AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER CHASED BY PROTESTERS
During a ceremony to mark the country’s annual Australia Day celebration in Canberra, Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was forced to flee the event surrounded by police and bodyguards after being besieged by angry protesters demanding aboriginal rights.
Supporters of aboriginal rights in Australia refer to the annual event marking Australia’s creation as ‘Invasion Day’. The issue of aboriginal rights is particularly controversial, given the history of abuse, cruelty, and racism the indigenous people of Australia have suffered.
Hi,
Sorry to be off topic.
Because I think you’re deserving, I’ve nominated Socialist Unity blog for the Versatile Blogger Award. You can accept your award here:
http://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/versatile-blogger-award/
If you’ve already received one, just know I think you deserve another! Thank you for what you do.
Moronic behaviour by protesters. Most Australian will never buy into this kind of divisive narrative.
Abbott, who sparked the incident, will be the beneficiary.
#2
Oh I don’t know. I think it’s quite inspiring to see the PM of a racist, warmongering state being chased by protesters in the name of indigenous rights.
@ #2 Oh for gods sake, do you have any idea what the government does to aboriginal people in this country? Divisive narrative? What about a divisive, oppressive regime? The ‘narrative’ is more of an afterthought, and it’s not like our side sets it anyway. And at any rate, aboriginal people have bloody 3rd world living standards. They are 14 times more likely to be imprisoned, and despite being a small percentage of the population, were 24% of the prison population in 2004. And the deaths in custody! What about the death of Mulrunji Doomagee who was beaten so hard his liver split in too, and died? It’s genocide. This is a question of supporting resistance, not carping from the sidelines.
And you want to crap on about the protest being divisive. Australia day is sickening – flags and racism everywhere. Some aboriginal comrades and their white supporters giving hell to the PM was great to see, and I support them all the way, and so should the left everywhere. In your book the only resistance permitted is polite and constrained.
@ Socialist Unity – there’s a spelling error in the post. It’s not “Invasian day” but “Invasion day”. I’ll find a pic and post it if you like.
#1 “Versatile blogger” of the year. Hmmmm. Am I the only one for whom that conjures up all ma(e)nner of images?
(Sorry, am in a bit of a juvenile mood in between bursts of writing.)
Haha, we got her shoe!! That’s right, they pinched the PM’s shoe in the scuffle… only in Australia…
It’s currently doing the rounds of Sydney activists, and word is it’s gonna be auctioned as a fundraiser for the campaign for aboriginal rights! I hope the winner finds a way to throw it at her.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-26/gillard-27fine27-after-riot-rescue/3795354
Don #2 is totally wrong. Of course, the media are trying to spin it into a violent outrage, (although it was cops, not protesters, who actually dislodged the PM’s shoe) but at least this means they’re having to recognise that the Tent Embassy protests are taking place, and even mention some of the things the protesters are saying, rather than do their usual thing and implying that Aboriginal people are happily joining in the celebrations (because everyone just loves being colonised and ethnically cleansed).
This is the first time for many years I’ve heard the phrase “Invasion Day” in the mainstream media.
#4
Thanks Daniel. The typo has been corrected
Do any Aussie comrades know the outcome of the claim against G4S over the guy who cooked to death in a prison van after he was nicked for drink driving?
#9 The contract was given to another private prison company, Serco, who also run Australia’s jails and concentration camps for refugees.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48787
… and they were fined $285,000
#11 Is that a criminal fine or civil damages?
Re #9: more about the death of Mr Ward at the hands of G4S/Securicor and related issues at
http://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/g4s-mercenaries-killed-australian-aboriginal-elder/
Don,
“Don”, in the last few months you’ve posted under the name Don, Gordon, Danny, Colin, Frank, Fred, Alfie & Edwin, sometimes using 2 names in the same thread. I’m not commenting on what you said, but could you stick to one name please? If people are to engage in real conversation here, it helps if they know whether they’re talking to one person or 8! It doesn’t have to be your own name, but it’s better if people can feel that they’re talking to a real person. Thanks.
#2 Don(or whichever the aliases you post under),you ARE the moron,you moron.
Surely when indigenous people, displaced from their ancestral territories, plan to chase politicians, they should be pre-emptively arrested. Or is that just the UK?
#4
“They are 14 times more likely to be imprisoned, and despite being a small percentage of the population, were 24% of the prison population in 2004.”
Did it ever occur to you that might be because they are committing a disproportionate amount of crime?
Did it ever occur to you that (if so) it might be because they are disproportiantely poor and disadvantaged?
I think Kirk is a bit of an idiot.
“Did it ever occur to you that (if so) it might be because they are disproportiantely poor and disadvantaged?”
The simple truth is that they have equal access to social security, so the poorest Aboriginal is only as poor as the poorest non-Aboriginal, and the fact is that Aboriginals have a far greater scope of benefits then non-Aboriginals including greater access to legal aid.
They had a very raw deal in the past, they don’t now.
Excuse making will not help them, it will only empower those that commit crime at an alarming disproportionate to justify their behaviour.
#Kirk(#17 and #20),or is your latest alias?(see #14). whichever,i wont beat about the bush,no pun intended.you are an absolute prick.
#21 Iain brown
If you have something of note to say, why not just say it? Do you actually have a substantive point to make?
Or is this all you have to offer:
The tediously predicable internet playground first resort to abuse and the always, but always, unsubstantiated distraction tactic of screaming sock puppet?
‘Did it ever occur to you that might be because they are committing a disproportionate amount of crime?’
Did it ever occur to you that might be because they receive a disproportionate amount of attention from the police?
On the main topic, it’s amazing how insulated political elites are today: the first sign of angry protest sees their protective squads go into overdrive, bungling them away to safety.
And I bet they’ll get good money from a wealthy foot fetishist for her shoe.
#23 Feodor Augustus
Did ever occur to you that the police don’t convict people? And that evidence is required to prosecute?
#22,Kris,yes i have substantive things to say but they have already been pointed out,to your obvious distaste given your contributions. Normally i give a(hopefully)considered and measured response to those with whom i either fully,or partially disagree.However,given this site is called Socialist Unity,i choose not to afford the same courtesy to contributors such as yourself(whoever you are).
Can I just point out that this tedious racist Kirk is definitely not Kris?
Ta.
I would like to further point out that when people reply to Kris using an iPhone, the auto-correct sometimes turns it into “kiss”, so if you do a google search of this blog you’ll come up with some odd romantic declarations.
With good cause. We’ve had several posters who can be proved to be posting under 6-10 different names, and given that most of them only do so to post sneering, often racist, nonsense, it’s not surprising that people thought maybe you were yet another manifestation of this.
But instead, it turns out that you’re just an apologist for police racism.
Did ever occur to you that the police don’t convict people? And that evidence is required to prosecute?
Did it ever occur to you that it’s the police who initiate the process through the criminal justice system, and that the evidence is overwhelming that the police target black people more than white, so even if the levels of crime are identical relative to the population, you’d see more black people convicted? You’d have to be wilfully blind to the mountain of evidence from every source that the police in the UK and other countries massively target black people over white.
I always wonder why it’s more likely to be apologists for racism like you who use IP-address-masking websites to make sure no one can trace you when you post to blogs.
And there was I thinking I was popular.
#26,apologies for getting my Kirk,s and my Kris,s mixed up. See this is the problem of replying to those who choose to post under one (or more) aliases,or anonymous or partial real names.i understand that there may have valid reasons for doing so. but in the main i consider this a form of political cowardice,and for those using multiple tags they are also being deliberately malicious. thats why i always post under my actual name,as do some others and would certainly never use an IPhone to do so.
I’m really not very anonymous at all, and use KrisS on here consistently and for quite some time now.
And I’ve no idea who you are.
Heaven forfend!
#31,so why wont you post your real name from now on?yes,you dont know me,but you could find out if you so wished. my name is iain brown ,aged 61 living in Dundee and have been an active socialist in Luton,London as well as here for almost 40 years.is that any help?
#32 Why pick on KrisS?
As you say,
“i understand that there may have valid reasons for doing so.” (using an alias.)
The problem is people abusing anonymity by defaming people with real identities and/ or by using multi-identities which confuse and disrupt debate and I don’t think he has been accused of either of these.
When people do abuse anonymity I think it is fair to call them out on it (in fact I think the threat of exposure can be legitiamtely invoked -and/ or the person banned- by admin where it is a gross abuse, )
But this blog is open to the entire world and I think people may have all kinds of valid reasons for keeping their real identity private, and I think that should be respected. Not least because my real name is not Vanya!
Kirk @#24: ‘Did ever occur to you that the police don’t convict people? And that evidence is required to prosecute?’
Tony’s already done a good job of answering you – and if you seriously think that police investigation and evidence collection is not a major component of any prosecution then, frankly, you’re living in a fantasy land.
But let’s try something a little different, because everyone learns in different ways…
Jack and Jill go up the hill to pick some apples. Jack goes into the field on the right and picks five apples, Jill goes into the field on the left and picks ten. Then, they both return home to eat their apples, and find that Jack has picked one rotten apple, Jill two.
Now, logically speaking, did Jill pick more rotten apples because there are more rotten apples in the left field, or because she picked more apples total?
Please try not to do yourself an injury while thinking about this conundrum…
#33,Vanya,i wasnt “picking on KrisS” specifically.yes,there are valid reasons for keeping ones identity private.I SAID SO didnt i? Without spelling out what some of these might be,unless contributors have some overwhelmingly valid reason(s) for so doing,then my belief is its often a safe cop out and refuge.
#33
Vanya,
#36. WHAT???
Oh okay. But I haven’t done it for a long time, I didn’t do it a lot, and I thought there was an amnesty when Tony took over in admin.
And it wasn’t my fault and someone told me to do it.
#25 iain brown
So its confirmed: You have nothing to say.
And Kirk is my name, not a pseudonym.
#26 KrisS
People like you seriously undermine true racism, causally splashing the word around in lieu of any cohesive point.
Do you really behave like that in real life? There is not one shred of racism in what I have said and as such you will not be able to substantiate the absurd slur.
#27 tony collins
So your claim is that there is a massive and routine police conspiracy to fake evidence on a monumental scale, but you cannot point to it in substance nor has it been uncovered by anyone else.
This conspiracy then stretches throughout the judge and jury system, the high courts, the appeal courts and indeed up to the highest legislators?
That is what you claim? Without one scrap of proof?
I’ll bet you have never even set foot here in Australia, let alone lived here.
I can tell you that the first and foremost problem in Aboriginal communities is alcohol, not poverty.
A close second is do-gooders like you telling young Aboriginals that they are victims without hope from the day they are born, that the system hates them and conspires to harm them (all without a scrap of proof) and by extension all of their fellow Australians; then making excuses for the resultant behaviour or even worse, outlandish unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Oh, and why is it you feel the need to try and trace me, merely because you don’t agree with me? To what end?
If more people posted under their own names, there would probably be a lot less gratuitous abuse on blogs. Whether that would be a good thing is another matter.
Kirk: ‘I can tell you that the first and foremost problem in Aboriginal communities is alcohol, not poverty.’
High levels of alcoholism have a proven correlation with high levels of poverty. The contention being that the greater the latter, the greater the former; and not vice versa.
And who’s talking about a ‘conspiracy’? If the police target minorities more, which is true, and if the police’s investigation and evidence collection is a crucial part of prosecution, which is also true. Then it follows that, given the greater resources of the police versus the prosecuted, a consistent policy of targeting and prosecuting certain groups will lead to higher conviction levels among those groups.
This is not a ‘conspiracy’, and anyone who’s had any kind of contact with the police realises that it is incredibly difficult, even when completely innocent, to survive the whole prosecution machinery that they and the state has at its disposal.
The police in modern society are given a de-facto assumption of veracity, which is hard to combat, even though it is rarely deserved.
I will repeat what I said earlier, because it is as clear as it gets:
The simple truth is that all have equal access to social security, so the poorest Aboriginal is only as poor as the poorest non-Aboriginal.
And the fact is that Aboriginals have a far greater scope of benefits then non-Aboriginals including greater access to legal aid and laws that actively discriminate in their favour for employment.
More advantage, not less.
They had a very raw deal in the past, they don’t now.
They are drinking because they are addicted and allowed to do so on benefits, not because they are poor.
A vastly disproportionate number are then committing crimes as a direct result of this addiction.
So what you are saying is these issues are not their responsibility to accept and deal with, but somehow I and all of their fellow Australians are responsible instead, and there is no solution but ever frenzied self-flagellation?
Of course there have been claims of a conspiracy in this thread:
If the police are deliberately targeting Aboriginals whilst ignoring others crimes, then that is a colossal and criminal conspiracy, and one that must be supported throughout all the legal layers I previously described.
If you have proof of this, then please do share it, it will be the story of the century here.
If on the other hand police resources are disproportionately directed to a group that are committing disproportionate amounts of crime, then in all reality, would you not really expect this outcome?
Kirk: ‘I will repeat what I said earlier…’
Debate, Kirk, works by responding to others points – simply repeating what you’ve said, ignoring the progression of the discussion, just returns us to the start.
‘They are drinking because they are addicted and allowed to do so on benefits, not because they are poor.’
What a fricking tautology. To be on benefits is, by any reasonable measure, to be poor. Poverty, in turn, breeds conditions amenable to addiction, this is well known. Addiction then reinforces this vicious cycle, but this does not make it the root of the problem.
Your logic is backward.
‘Of course there have been claims of a conspiracy in this thread…’
No, there have been claims that police responses disproportionately target Aboriginals. Why they do this, is not a conspiracy, but based on a common perception/misconception that you yourself articulate:
‘…police resources are disproportionately directed to a group that are committing disproportionate amounts of crime’.
You fail to realise that more resources and more targeting finds more crime, but that does not necessarily translate into the conclusion that there is more total crime, just that greater attention uncovers more of it.
Go back to the example I gave about collecting apples. Think on it, prey on it, but as you won’t understand the point anyway, I’ll give it to you: that Jill found more rotten apples does not prove that there are more rotten apples to be found in that specific field – there is not enough information in the premises to answer this in the affirmative or negative. All we can say is that Jill expended more effort in finding said apples, which is why she found more: that is the only sound conclusion that can be drawn.
I’ll leave it to you to try and figure out how this relates to the rest of the discussion – though I don’t have very high hopes that you’ll figure it out.
‘If you have proof of this, then please do share it, it will be the story of the century here.’
I doubt that. Seems to me that most Australians like their self-imposed ignorance. The media is only partially to blame for under-reporting police persecution of Aborigines – the majority of the Australian public simply doesn’t want to accept what their own eyes tell them.
I imagine this is because to accept it would be a rather unsettling process, and its far better to just enjoy the sun, sea and sand than to question the human costs that have accompanied it.
@38 And Kirk is my name, not a pseudonym.
We all thought it was Pauline Hanson.
#42 Feodor Augustus
I repeated the points because it was still valid in response, and it still is now in response to you.
To be on benefits is not to be poor by any means, as I understand it in the UK the government is currently trying to get a cap as many cases far exceed the average wage. That is people can be better of not working then those who are.
The benefits paid to Aboriginals are overtly generous and do not facilitate the will to work, and there is plenty of work.
They even have a special benefit of a cleaner twice a week, as though the state is saying that they need not even lift a finger to take care of their own homes. I find that deeply patronising and not in the least bit helpful.
There is no poverty in Australia. No one starves here. Poor is a relative term. Can people on benefits afford the latest mobile phones? Yes, but not as often as they could if they worked, but then why should they?
Aboriginals certainly are not poor to the degree that many of them cannot afford to frequent bars and be stocked in liquor all day long. And that is where the trouble really starts.
All the dry schemes have shown that crime police callout rates and arrests drop by about two thirds.
Also there are fewer and less serious hospital admissions (the Queensland community of Woorabinda reported a drop from 11 to one hospital admission per quarter for assault when the community went dry; Norseman (WA) reported over 60% less admissions). There are also far fewer suicides and far less incidents of domestic violence, assaults, injuries, drunkenness and anti-social behaviour, as well as sexual abuse.
Dry schemes work – and they also dramatically reduce the Aboriginal arrest and conviction rates.
And that is the facts and the truth:
It is not a massive police and legal conspiracy as you seem to be intent on pushing (despite admitting not having one scrap of proof) it is quite simply that Aboriginals commit a vastly disproportionate amount of crime in non-dry areas, and that rate falls more in line with national rates in dry areas.
If the police and legal authorities were involved in this monumental conspiracy the rates would remain just as high regardless. They do not.
Have you actually ever been to Australia, let alone lived here? Because your stereotypical view of us as all ignorant, uncaring racists is as far from reality as it is offence.
You clearly have no idea about the subject you have chosen to preach on, and you clearly have not a seconds experience of it.
#42,well said Feodor Augustus,but we are falling into his/her trap. by simply reasserting our opposition to Kirk,s comments simply allows him/her to restate their position ad infinitum.its utterly pointless,and ultimately self defeating.its clearly apparent that the normal rules of rational debate are utterly alien to Kirk,so what is the point or purpose of responding? personally,i have nothing more to say to this person or similar characters.
@45personally,i have nothing more to say to this person or similar characters.
I, too, don’t see the point in engaging with obvious right-wingers like ‘Kirk’ on a Socialist blog.
‘Kirk’ infers that the condition of Aboriginals is entirely their own fault: ‘Blaming the Victims’ is a hallmark of those who wish to make excuses for racism for reactionary purposes. Indeed, it’s a keystone of modern right-wing narrative.
#46,Jellytot “ditto”. nuff said.
#45 iain brown
Considering you have already admitted you have nothing of substance to say, why have you come back merely to indulge in more unsubstantiated Ad Hom?
And why are you even bothering to post to a debate thread to tell us debate is pointless?
I have presented the reality, replete with facts, of the situation.
You have provided naught other then groundless abuse.
#46 Jellytot
Does presenting facts and explaining realties to people who clearly are ignorant of them make someone an ‘obvious right-winger’ in your world?
You one of those who proves Godwin’s Law rapidly, it would seem.
After pointing out that grammatically, I would imply, and you would infer, it seems obvious to me that you are another one has never been to Australia, let alone lived here.
You haven’t got the first clue and its so obvious its absurd.
Do you really think the fact that a vastly disproportionate number of Aboriginals like to get drunk makes them ‘victims’? Do you really think that when drunk the vastly disproportionate number of crimes committed makes them ‘victims’ as well? Many Aboriginals are sick of the problem. Most especially the women.
What a crock. So go on then, in line with your perpetual victimhood narrative, what is your solution?That should be worth a laugh.
The solution that works, that we can prove works, are dry communities.
Dry communities have around 2/3rds less arrests and convictions, because guess what big fella, around 2/3rds less crime is committed. Well, who would have thunk it.
Now explain where the racism is in that.
Kirk, we’ve indulged enough of your racism. Your claim to be posting “facts” and “reality” is belied by the pure racism of your posts and by your mischaracterisation of your opponents’ beliefs.
There’s plenty of room for people to debate this stuff, and most of us here have plenty of time for debating around issues of racism, but your agenda becomes clearer with every post. Your welcome here has been worn out.
Iain, I don’t disagree, it’s just sometimes I like to throw common sense out of the window and feed the troll – even if they continually refuse to engage with the substantive points of my argument.
Kirk: ‘To be on benefits is not to be poor by any means…’
Have you ever tried to live on benefits? Doesn’t seem like it. Because you don’t live, you exist, and being hungry is quite common – even if you don’t starve.
The old saying remains true: the dole is not enough to live on, too much to die on.
It’s certainly not more profitable than if you earn a wage, even the minimum wage.
Also, you should take your own advice and not comment on countries you don’t live in, because the following is nonsense:
‘…as I understand it in the UK the government is currently trying to get a cap as many cases far exceed the average wage. That is people can be better of not working then those who are.’
Gov rhetoric is not fact.
Benefits in the UK are means tested, almost half (46% I think) of those whose benefits ‘exceed the average wage’ live in London, where rents are way above the national average. The rest either live in similarly high rent areas (Edinburgh e.g.) or have large families.
Do your research.
‘There is no poverty in Australia.’
Lol.
‘…there is plenty of work.’
Free-market dogma. There is never enough work for everyone in a capitalist economy. Unemployment is a feature of the system. Fact.
‘All the dry schemes have shown that crime police callout rates and arrests drop by about two thirds.’
And the majority of that drop is likely a fall in the figures of drunk and disorderly.
Though this is a meaningless comparison, as to have any validity abstinence would have to be enforced on the white community too. And I’m sure there’d be a similar decrease, which only shows that alcohol is often a factor in crimes. But in no way shows that the Aboriginal community does not receive disproportionate attention.
Indeed the very fact that abstinence is forced upon them and not the rest of society, underlines that they do receive disproportionate attention.
‘And that is the facts and the truth’.
Do you even know the difference between a ‘fact’ and a ‘truth’?
‘It is not a massive police and legal conspiracy…’
No ‘conspiracy’, just quite typical mechanisms of state repression against minorities. Happens all over the world. It’s no secret. Hence it’s also no ‘conspiracy’. (Though the more brutal excesses are often covered-up, but even more are in the public domain, there for anyone to find if they care to look.)
‘Have you actually ever been to Australia, let alone lived here? Because your stereotypical view of us as all ignorant, uncaring racists is as far from reality as it is offence.’
No interest in going there: you’re hardly doing a good job of advertising it either, as you only emphasise the more repulsive parts of your culture.
Dismissing all Aborigines as lazy drunks is the very essence of racism.
Now, Kirk, would you please apply that fine brain of yours to the basic points about your logic I was making earlier? Because dodging them, while I show you the good favour of responding to your hyperbole, only exposes your poor argument to everyone who’s reading.
What some might call moving the goal posts seems your sine qua non.
#48,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Ken Livingstone for
London Mayor 2012
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture