Looks May Be Deceiving

With all this drama concerning the governments radical new plan to address sexual (and general) abuse in Aboriginal communities I can't help but feel that we're being invited to double think. Ever since the 'Children are Sacred' report was handed to the government, it appears that only now are they aware of the disgraceful situation in some of these communities. Weren't we always aware?

This question leads me to do what's become in the conservative press the ultimate taboo, and that is to question the timing. No, they didn't commission the report, but it's incredibly naive to think that Howard wasn't aware of the political advantage such action may present. After all, we are talking about a government that showed no qualms in using desperate asylum seekers as political footballs during the course of an election year, so keeping this in mind, is it so inconceivable that this action may hide at least an iota of an ulterior motive? To simply muse on such a thing now appears to be completely outrageous. Howard's suddenly above politics, and to question the long term sincerity, or any of the fine details for that matter, is to be condemned.

I mainly read The Australian, a Right-wing rant of a paper if there ever was one. They've been characteristically aggressive in their attacks on all criticisms of the plan, no matter how small. Starting with Glenn Milne on Monday bashing all those who dared to dissent, then followed up by yesterday's editorial: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21966369-7583,00.html

"The very notion of seeking political opportunity by exploiting the tragic circumstances exposed by the Northern Territory's investigation into sexual abuse in indigenous communities is repugnant."

It's certainly a repugnant thing for a politician to do, they have that right, but isn't it strange that the Pacific Solution never drew such a statement from the majority of those on the Right. In fact it drew cheers even though it was so transparently done for political gain. What's the moral difference? It goes on in typical Australian fashion:

"For critics of the Howard plan, indigenous disadvantage is less a debate about rights and responsibilities than a clamour to wallow in what is portrayed as the superior virtue of the oppressed."

The attention on the abysmal circumstances that these people live in is excellent news and well overdue, but to attack those who question aspects of it as somehow morally bankrupt is ridiculous. Personally I support the plan, something dramatic must be done, but using desperate people as pawns unfortunately has a precedent in the Howard government.