goes on to talk about the oft floated notion of Aboriginal sovereignty, and while I hear his pain at the illegitimacy of the situation the entire political structure of the world has seldom established any kind of sovereignty by means we would with hindsight regard as legitimate as opposed to brutal or insidious domination of one group or one culture over another.
Concentrate instead then on the use of the words "right to sit in judgement" and particularly the notions of rights that we proffer whenever we refer to things thus. I hope I share the view with most people that rights are things that come with responsibilities. So that if an Aboriginal community assumes the right to sit in judgement over Mr Bugmy then they have a responsibility to him and another by extension for him and his effects on the community when he misbehaves. That is the remit here that many of us outside these communities fail to see being met.
Similarly if the wider non-aboriginal community are assuming the "right" to sit in judgement through the legal system then it is only too legitimate to ask how we as a society took responsibility and clearly managed to fail Mr Bugmy along with our fellow Australians who bear the brunt of his criminal behaviour.
We can't simply deny disadvantage and wash our hands of the Bugmys that it creates. Nor is passing the buck to the aboriginal community when things go wrong in the least bit helpful. If neither their law nor the State's can fix Bugmy the individual, then excusing the disadvantage much less using it as an excuse to secure his early release are equally examples of undischarged responsibilities for which we should collectively be ashamed and resolved to properly address in the future.
10 Oct 2013 12:34:35pm
Ahhh, the soothing, ever present drone of "It's always someone else's fault" from the Left. Every single one of us, including Bugmy, have made choices in our lives. The vast majority of us make choices that don't result in us being imprisoned for our entire adult lives. Bugmy made different choices and isn't excused from the consequences of those choices.
Hudson Godfrey:
10 Oct 2013 3:59:38pm
I wan't addressing Bugmy's actions but rather the statement about who has the "right" to judge them.
The fact that he has to take personal responsibility is as valid a point to make separately as any, but it is quite beside the point when we need also to understand what it means to earn the right to judge. Even people who do take personal responsibility need role models they can respect and a social contract that rewards good behaviour. I can't imagine William Bugmy has either!
If you want to foster some left right dichotomy then I doubt that the way to make a good case for yourself is to wash your hands of people like Bugmy, either by making them someone else's problem or by expecting them to miraculously reform himself in response to a sense of moral fibre in his character that he clearly lacks. In the meantime both communities are concerned and quite possibly determined to ignore your protestations out of the need to defend themselves from people like Bugmy whom society has failed to find any more adequate response than repeated incarcerations.
10 Oct 2013 7:16:55pm
We have the right to judge his actions, Hudson. Australia is a democracy and through democratic processes we have put in place laws. If, for whatever reason, someone breaks those laws, they will be judged under them.
We don't need a social contract that rewards good behaviour because as assumed responsible adults our good behaviour is assumed. Bad behaviour, on the other hand, is punished, as it should be.
I don't expect those like Bugmy to reform themselves in response to a sense of moral fibre in their characters. I expect them to obey the law for whatever reason they can come up with. If they break the law, for whatever reason they choose, they should and will be punished. If someone chooses to obey the law because they have moral fibre- good. If someone chooses to obey the law because they feel that they have a societal obligation- good. If someone chooses to obey the law for no better reason than because they don't want to go to jail- good. I don't care why someone chooses to obey the law as long as they obey it.
Hudson Godfrey:
11 Oct 2013 1:07:40am
Okay so riddle me why Bugmy should respect your judgement? What have you or your kind ever done to earn his respect?
Nor have you given us the slightest clue why we should assume anyone is meant to be a responsible adult if others around them fail to act responsibly in their turn. Your expectation of obedience is founded on very shaky ground in the case of an institutionalised criminal from a disadvantaged sector of the community whose appreciation of his own best interests may not necessarily parallel the community's unless the shared sense of some common good prevails.
What I'm saying then is that moral fibre and social obligation need to be nurtured and fear of incarceration only works for those who are neither inured to it nor fearful of some other more present threat to their personal wellbeing.
I don't condone the guy's actions, and I don't think his personal responsibility diminished in the way that you appear to want to argue it. What I think is rather diminished in this is our right to expect that disadvantage will not lead to higher rates of crime when we know from almost constant experience that it always does.
10 Oct 2013 11:01:13am
The saying is you do the crime you do the time every one has a choice.
Lust for Life:
10 Oct 2013 11:03:37am
We have a section of society which are continually told they are special. they are the first, the oldest, the noblest people.
But the reality of society is they are treated no better than anyone else. This leads to a sense of being ripped off, that you are owed a lot more than you get.
Thus you can internally justify crime as the only way to get what you have been told you deserve. Everyone else is richer than me therefore I am entitled to get my share by what ever means I want, because I'm special.
What's more, going to jail is seen as a badge of honour in these communities. You are a hero because you stuck it to them white fellas who are ripping us off.
I'm just not sure that placing indigenous people on higher and higher pedestals and giving them more and more 'recognition' will actually benefit their communities.
I will therefore not be voting yes in any referendum to give indigenous people special recognition in out constitution. Sorry.
10 Oct 2013 12:36:41pm
Don't be sorry, Lust for Life. Differentiating between people based solely on their race is racist and you should never be sorry for opposing racism.
10 Oct 2013 11:07:11am
To claim that Aboriginal offending is a result of the Brutality of the "invasion" implies that Aboriginal Australians are not able to be responsible for their own actions and is an inherently racist point of view, abrogating personal responsibility because of something that happened 200 years ago.
Poverty today is another matter however I doubt if a comparative analysis of disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians with similarly disadvantaged non Aboriginal Australians would find that there is a statistically high difference in offending rates, therefore it stands to reason that being an Aboriginal Australian should not entitle anyone to more lenient punishment under the law.
In relation to comments by the appellate judge about the offender knowing better, that is the entire purpose of our justice system and custodial sentencing, to be a deterrent to future criminal behavior, a person who continues to offend following repeated periods of custody is no longer doing so because of entrenched disadvantage, simply they are doing it because they are criminals and that is what they know. It is easier to steal something than it is to work for it
10 Oct 2013 12:39:07pm
This arguement ignores so many well-known historical facts that one can only presume this is a deliberate obfuscation motivated by, sad to say it, racism.
The "brutality" of the invasion over 200 years ago by definition can only have affected a small number of Aborigines in the Sydney area. It's what happened since (including in my lifetime, and I'm barely 40) which is much more significant, and yet you completely ignore it:
The widespread removal of generation after generation of aboriginal children from their parents, the breaking up of families, the institutionalisation, the physical emotional and sexual abuse of kids for years on end, the loss of language and culture, the police harrassment, the welfare dependence, drugs and alcohol...the list goes on.
What I will say for certain is that if I wanted to take a group of people and turn their descendents into a group of largely poorly educated, highly incarcerated, unhealthy folks with limited family and social skills I would follow the model so well set up by Australian governments and churches and inflicted on Aborigines over the last 150 years.
Tom Martyr:
10 Oct 2013 3:43:30pm
Mistakes have been made in the past to deal with what was seen as the Aborigional 'problem'. Today, here and now we may dress it up by another name but we are making our generations version of the same mistakes by telling Aborigionals they are different and deserve special treatment in Australia.
It may take a century but as soon as apologies for crimes from bygone eras are forgiven and Aborigionals are defiant in the face of favouritism rather than welcoming will we truly be on a level playing field. I personally have nothing to apologise for but contribute unwillingly to dragging out this whole sorry charade.
10 Oct 2013 4:17:27pm
Dave, that is such a typical apologists response.
And it's the very reason people with your views have held back the aboriginal cause for so long. Blame everything on the past. Take no responsibility, because none of it is your fault.
Every culture on the face of the Earth has at some stage been subjected to attack from outside. To keep constantly pointing at those attacks as being the reason why some people choose evil over good is a lame duck.
peppy buzzword:
10 Oct 2013 11:07:28am
Are my children, born in Australia, any less Australian than an aboriginal child. We are all given the same opportunities, some choose not to take them, some don't.
Some Aboriginals seem to think laws are a white man things and they don't need to comply.
Everyone else seems to be able to assimilate and be Australian except aboriginals.
4 years prison for blinding someone seams a pretty light sentence to me. Aboriginal payback law would probably see the offender blinded as punishment. That's harsh.
10 Oct 2013 1:02:20pm
Actually, if your kids were born here and do not identify as aboriginal or torres strait islander, they will have far LESS opportunities.
10 Oct 2013 1:25:23pm
"We are all given the same opportunities"
That is an absolute lie.
10 Oct 2013 1:32:49pm
"Are my children, born in Australia, any less Australian than an aboriginal child."
Your children are Australian ... but different.
This land belongs to the aborigines. They dint chose for us to come here and throw their world into chaos. They had their own laws of the land. They had their form of law and order. Our laws have been imposed on them.
peppy, your family/ancestors made a choice to come to Australia. In doing so, your ancestors accepted the law of the land they came to - the Aborigines didn't have that choice. In fact, as the owners of Australia, there was no respect for the existing law of the land.
Reading this thread has been the most discouraging article I have seen on this site. Racism and bigotry is ALIVE and well in Australia - something I thought we had moved passed decades ago, and even more so in the recent decade.
Tony has move Aboriginal affairs to the PM's office .... I guess it will become another "hide the affairs' action.
So sad that this thread highlights how racist Australia remains.
10 Oct 2013 9:06:36pm
"Your children are Australian ... but different." The old "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", I see. So sorry, Brosco, but that argument doesn't work.
Australian law hasn't been imposed on Indigenous Australians any more than it's been imposed on any other Australians. The only way that you could argue that Australian law was being imposed on people who had existed under a previous system of law is if there were some 225+ year old Aborigines still alive. There aren't.
Racism is the practice of regarding or treating people differently based on their race, which is exactly what we're opposing. The only ones wanting people to be regarded or treated differently based on their race are those who are writing the same sorts of things that you are.
10 Oct 2013 7:17:48pm
peppy buzzword your children are every much as Australian as my wife, born in Scotland and took out citizenship. But it is not true to say that we all have the same opportunities, that is true of all of us but it is a much more common truth for aboriginals than it is for most of us.
I actually don't think the High Court has been very helpfull in resolving aboriginal disadvantage (but that wasn't their intent) and, along with everyone else, I don't have a solution for it
peppy buzzword:
10 Oct 2013 10:32:25pm
Me to Mycal. But until we are all one nation, the problem is going nowhere
10 Oct 2013 11:15:40am
I see that there is almost no mention of the horrible consequences of blinding a prison guard and the effect it had on his and his families lives. This is a person who went to 'WORK' and was maimed beacuse the Aboriginal in question was having a bad day and thought he would hurt someone. How many times do we see this? And my, we still have so many apologists for what is barbaric and inexcusable behaviour.
Why should a crime like that have a more lienient sentence because it was commited by an aboriginal? It shouldnt. There is no justification for it.
What would you suggest Mr Bellear? That we forgive the crime because the aboriginal in question has had a hard life. It is this kind of incipid pity and double standard that has robbed the Aboriginal community of any chance at pride and further widens the gap between Aboriginals and contemporary Australia.
And as far as the tent embassy goes, well I live in Canberra. It is an eyesore of and should have been moved on years ago. It is simply a collection of squatters who Im sure if asked would not be able to explain to me why it's there.
Jungle Boy:
10 Oct 2013 11:17:17am
"the circumstances of someone?s background - regardless of their race - must be given proper weight by sentencing judges"
Must they? That is only an opinion. Is there any evidence that this notion actually works?
Personally I'm sick of the pathetic excuses (from blacks and whites) of how they had sick grandmothers or whatever which "caused" them to commit crimes.
Most people do the right thing, irrespective of their background. People who do the wrong thing - again and again - are clearly a danger to society.
The background of a person should only influence the place of sentencing (e.g. jail or mental assylum), not the duration.
"a long-standing legal principle"
Exaggeration does not assist any argument.
I think you'll find it's a relatively modern notion (c.20th century) compared with other legal principles.
It's certainly a novelty compared with the Aboriginal occupation of Australia over thousands of years. Now that was truly
Scotty A:
10 Oct 2013 11:22:05am
"The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people."
This is sedition plain and simple. Get out of our country.
10 Oct 2013 1:04:29pm
Scotty A,
err, its actually we that are in their country.
10 Oct 2013 5:57:01pm
Who is "we"? Are you obliged to be in Australia, if it is not your country?
10 Oct 2013 1:19:46pm
Admittedly I don't possess any formal legal training, but technically I think it's actually far closer to stupidity than sedition.
And personally, I'd prefer him to stay - with 'logic' like this he makes the rest of us look like bloody geniuses by default.
10 Oct 2013 1:20:53pm
And go where exactly?
Oh, back to their own countr- oh wait, it got destroyed by a tide of psychotic, imperialistic racists who's decendants are the ones perpetuating at least some of the same attitudes onto them.
10 Oct 2013 1:25:18pm
Oh the nerve of people who've been here longer than we have questioning the validity of the structures we've imposed on them without any consultation or treaty!
Scotty A:
10 Oct 2013 7:50:06pm
I refer you to Jungle Boys comment below which pretty much sums up my answer to that. What this guy is saying only holds people back, it doesnt help them at all. Same old victim mentality. ITs tragic and terrible what this guy went through but he committed a crime and the law he fsubmits to has to be, no exception, the law that applies to me.
10 Oct 2013 2:00:45pm
It's not sedition. It's simply incoherent and illogical.
10 Oct 2013 11:26:19am
Don't worry Sol... It won't be long before non-indigenous Aussies catch up, now that Tony is in charge!
Of course, any call for "sovereignty" that excludes "sovereignty" of others based solely upon whether one is 'indigenous' or not is more than just purely hypocritical, it is seditious, as it's ultimate goal (despite how marvelous that goal seems to it's advocators if they were able to acquire such "sovereignty") is a separate system of jurisprudence that is at odds with the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that are designed to provide National (if not communal) stability and consistency.
Allowing such "sovereignty" to indigenous Australians would also open the door to any religious group, ethnic community, whoever felt they deserved to judge themselves by their own set of guidelines to argue reasonably for the same consideration as given to the indigenous.
I wonder how indigenous communities would feel if their "sovereign right" to sit in judgement on themselves meant that any crime committed against them by another "sovereign" group or individual meant they were unable to enact justice as they saw fit?
Such a statement is a declaration of the desire for anarchy.
Perhaps, Mr Bellear has much more in common with Mr Bugmy than mere aboriginality. He also seems to have a mighty huge chip on his shoulder, and a desire to spit in the face of what Australia is today.
That modern Australia not only reads what Sol has to say; but allows it to be published, says more about the system and society he disses whilst living within it, than it does about any benefits to be gained from letting antagonistic anarchists with their own personal grief and angst laden agendas loose on a community that despite what Mr Bellear may think; can see the forest for the trees.
10 Oct 2013 7:24:20pm
Here's a thought Steve_C, since you are so concerned about sovereignty, lets modify the Constitution to allow the possibility of Australia to be a "Federation of Sovereign peoples" and start with aboriginals. That would solve all your problems and Mr Bellears without the sedition or the anarchy (may cause the sky to fall though).
10 Oct 2013 11:42:11am
Customary law and payback allows for offenders to be beaten, speared, and 'stoned' with boomerangs. Customary law also allows for a 55-year-old man to have sexual intercourse with his 14-year-old promised bride.
Does your vision of Aboriginal sovereignty include the right to perpetuate customs like these Mr. Bellear?
10 Oct 2013 11:43:29am
Sol, I don't agree with most of your article for various reasons, many of which have been captured in the comments above.
But I do want to thank you for posting. It's good to hear the point of view of an indigenous man closely involved in indigenous legal affairs.
I know you won't reply to this comment, but I, and I'm sure some other readers, would appreciate it if you followed up with an article about your suggested changes to the current system (legal or political) to address the imbalance between non-indigenous and indigenous Australians. Without making any presumptions, it sounds like you might be in favour of creating a separate and legally sovereign nation for indigenous peoples within Australia. I'm not being facetious; I'm genuinely curious.
10 Oct 2013 11:48:03am
"Grinding poverty"? Ascetics, and people in poorer countries, must be blinding each other right left and centre. What this country obviously needs is some sort of welfare system.
10 Oct 2013 11:48:31am
No doubt that the high rates of incarceration are due to the rates of crime. A prison warder turned up to work hoping to go home to his family at the end of the day, instead he has lost the sight of his eye. Who is the bad one here? Give us a break, Bugmy is no kind of messiah! No doubt that warder had difficulties in his life too as do many of us but we don't resort to violent crime. Bellear derives his income from the existence of so called disadvantage. Let's see what the victims of crimes have to say rather than those who make a living off their committal.
10 Oct 2013 11:49:33am
The imprisonment rates of Australia and Apartheid South Africa cannot be compared simply because Apartheid South Africa didn't bother arresting and imprisoning their Indigenous population for black-on-black crime. If Australia didn't imprison our Indigenous population for black-on-black crime our imprisonment rates would be far lower too.
If Indigenous Australians don't wish to be imprisoned then the answer is the same one that applies to non-indigenous Australians- don't commit crimes. It's got nothing to do with some red herring theory about some supposed genetic pre-disposition to crime. Regardless of what race, gender or religion you belong to your actions are choices. If you don't like the results and consequences of your previous actions and wish to avoid those results and consequences in the future then you need to make better choices in the future.
This demand that you have for sovereignty and for no Australian court to have the right to sit in judgment of Indigenous Australians is a pipe dream. All seven Justices of the High Court found against the concept of Aboriginal sovereignty in Mabo II and there's no way that the High Court would ever pass a ruling elevating one racial identity group above the law.
10 Oct 2013 2:22:56pm
"There's no way that the High Court would ever pass a ruling elevating one racial identity group above the law."
Absolutely correct. The rules which established imperial rule over an aboriginal population which was never consulted or compensated for their massive loss of rights were all well and truly in place before the High Court came about. The High Court and the rest of the country can and do freely go about their business never having to worry about the past injustices of white people. It's a very convenient system.
Jungle Boy:
10 Oct 2013 11:50:49am
"the crushing effects of the invasion"
Most invasions are like that. However people get over it.
You don't hear much hand-ringing from Polish people (of today's generation) about the crushing Nazi invasion of 1939.
Of course some people are more sensitive than others. The English suffered a crushing invasion in 1066. It took them about 300 years to regain their confidence in their own stories and language (e.g. Chaucer).
It's been 225 years since the invasion of Aboriginal Australia.
10 Oct 2013 3:12:45pm
I'm a bit dubious about your Polish comment. Admittedly this is only because of my meeting with one Pole but I was regaled for hours about the Polish misfortune with regards to geography and of territory lost. From memory the Germans weren't the many culprits but that was one gloomy Pole, or a history buff.
11 Oct 2013 9:08:46am
Poland has a very long history of foreign occupation, going back to the Mongols. A quirk of geography, as I understand it.
10 Oct 2013 11:55:03am
It's sad but also hilarious that so many educated western people are tapping their comments in on their fancy western technology with some presumption to have any understanding of the issues in aboriginal communities and families.
People who have been raised in largely stable environments generally grow up to be law abiding, socially acceptable people. This is good and there's nothing wrong with it.
But there is a reasonable correalation that if you grow up in an unstable, emotionally distant, sometimes violent environment then you've got a higher than average chance of turning out to be a bit unstable, confused and sometimes violent.
And when you're dealing with people who have for generations been raised in institutions (with all of the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that goes with this) and pushed from pillar to post by subsequent governments with little right to self-determination, it's not surprising that good parenting skills may well be much harder to find in aboriginal populations than in general. We all learn the basics of parenting from our parents and by tearing aboriginal families apart for generations as white people did, the results are pretty obvious now.
But it's much easier to lock black people up than address the massive problems created by over a century of appallingly racist decisions made by white people about black people. So on we go.
10 Oct 2013 2:05:58pm
I agree with most of what you wrote Dave but I have one question for you. If it is indeed an us and them society then what would you have us non aboriginal people do, billions of dollars have been spent attempting to address this problem and no doubt billions more will be spent and it seems to achieved nothing, so apparently money is not the answer. Before you say we should give Australia back and just leave we both know that is not going to happen. I am a 4th generation Australian and regard myself as being an indigenous person with as much right to live here as anyone else. So please, instead of criticism give some realistic and workable solutions.
10 Oct 2013 2:06:08pm
I don't think any of us would disagree with what you're saying. I certainly don't. I do disagree, however, with Mr. Bellear's apparent view that Australian courts should have no rights at all to judge aborigines, and that the matter should be left to them. Who then protects the victims of their offences, especially the aboriginal victims, the wives and kids who suffer much of the violence? Who speaks for them, in a system geared to protect the assailant?
And indeed, at what point do the rights of those victims to leave safely and unfearfully outweigh the rights of people like Mr. Bugmy to live free?
10 Oct 2013 4:47:31pm
So we should institute another stolen generation? Get the kids out of their homes and harms way?
Or should we put onus on people to take charge of their own lives. Mr Bugmy is a career criminal. He took the sight from an eye of another human being in a fit of rage and we should look at back at the injustices he has received?
How often will Mr Bugmy use this defence?
When do we stop giving discounts to career criminals who have had the discounts applied to previous charges?
What next those that grew up in Cabramatta in the 80's, receiving leniency?
10 Oct 2013 11:57:33am
we cant change the past we can only change the future.Funding needs to allocated to areas that have major social problems such as wilcania to give the youth of these places family values self respect, learn boundries and to be proud of their culture.I work with aboriganal guys that are earning130000k as operators in the mining industry.they are proud guys proud of their work proud of their families and proud of their culture.some help help in the smaller aboriginal communities and hope to break the cycle by mentoring the youth.As one them tells me we cant be victims generation after generation we have to move on we cant change what happened we can only change from now.
10 Oct 2013 3:24:53pm
I agree mh, its about breaking the cycle. This isnt only an issue within the indigious community, it is an issue in all low socio economic areas. Its about breaking the cycle and educating the younger generation that there is a better way to live.
darius the mede:
10 Oct 2013 12:00:03pm
What this whole sorry tale really illustrates is that imprisonment is useless for everybody, black or white.
Prisons do not rehabilitate or cure, they only entrench anti-social and pathological behaviour.
The vast majority of people in prison come from socially deprived backgrounds,
Most prisoners have either psychiatric illness and or drug dependency.
Abolish prisons.
Treat pedophiles as sick people and provide long-term involuntary inpatient care
Treat the mentally ill and drug dependent as people with illness.
Home detention and surveillance for the rest.
Make those few serious criminals such as murderers and corporate thieves work for the rest of their lives to pay back society.
Prisons are incredibly expensive and corrupt the guards as well the inmates.
One day we will look back on prisons and consider them as barbaric as slavery or torture.
10 Oct 2013 1:55:02pm
Most people in Australian prisons are there because of what they did to other people, darius. One of the primary reasons for the existence of prisons is to keep them away from us, the law abiding people. What you're calling for is not only for them to not have to take responsibility for what they do to others, but to have them free to do it again and again and again.
10 Oct 2013 12:05:49pm
The debate goes on about why the "West" has prospered over the last 500 years while much of the "Rest" has not had it so good. The reasons are varied and complex, but the most cogent argument centers around the rule of law and property rights that much of the west is subject to.
For what it's worth, that is the law that we observe in Australia and with all it's faults, that is what we must observe. I believe strongly that the worst place to get "justice" is from the courts and "injustice" is what most of us get. Any improvement is something we must all work towards and not just Aboriginal people.
There is no doubt that Aboriginal people get a very raw deal from out system of criminal justice, and this is partly because they are targeted as easy marks.....anyone ever thought about why there is a disproportionate number of "intellectually challenged" people in our jails? That can hardly be blamed on racial profiling by the police.
But there is racial profiling....one of my daughters spent some time in a state police force and the stories she brought home indicated to me a deeply entrenched penchant for racial vilification among her colleagues.
Sol, you have indicated that Mr. Bugmy is hit with a double whammy.... he is both Aboriginal and has an intellectual disadvantage. You have my moral support, but apart from that I can offer very little.
10 Oct 2013 2:16:54pm
Vctor, Bugmy is a serious violent offender with a long and violent criminal history, the fact that he is aboriginal and has an intellectual disadvantage should not be a reason to release him from prison. Contrary to popular opinion prisons don't exist to rehabilitate criminals, they exist solely to keep people like Bugmy off the streets and away from decent people, this rehabilitation rubbish is something that politicians and sociologists have concocted rather than admitting that they have failed miserably and have run out of workable solutions. Don't believe me, go on line and have a look at the reoffending rates for released inmates in all states, it's truly scary stuff. Bugmy being in prison means that there are a few less victims walking around out here.
Victor :
10 Oct 2013 9:10:02pm
fugly, I have worked among prison inmates enough to agree with you without the need to go on line. I don't argue with the position that Bugmy deserves to be punished......I would not like to see my daughter bring him home from the disco..... but I feel strongly that affimative action is not a solution.
And that is what ....'taking one's background into consideration'...... really means. Talk about a 'get out of jail free card'! Punishment is not a very effective way of dealing with these things because people quickly become innured to the baggage surrounding incarceration and anything that can lead to a lighter sentence will probably make the situation worse.
What I am saying is that this is a complex issue and the solution goes beyond " lock the b...'s up and throw away the key.......I am not saying that Bugmy should be released.
10 Oct 2013 12:09:06pm
Sol Bellear: "The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people."
Are the courts of Vanuatu better suited?
10 Oct 2013 12:10:56pm
I have taught many fine aboriginal students. They have gone on to work in the mines or become professional athletes or participate in other forms of employment. It is true I have also taught other aboriginal students who were not so fine. Same background but violent form an early age and have found their way into the justice system. Other violent no aboriginal students have learned from their actions and become model citizens as adults. It is not about aboriginality, the author of the article is an example, but about what you do with your aboriginality. Lets not forget that the people in jail are not there for doing nothing. They are there for committing crimes. I'm happier with criminal and violent men behind bars than I am with them being out in teh community perpetrating their violence against others.
10 Oct 2013 3:18:14pm
Well said, my mother is also a teacher and has taught at the school mentioned in this article. She has taught at several schools in her 30 year teaching career, and has many stories like yours, you suceed with some, and not with others. She has many of her ex students behind bars now or worse, their death notices in the paper and looks back to when she first met them and realises, they were doomed from the start. They just can not break that cycle. Kids of all races and backgrounds.
Captain Col:
10 Oct 2013 12:13:23pm
Here we have the standard bleatings of an exemplar (Sol Bellear) of the Aboriginal Industry. He trots out all the usual gripes against the evil (supposedly) white oppressors ... the same ones who have developed this nation to a resounding success (recently noted as the richest per capita). Yet he can find no place amongst this success and wealth for those with an excuse to sponge off it based on their race.
He says of Bugmy, "He's more institutionalised, he has a greater sense of hopelessness, and he's more disconnected from his people and his culture."
It seems to me Bugmy is the result of "his people and his culture". Perhaps he would have been better served if he had tried the other culture Sol so despises ... but profits from.
10 Oct 2013 12:13:34pm
The author seems to be suggesting that the guy was sent to prison at 13 for being an indigenous Australian. Surely spending your whole life as a criminal is not a good reason to have your sentences lessened.
His upbringing up to the age of 13 may be taken into account but after that point he has brought it on himself.
10 Oct 2013 12:14:30pm
Justice Hoeben, remarked in his decision that "? with the passage of time, the extent to which social deprivation in a person's youth and background can be taken into account, must diminish".
The good Justice Hoeben needs to consult some people who are actually qualified on the subject. Not being a qualified mental health professional, he has no way of knowing whether this is true.
10 Oct 2013 12:21:26pm
Agh yes another bleeding heart article that I'll remember next time I'm walking down the Murray street mall watching the antics of the hard done by aboriginal lot hanging around there hussleing the people......or whenever I see five or six sitting in the gutter smirking after a police car chase or worse still an accident with fatal consequences. Something is wrong of course, and I'm thinking the millions thrown at the aboriginal legal system has created an industry that doesn't see much return for its efforts. I wonder where it all goes?
10 Oct 2013 12:29:32pm
I grew up 160km from Wilcannia. I refer to it as the land god forgot about. Without witnessing and seeing it for yourself, no story can fully explain to you the conditions these people live in. Its almost like a 3rd world country out there.
These kids are born into a life of drugs, alcohol, abuse (physical, sexual and mental) and crime. Education is the key to getting through to these kids. And the system fails them everyday. I am not saying they need more money or handouts. What they need is support, education and health care, more specific Mental Health Care.
As a white person growing up out there, who has older siblings, 2 working parents and a large farm. We were considered 'Privileged'. I never felt privileged. We were public school educated, and never had anything fancy growing up. But we were privileged, because we were educated and we had access to health care and support. We didnt have any money either. Money is not the answer to the problems out there. Sure it helps, but it sure as hell is not the answer. If you keep throwing money at the problem, it just gets bigger.
10 Oct 2013 1:58:39pm
Excellent points well made RHM85.
They contrast interestingly with the rants here by folks who have never had a substantial conversation with, let alone lived among, aboriginal people.
Scotty A:
10 Oct 2013 8:11:43pm
Dave, what he is saying is not agreeing with you. You are misunderstanding everything. Sol is arguing that a man, Mr Bugby should have received a lesser sentence for a violent crime becasue he was aboriginal. Furthermore he thinks no Australian court shouldbe able to make rules for or judge "his people" (whoever they are). There is real progress being made in various areas now and a lot of eloquent writing on economic empowerment of aboriginal people. Unfortunately Sol's incoherent rant is not even close.
10 Oct 2013 2:08:10pm
As Australia sows, so shall it reap.
10 Oct 2013 2:35:44pm
You are so right, but unfortunately the people her are sitting in safe middle class suburbia. Superiority complex just continues... "hey when i have a tuff time.... i just move on".
Sorry ... aborigines are past the point of just moving on.
10 Oct 2013 12:53:37pm
Aboriginal people have complete control over their lives, same as anyone else. They have control over if they want to trash their free housing, control over techie health, education and so on, on fact, the taxpayer spends colossal amounts of money to try to improve the appalling standards in the Aboriginal community.
Have Aboriginals been treated badly, absolutely, will change occur overnight, absolutely not, but an attitude of separation from the community at large makes things harder, not easier.
Aboriginals are citizens of Australia, and as such are subject to Australian law, the same as I am and the same as anyone else.
1788 happened, you have to live with that. If it had not been the British it would have been someone else, probably the French or Dutch.
I would love to see the Aboriginal community be in step with all the other communities in Australia, and to do that there needs to be a hell of a lot of improvement in how the Government acts, but there also needs to be a hell of a lot of improvement from WITHIN the aboriginal community, and this attitude of we are separate from everyone else in Australia does not help. There are lots of communities in Australia, Aboriginals were only the first ones to arrive.
10 Oct 2013 1:06:29pm
It is always a tradegy to see a life wasted. A disadvantaged start can have repercussions throughout life as it seems it has for this man. The jailing rate is alarming and must surely reflect a failure to appreciate or deal with the issues affecting this group. I would be equally alarmed if any group stood out in such a statistically significant way. It would a wonderful thing IF aboriginal people could manage aboriginal affairs yet I see a systematic failure in most efforts to date. Aboriginal communities are plagued by incest, child abuse and alcohol abuse. Aboriginal people need to be able to start solving some of their own problems within their own communities - this is where it needs to start. None are more qualified to solve the problem than those living it. Perhaps it is time we stopped the pious rhetoric and hand control to the commnities, including law and order.
Goode Speler:
10 Oct 2013 1:20:33pm
"on the affects of grinding poverty "
'affect' is the verb, 'effect' is the noun
10 Oct 2013 1:36:40pm
I'm sorry this man had such a disadvantaged childhood - it undoubtedly damaged him and has most likely ruined his life. But that child is now a man, and a violent repeat offender. The man he blinded has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. Let's hope the next victim isn't so badly injured.
10 Oct 2013 2:04:57pm
The thing that is bugging me about these comments is that a lot of them seem to think that the article is suggesting that individual Aboriginal people should not be accountable for crimes. Which isn't the case. The point is that the idea that a disadvantage inherently diminishes over time, which is absurd.
Some do, some can be mitigated with aid (which in this case, at least according to the article, it was withheld), but generally problems won't go away on their own. Especially when other people are perpetuating that disadvantage, usually by failing to realise that they are the cause of the problem.
This issue is about privileged people making judgements based on their preconception of the effects of the absence of said privilege, rather than what the actual issues are.
10 Oct 2013 2:18:57pm
I suppose if the Japanese had occupied Australia in WWII and dispossessed white Australians of their lands and properties then it would be perfectly OK for their Japanese Australian descendants to tell the disaffected, dispossessed white descendants to simply"get over it and move on". Is that fair enough?
10 Oct 2013 2:23:30pm
This kind of defeatist attitude is exactly why we will never be able to "close the gap" whilst aboriginal people still think of themselves as victims and nothing more.
Whilst in jail a person has access to good meal, a roof over their head, various types of education, counselling and other things that are designed to rehabilitate and educate. If they chose not to change then that is their choice and they should be penalised more harshly with every consequent crime.
The answer to closing the gap is indeed for aboriginal people to take responsibilty for their own actions and to stop blaming everyone else. You can be proud of your heritage, acknowledge your racial history and yet still hold a job..... it really can be done.
"The enduring sense of hopelessness" you describe is maybe more accurately named as "laziness" - why work when the government pays you to stay at home? Why work when you can steal and get away with a slap on the wrist because of your race/background/etc?
doc holliday:
10 Oct 2013 6:56:34pm
You have obviously had no experience of what the prison existence is; it is soul destroying, demeaning and entirely counter-productive.
I dare you to consider what it does to people; imprisonment is a disaster, not for the criminals but for our community.
We need to think 'outside the square', but hey, what most people want is futile revenge.
10 Oct 2013 2:57:42pm
Reverse racism is not the answer. Either people should be judged by the colour of trhe skin, or the colouyr of their skin is irrelevant. There are a number of reasons this is the case.
Firstly, one of the reason indigenous Australians are so disadvantaged is because of the lack of will to do anything about the bad eggs in the indigenous community. The vast majority of indigenous people are decent people, but they are raised among a few dominant evil individuals who the justice system continually lets off lightly and that the author is actually advocating that we should accentuate. How I see it is if individual A was molested or beaten as a child, then does the same to children when he/she becomes an adult, it provides the strongest argument AGAINST leniency as opposed to the way lawyers and the author use it as an argument FOR leniency. I don't get it. To me, the viscous circle needs to be broken. BTW, leniency for sexual offences against children is a problem for the whole of our legal system, but indigenous offenders get off even easier than non-indigenous who already get it waaaay too easy.
Secondly, the leniency on the few bad eggs, means that the crime rate, both real and perceived, will be higher among indigenous people as a whole as chronic recividism is allowed to go unchecked for fear of accusations of racism. Evidently, the High Court are clearly fearful of that particular accusation. Let me use the example of Phil Narkle from here in WA. Google his record. It is appalling that our justice system can have allowed this to go on. All people see is an indigenous rapist for the fiftieth (yes, he has more than fifty rape convictions) time. Now, this paints indigenous peoples in a negative light even though all these offences werte committed by the same individual. So that is at least 50 people and their friends and family that have a negative experience with an indigenous person. It should have only been one person, followed by a significant sentence.
It really perplexes me why the author wants this violent man back in the indigenous community (or any community for that matter). The excuse you seek to make for him will never go away (ie the disadvantaged background) and the author admits through implication that a person from such a background is justified in being violent towards innocent people. I know the author's heart is in the right place, but violence (including sexual violence) is contagious in a social sense and therefore where these violent people exist we effectively have two options; set them free KNOWING they will infect those around them, or quarantine them (ie incarceration) ensuring a containment of the problem. I support the latter proposition, albeit expensive and the "misery" it results in for the perpetrator. I say better misery for the perpetrator (who makes a positive decision to engage in violence) than UNLIMITED misery for the long list of future innocent victims of said per
10 Oct 2013 10:38:41pm
Todd I think that is Garry Narkle you are referring to,Phil was a Swan Districts,Eagles and St Kilda football player. His brother Keith was also a Swans player and a painter at Westrail back in the days when government departments gave many Indigenous Australians a chance of a worthwhile career.During his apprenticeship Keith lived in a boarding home on the corner of my street and my brother and I used to play kick to kick with him.
10 Oct 2013 2:57:58pm
We as white Australians stole their land and massacred their people. Until very recently we did not allow them to vote or exist in within their family unit.
And we wonder why they are disadvantaged.
Imagine if you were taken away from your parent, would that influence the way in which you interact with your own kids?
If your father and granddad could tell you stories about having fought in WW2 amd Vietnam, but being unable to sit in a pub a have a beer in a pub with their mates when they returned. Would that influence the way that you thought of 'civil society?'
We are prepared to accept that there is a high rate of Aboriginal people in gaol without asking perhaps for the reasons why.
There's only one mob that look like fools in this debate.
And its us whitefellas.
10 Oct 2013 7:00:47pm
Paul, I assume that you intend to claim some sort of high moral ground and consider yourself as a friend of the Aboriginal people. However, believe me it is people like you who are causing the most harm to the advancement of the Aboriginal people. You are perpetuation the victim mentality and attempting to justify their welfare dependency on what happened to their great grandfathers some 200 years ago.
It may surprise you, however, there is no nation or race on earth which did not, at some point in history suffer some form of atrocities and deprivations. Take Jews for example. During the Second World War, Jewish people have gone through the most horrific period imaginable. However you don't see Jews claiming special position, welfare or privileges because of what happened to their fathers and grandfathers. They take their hances and compete in the real world. The ones who compete on equal basis usually succeed. The ones who play victims for events that happened over 200 years ago are likely to be welfare dependant for further 200 years.
No Paul - you are not a friend of the Aboriginal people. By perpetuating the victim mentality you are destroying their future.
10 Oct 2013 11:13:32pm
Umm actually, Jews got a whole country invented for them (Israel, ever heard of it) after WW2 and they received billions of dollars from Germany (as they should have) and get incredibly preferential diplomatic treatment.
Judy Bee:
10 Oct 2013 3:19:00pm
Education is the key. And when young children go astray and there is no community resourse (a well resourced legal and social service) to help them, we are all responsible for the absence of resources.
We elect governments that we know will move money around. Conservative governments take from the disadvantaged and give to those who have the power and the resources to lobby successfully. We will pay for an expensive Paid Parental Leave scheme which might see up to $75,000 going to privileged individuals. And we forget we all live in this society, we get the government we deserve, and when they stuff up, we all pay.
10 Oct 2013 3:25:49pm
Mr Bellear, I would suggest that you might consider the possibility that your views on a racially based aboriginal sovereignty are the misguided ones that perpetuate fantasy solutions.
10 Oct 2013 3:43:34pm
"From being a prison colony to the ex cons then stealing a whole continent, it makes no sense at law, even the imposed Crown Law struggles with it.
Who are the criminals?"
Seriously!!! Sanctimonious drivel-
If you feel like a criminal by being inhabiting this continent, you should consider an alternative.
There are many genuine people - politicians and community leaders- who are striving to find pragmatic and workable solutions for our aboriginal people-- they don't need to immerse themselves in confected "guilt"
10 Oct 2013 3:47:21pm
I am now a 60 year old male, my father died when I was pretty young, no govt help back then so we were pretty hard done by, nothing new, little food etc. I did some things to gain money so I could help feed my family/ buy clothes and was caught and paid the price. I learnt that it doesnt pay to do criminal things and never did it again. As I got older I started to drink and smoke and tried drugs but again I learnt it wasnt a good thing to do and stopped by myself. I am not aboriginal but I suffered the same things they claim, I learnt and changed, while a lot of aboriginals do a lot dont. I have lived and worked beside them, I have seen both sides and there are a lot that simply want everythinh handed to them and refuse to stand up for themselves. Until such time as they become responsible for their actions nothing will change, we are all the same, they need to face up to reality and accept their faults like everyone else.
10 Oct 2013 3:49:49pm
"The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people. And that's fundamentally what this should be all about - sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives."
I'll bite. How is this sovereignty to be achieved? If an Aboriginal person attacks a non-Aboriginal person are you suggesting that the case should be tried in an Aboriginal court? What about justice for the non-Aboriginal victim? And vica versa. If a Swedish person commits an offense against an Australian in Australia they don't get to have the trial heard in Sweden.
I would potentially support returning large sections of Australia back to the traditional owners as their own country, but how can this be acheived if large areas of the original Aboriginal Country would remain in Australia, and many people not be of the right group to live in others.
If you truly want Sovereignty, and believe it is possible, then come up with a realistic manfesto on how it is to be acheived.
10 Oct 2013 3:50:31pm
Interesting read with hardly a mention of the guard who ended up blind in one eye.
Does a disadvantaged, aboriginal upbringing magically reduce this crime? Again this is a call for special treatment based on race. Been the same for 40 years and little effort at changes from the disadvantaged aboriginal population, and why should they when we 'white's' pick up the bill along with the guilt shovel.
How much more do we have to spend in time and money to appease these people and get them to integrate not just hate!
10 Oct 2013 3:55:04pm
Sorry but the colour of your skin does affect your jail term and sentence. Since the black deaths in custody enquiry there has been a further more 300+ death in custody. I have 3 relatives that are in jail and there sentences are longer then Jill Meagher killer received. That was a crime that ?shook the nation? and black men are doing longer jail time for there ?crimes?.
In NT there are a number of questionable Aboriginal people in jail that have not ever been charged including a intellectually impaired man that was locked up for a ?drunken disturbance? and never released. The WA court system still applies the 3 strikes your out theory.
I am OVER the argument that if you don?t do the crime then you won?t receive the ?time?. What about the ?L? plater who backed over mates and his lawyer got him off on a technicality? I tell you NO Aboriginal has ever got out on a technicality even if there was no warrant to search the house, car or premises.
10 Oct 2013 4:30:30pm
I think a lot of this boils down to a few key issues:
1. non aboriginals are here to stay. aboriginals have to get over tribalism and the whole this is ours and you are strangers.
2. aboriginals need to realise they are responsible for their own actions and stop crying "poor me, I am a victim, its not my fault I stole or beat up someone". If they stop stealing and attacking people then they wont be jailed. no one cares about hard luck sob stories. How about the poor guard blinded?! extra prison time is not about "helping" a criminal. Its about removing them from society.
3. How long has it been that they have had equal rights? How long will they keep saying we get nothing?
4. if violent crime is a problem for them...then they should stop doing it. They blame the white man for everything so remote communities should be a fantastic place to grow up.
They harass tourists far worse than gypsies in Europe and turn violent if you don't give them a smoke . Generally they are unwashed and when you see them rolling around in the street drunk abusing everyone its an embarrassment.
The author has it right that its not a good ruling as most will take from it: if you are black and cry poor you should get a lighter sentence. If you a white and have a normal childhood then you should be somehow punished with a harsher sentence.
Doesn't really bother me as I am not out bashing and breaking into homes...
Get out of the stone age and get into the digital age.
11 Oct 2013 1:01:14am
The excuse that "I had to steal to eat", or even "I had to steal to buy drugs", is understandable, if not acceptable, to the community.
Attacking a guard in the prison with a pool cue meets neither of those excuses.
10 Oct 2013 4:37:10pm
The Bear quotes:
`The High Court ruling I'll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people. And that's fundamentally what this should be all about - sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives.'
And so we arrive at immature stupidity, confirming the author has absolutely nothing useful to say on Aboriginal affairs. This perennial attitude of victimhood is one of the leading causes of Aboriginal malaise. Grow up, for goodness sake.
As for Mr Bugmy, he seriously assaulted a prison officer and took the sight from one of his eyes. Bugmy deserves to serve a long term of imprisonment for that.
If the author's argument is that Bugmy's background is so much of a mental burden that he cannot be held responsible for his present day behaviour, in the same manner as everyone else in the community, then Bugmy should be institutionalised to protect the community and be provided psychiatric care, for as long as necessary and until he is fit to resume the responsibilities of community life.
10 Oct 2013 4:47:53pm
Successive governments have shown their inherent racism. Since spending tens of millions of dollars on the royal commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody, less than 20% of the recommendations have been implemented.The pretence of closing the gap is just a sophisticated form of genocide. Pretend you are helping some one and continue to blame them and undermine their rights as was done with the intervention. The racist expectation that "aboriginal people should just get on with it" is widespread in Australia among people who have inherited wealth and privilege. It is only 46 years since aboriginal people were recognised as being human beings in Australia. Only 46 years since they were legally allowed to participate in our society and all these horrible rednecks think that they are now equal and should "just get on with it" The multi billion dollar prisons industry thrives in the land of greed and ignorance. Maybe they will have to start locking up dumb rednecks to sustain their growth. Especially if they stop the boats.
10 Oct 2013 4:48:26pm
One thing that I find difficult to reconcile; All 'angry; Aboriginal activists are ready to rubbish anything and everything that white settlers have brought to this country, however they are always happy to accept the handouts provided by the settlers. As a matter of fact they are always asking for more.
I am particularly confused when Aboriginal activists ask for more judicial freedom for Aborigines communities well knowing the number of serious crimes and child abuses in the Aboriginal communities. Can they offer any guaranty that they would be able to address such serious problems. I am sure that they do not approve of the drunkenness, and child abuses in some Aboriginal communities.
Furthermore, we are often reminded of the various, educational and health disadvantages by the Aboriginal people However the same people insist to live in their traditional ways. A good health and good education are the result of certain lifestyle which is not compatible with the traditional tribal living. Isn't it the time that Aboriginal leaders understand the consequences of their own choices?!
I have no problem with people choosing any type of the lifestyle, however people should always keep in mind the consequences resulting from their own choices. Blaming others for their own choices is plainly ridiculous.
tjilpi piranpa:
10 Oct 2013 4:58:16pm
"This enduring sense of hopelessness is what kills many of my people, and leads many more like Mr Bugmy to live short, miserable lives behind bars"
Sol Bellears final statement reflects the sense of hopelessness in his own words.
But what does hopelessness really mean? Is it the 6year old remote Aboriginal child not attending school on a regular basis, stealing a mobile phone from the coffee table of the well meaning ?whitefella? who responds to a request for a drink and a piece of fruit, or smashing the windows of the health truck when it visits the community, suffering a sense of hopelessness? And with little or no accountability to either the whitefella law or the families discipline? Rather its suggest that a lack of guidance and discipline from their family or carers is at the heart of their behaviour, a lack of respect for ?otherness?, a lack of understanding that actions have consequences.
I would take a lead from Peter Sutton and his remarkable analysis of Indigenous communities and culture in peril in his book Politics of Suffering. It passionately recognizes that all is not well in remote communities and genuinely seeks a constructive debate, by challenging the status quo. The autonomy of children is one such practice he reflects on. The autonomy of children is a key strength of a traditional society, and a key weakness when those societies seek to adapt from a hunter gatherer to a cash economy and when the structures and traditions that nurtured and shaped that traditional child are disappearing fast. Many of these children are growing up illiterate and inumerate, and divorced from participating in the contemporary ?economy?. Many do not respect their own elders and families, let alone ?outsiders?. They are not only risking their own futures, but the futures of their communities living in country.
It takes a community to raise a child. And that includes the discipline and mutual respect nurtured within that child necessary to complete a formal education. That will only occur when children are attending school on a regular basis. It appears sadly that Bugmy never had that experience.
Tassie boy:
10 Oct 2013 5:30:51pm
Mr Bollear, you state ?The logic is perverse and offensive.? I think it is your logic that is perverse and offensive. It is very offensive to the many people in this country from disadvantaged backgrounds who have not let a disadvantaged past be an excuse to commit crimes. I suppose that being Aboriginal there is the disadvantage of having so-called leaders like yourself continually make excuses for them. Disadvantage does not mean you commit crimes.
We often hear about the high jail rates, but never the high crime rates. Nobody is telling you and ?your people? to forget the past. We all have pasts. We are just suggesting to stop using it as an excuse to justify poor behaviour.
It is not ?Aboriginal control of Aboriginal lives that will ever reduce the world record rates of self-harm and suicide? it is learning that we are all Australians with no group being my special than any other group.
10 Oct 2013 7:10:25pm
A very weak series of arguments Sol.
How does it make sense that a person's disadvantaged background must be weighed up in the sentencing time after time, crime after crime? If the initial sentences are discounted for disadvantage surely it is in anticipation at some attempt to reform? It makes no sense that violent offenders should be let out on the streets to commit mayhem because of disadvantage - the public deserves to be protected from people who are not willing to change their previous bad behaviour.
You say Mr Bugmy is institutionalised. Wouldn't that suggest he commits crime to avoid leaving prison? What treatment are you looking for? Should he be confined to an institution for the criminally insane again? Would that help?
Our universities would struggle to make the top 50, who are you kidding? The idea that you would prefer poorly educated judges beggars the imagination. Hoeben has earned his position through hard work I am happy to presume. If he is working in the criminal jurisdiction now wouldn't he have been a barrister working in those areas previously? He would have been well educated in the impacts on people of disadvantage in the course of his practice and in his work with the army I am sure.
You feign outrage. To pretend that aboriginality automatically brings on entrenched disadvantage hurts your credibility. The idea that recidivism should be counted as a factor in calculating disadvantage is just silly.
So are you suggesting black males in South Africa are less likely to commit crimes or their police forces are less efficient in catching lawbreakers? Genetically predisposed to crime OR its the fault of the justice system? Ridiculous. Why not mention culture? So many aboriginals are caught up in the culture of alcohol and it has a devastating impact on their kids. Not just through foetal alcohol syndrome but more through kids staying out on the streets til all hours to avoid family and friends that are in their cups. Why not mention such an obvious factor? Of course the kids will struggle with education if they can't sleep or study, if their chief recreation is to make mischief. How can they avoid disadvantage as a result, in those families that fail to nurture their kids? How can they avoid taking the wrong path if there is no one to guide them?
Sitting on butts in a park is hardly a way to protest or spend large parts of people's lives. What do they hope to achieve with so little effort?
You have seen the damage done to people with sit down money and too much time through alcohol and drugs but somehow you think more sitdown money will improve the situation? Please think again. You can do more for your community if you change your attitude.
10 Oct 2013 7:51:44pm
I think the Judge is doing what is considered normal in that he is taking into account a person's upbringing and childhood history in sentencing, which is most likely the considerations given to Mark 'Chopper' Read when he was sentenced also.
Three years and a bit doesn't seem either lenient or harsh for throwing a pool-ball ; such an act sounds like a purely impulsive one.
When people get out of jail whether they be black, white or female, there should be a work program for them in which they can earn a small sum, say half the average wage, until they get an ethic of pay for labour.
There's a lot of dole money going to people who do nothing for it, whether they be prisoner or not.
This bloke, apart from possibly having a mean streak, need to get up a sweat for himself - honestly - and learns to save money.
10 Oct 2013 8:30:48pm
We could argue forever over this issue and how much disadvantage contributes to criminal behaviour. I'm not a criminal psychologist, so what would I know ? But I do know that a lot of disadvantaged people (possibly like the author of this article), pick themselves up and get on with living useful lives.
That's not to say we should just lock up people who commit crimes and throw away the key. There has to be rehabilitation, or better yet, prevention. The idea of getting aboriginals involved in economic activity, running their own businesses for their own people and others seems like a good start. If potential offenders want a way out of a life of crime, the whole community has the responsibility to give them that chance.
10 Oct 2013 10:11:31pm
I'm curious, did the prison guard who lost his sight in 1 eye get justice, or was he denied it due to a successful victim-hood argument by the perp in this case William Bugmy?
10 Oct 2013 10:13:38pm
Funny that the very people who cannot see the impact of colonisation, the forced removal of Aboriginal people to reserves, the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families, the fact that Aboriginal people were not counted in the Australian census until the 1960's, that Aboriginal children were not permitted to attend public schools until the 1960's (I think that's the date), nor permitted to vote (at least in Queensland) - funny that these very same people who feel this should have no impact leaving all Aboriginal people with clear and simple choices to avoid crime are the very same who are apoplectic about the impact of some thousands of asylum seekers on their 'Australian' way of life.
What makes them so afraid of asylum seekers if everyone has such an ability to always make free choices - and if made will lead to success?
OR is it that deep down, they really know that life does not always offer the ability to make good choices, or the ability to have success no matter how resilient we are.
I am always in awe at the resilience of so many Aboriginal people. In the midst of difficulties way beyond those faced by most of us, they show strength, determination to rescue the young, to find their cultures, to find again a sense of being at home in their land which is now so different.
Graeme Edgeler:
10 Oct 2013 10:17:30pm
That's not how life expectancy works. Life expectancy at birth is not the same as life expectancy at age 31. If life expectancy at birth is 37 years, then life expectancy at 31 will be higher. Overall life expectancy includes infant mortality. The average of people who make it into adulthood is higher.
10 Oct 2013 10:17:31pm
There are essentially three options for every person that commits a crime
1) Give them a fine/prison sentence depending on the severity of the crime. In the case of prison this removes the person from harming the public.
2) Try a rehabilitation program which typically has a very low success rate
3) Do nothing thus exposing the public to continued actions that constitute a crime.
A prison guard is blinded for life and Sol Bellear wants the general public to be exposed to a man who has acted in a manner that causes permanent disability. Pity this dosnt get a mention.
10 Oct 2013 10:36:53pm
I wonder how the prison guard who is now blind in one eye feels about the situation.
10 Oct 2013 10:41:32pm
I only make the above comment about work because in my experience - and I have been around a bit - the real reason that men and women commit crimes is because they want money, but they do not want to work for it.
Unfortunately, however, in modern schooling, children are given the opposite : they look for opportunity, and are taught that chance and good luck is not good will, but an aspect of current communications : 'I'm bound to get with someone who is fine, and pretty'.
Kneelo 52:
11 Oct 2013 12:04:04am
At the risk of being labeled a racist, I am becoming increasingly tired of the " stolen generation " tag , it seems an excuse to absolve any crime that is perpetrated . Why do the many thousands of white children that were forcibly taken from their mothers and in a lot of cases never to see them again don't get the same airplay. I might also add the thousands that were sent from England , many never saw their siblings either. I do not see them using that refrain as an excuse for anything that has gone wrong in their lives.
I guess the old adage reigns here, " the squeaky wheel gets the most oil" ! Before anyone jumps up and down , I went to school with many of these kids in boys homes and keep in contact with them . They have got on with their lives and not used the " I was stolen " as a crutch .
11 Oct 2013 12:58:19am
Attacking a prison guard with a pool cue is not caused by his upbringing.
Dancing Bear:
11 Oct 2013 9:35:53am
Sol, in this article you seem to believe that if I have accuse een harmed by others in ny life, than that is not my responsibility to heal, but instead my excuse to damage other innocent people in society. But it actually prevents us from healing, & dealing with our issues when we are allowed to project it onto others.
Instead of continuing to damage society & further harm the offender, better would be the following priorities:
1. Restricting the offender if he or she is a danger to others
2. Any assistance to heal the offender deal with his or her issues & lead a responsible & enjoyable life.
If he worked to pay for his keep, had free time to do what he enjoyed, and was not encouraged to avoid his responsibility, he may have a better life now. Sometimes when we want to help we are making things worse.
Some people may take issue with what I am saying because he was damaged by others. Yes-so is most damage. But it
Comments for this story are closed.