Going On Holiday

I have to go to Indonesia for two weeks so play safe everyone.

Is Calling Her "Pumpkin" A Sign Of Racism?

After reading this letter in The Age I started to think that maybe this person has a point:

'WHEN an abandoned Caucasian child or infant is found it is never called "Baby-gro" or "Bonds", it is given an authentic child's name. However, when a little Chinese girl is found, the best name that can be thought of is "Pumpkin". What lies behind that decision? Even when her real name is recovered, the name "pumpkin", or "the toddler", continues to be used in the media. Why is that? '

Yeah right! It's a sign that some cop suffered from a lack of imagination not racism. And her real name is being used (albeit within the fine print) but let's face it, when a cute little girl who's been abandoned by her father in another country is called Pumpkin once, she's never gonna shake it.

Cute little Pumpkin.

What the hell is wrong with your father!?

Bolt's Bizarre Comments

Firstly, apologies to Jeremy for stepping on his toes as this is usually his department but I noticed he hadn't written anything yet so....

There's just a few comments in Bolt's piece that I've found to be just plain weird. One of them is this:

'Incidentally, for more proof, see star Labor candidate Maxine McKew, now fighting Prime Minister John Howard for his seat of Bennelong.
She’s just promised to recognise the “Armenian genocide”, hoping to thrill Bennelong’s 4000 ethnic Armenians.
The nation’s many Turks, however, will be enraged, rightly arguing that the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the wars, famines and inter-ethnic slaughter of the Ottoman Empire’s last years was a tragedy, but no state-ordered genocide.'

This is exactly the kind of rash pronouncement that landed the man in hot water over the Stolen Generation for there is absolutely no way that Andrew Bolt could at all be sure that the Armenian massacre wasn't a genocide. There is much evidence to suggest it was, yet here this Australian journalist believes he can be sure enough to take the incredible step of denying the massacre was actually planned. Has he know idea of the extent of his crime were he to be proven wrong? Were he to simply say that the evidence isn't yet conclusive, sure, but outright denial!?

Then there were these comments:

'Already we can assume Labor in office will kill the federal intervention in the Northern Territory launched by this Government to save Aboriginal communities now drowning in booze, violence, truancy and unemployment.'

Can we!!? That's certainly news to me.

'Except, of course, we know Labor is infected with the New Racism, and still plays off one tribe against another.'

'Preserve the tribe! Never mind the individual. And pit one race against another. '

So it was Labor that used race as a device to win the 2001 election. Labor demonised asylum seekers in order to pit the population against these que-jumpers and potential terrorists. It was Labor who pitched the majority against Aborigines by claiming they were receiving special treatment and that the
former should be justly resentful. It was Rudd who questioned the rate of Asian immigration in the 80's.

Well once again this is all news to me.

No More Mr Nice PM

Howard flips Rudd the bird!!!

Iain Hall Supports Ritual Human Sacrifice!

I've been debating with Iain recently about his tendency to read just a tad too much into other peoples writings, or even lack thereof. Iain has this uncanny ability to see the 'implicit' meaning behind everything you write, or don't write, and is thus able to attribute opinions or thoughts to you even though you've never voiced them!!!! It's truly unnerving!!! To illustrate this shocking ability I'll give a few examples.

A few days ago Iain argued on his blog that I'd "written a piece denouncing the governments vote against this pernicious (U.N) declaration." Yet if anyone would care to look at the post below the next, I clearly affirm no position. The post outlines what I believe are the real reasons why the Government didn't sign the U.N Declaration (and the politics involved), and nowhere in it do I offer my opinion on anything else. Yet even though I hadn't expressed a view, this is a moot point to Iain because he knows what I really think!

'the reason he want’s to see the UN declaration as an instrument of justice and virtue has more to do with an over active guilt chip than any consistent principle.'

Bravo!! There goes that straw man. Well done old chap. How did he deduce this?

'I will concede that you did not explicitly affirm a position but there certainly seems to be an implicit condemnation of the governments vote on this matter'

So I didn't say it, but in order to write about it it was necessary that he attribute that opinion to me.

But this is actually a bit of a habit of old Iain's. The words he employs to stuff you into a box of his own design are 'tacit' and 'implicit'. So you may not actually say that you support terrorists, but in not expressing your outrage at them at least once a day you are 'tacitly' supporting them. Like the ALP 'tacitly' supports attacks on the indigenous intervention:

'MM - There’s been very little in the way of ALP support for any of the attacks Iain. They’ve come, in the main, from Indigenous groups and the Greens.

Iain - I did characterise said attacks as being tacitly supported by the ALP MM'

So they didn't actually support the attacks (meaning they didn't say anything about them at all) they 'tacitly' supported them. Why Iain would expect the ALP to defend the Coalition while it's being attacked I'm not sure.

Iain has taken the use of 'tacit' and 'implicit' to great new heights and now deploys them wherever he finds himself in a pinch. Hap and Jeremy, 'tacitly' support Jihadists for example (in fact Iain probably thinks we all do) because they don't argue for the annihilation of Muslims like his friends at A Western Heart and Crusader Rabbit do, therefore they 'tacitly' support Islamic terror:

'Read Osama’s latest anti-west rant and tell me if it is that far away from any number of far left bloggers, like my old pal Jeremy for example (another rich kid gone bad, sigh) or perhaps my fairly regular visitor Hap. Like the Islamists the far left are great haters who wish death upon all of those who would stand against them.'

My reply was predictable, 'WTF!!!!' and so was Iains:

'I was not making any allegations of explicit support for Jihadists in relation to either Jeremy or even Hap but I was pointing out that they both have been willing to make excuses for them none the less.'

Iain can even be threatened implicitly:

'However when you have threats explicit and implicit against you or your family, which accompany the publication of your home address...'

As you can see it's full of endless opportunity.

In fact it's so full of opportunity that I'm starting to believe it's a valid call. So while exploring the potential of my new found ability at Iain's blog I made a startling discovery. Iain tacitly supports ritual human sacrifice!!! Not once did I find a single post in denunciation of it!!!! As you can imagine I was blown away by this discovery and had to immediately write of it.

But while writing I realised that I've also been tacitly supporting ritual human sacrifice, and many other grievous crimes!! So to make sure I'm not denounced as a hypocrite let me make one thing clear.

I DON'T SUPPORT RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE.

But on the my points concerning the U.N Declaration, it seems that my reading of the said document was fairly on the money as this article in The Australian showed today:

'Professor Sampford said the declaration could raise concerns among some governments because it appears to require the consent of indigenous people to approve projects on their lands and raise the issue of compensation for lands taken.
He also said the tone of the declaration was not "particularly consistent" with the Government's legal framework for its Northern Territory intervention.
The fast-tracked intervention, backed by Labor, aims to fight alcohol and child abuse in indigenous communities.
But Professor Sampford said he was less convinced of the argument, used by Mr Brough, that the declaration could give customary law precedence over national law.
"That would be an unlikely interpretation by any sovereign government," he said'

If you didn't notice, Professor Sampford 'tacitly' supports ratifying the Declaration as well.

Bolt's Oft Repeated Disgrace

Andrew Bolt is about as regular as clockwork, though I'm sure we're all very aware of that fact. After reading this in The Australian:

'A MAGISTRATE seeking to preserve an Aboriginal toddler's "cultural identity" ignored warnings from child protection workers and put him into the care of his violent uncle, who four weeks later tortured and bashed the boy almost to death.
The 26-year-old uncle was sentenced to six years in prison yesterday after admitting to beating his 20-month-old nephew so severely that the toddler was fighting for his life in intensive care for three days.'

I knew without a doubt that Bolt would use it shamefully as another stick with which to beat his enemies in relation to the Stolen Generations. And viola, he did:

'As I’ve said many times, the stolen generation is a myth killing black children:'

What simple minded, partisan nonsense his argument is. Since his been destroyed by a mountain of historical evidence this has been his most recent, and most ridiculous, tactic. To convince Australia that the Stolen Generations should be denied he precedes to guilt them into disbelieving it, because as he says, regardless of the evidence for it, 'it kills black children'. So we're asked to not bother researching the evidence for ourselves because in doing so we'll simply be complicit in their deaths. This argument is tantamount to telling Armenians to stop mourning their past genocide if they would prefer better relations with Turkey. Just deny it no matter what happened, and all will be well. But let's look at this case as it happened:

'The boy, whose father was in jail for child rape, had been left homeless after the murder of his mother.
The decision of the Children's Court magistrate in October last year came despite the opposition of the Department of Human Services, which had raised concerns about the uncle's long criminal history and inadequate accommodation.
Indigenous leaders Boni Robertson, a professor in indigenous policy at Griffith University, and Warren Mundine, the former national president of the ALP, attacked the magistrate's decision to ignore the uncle's criminal and drug histories.
"It makes a mockery of the whole concept of child protection," Professor Robertson said. "Whoever made the decision to put that child in the care of that person with a history of known violence, they should be held culpable for what has happened to that child."'

No shit!!! What an immensely stupid decision! But if we are to follow Bolt's logic the magistrate can be absolved of his stupidity because the "myth" of the stolen generations is the real underlying culprit. The fact that this point would appear convenient for Bolt after his shrill denials of the Stolen Generations is of course of no consequence. To illustrate the magistrate's exceptional stupidity once more:

'The court heard yesterday that the uncle -- who lived in overcrowded conditions in the outer-southeast Melbourne suburb of Dandenong and was battling addictions to various drugs -- told police he "lost it" and started hitting the child in the head with an open hand because the boy was playing with his food.'

U.N Declaration On Indigenous Rights

Howard may have received his long sort after wedge yesterday with Labor vowing to ratify the new U.N declaration. I think we all know where this is going. The government decided not to ratify it because they believe it legitimised customary law '...including practices "not acceptable in the modern world"'. Now I'm no lawyer, but after trolling through the draft of the U.N declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples it's appeared to me that there may be more to their rejection of it than they're letting on. The prospect of violence or abuse being legitimised is pretty slim at first glance:

'States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to
ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees
against all forms of violence and discrimination.'

Not to mention the fact that it is all non-binding.

What I think may have alarmed the Howard Government more are articles such as these:

Article 23
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and
strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples
have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing
and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to
administer such programmes through their own institutions.

Article 26
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources
which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

Article 28
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include
restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for
the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise
occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or
damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.


2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned,
compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality,
size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

I think that it should be fairly clear that this government was never going to ratify such a declaration. With reference to Article 23, the government's current intervention, with its zero consultation with indigenous people, would appear to already be in violation of the declaration, as is its disbanding of ATSIC.

UPDATE: If you would like to see Iain Hall's ridiculous beat-up of this post go here.