[Lasnetmail] Fw: Jennifer Martiniello- on Howard's New Tampa- Let's make NAIDOC week (8 to 15 July) bigger and louder supporting Aboriginal Australians - cheers Nilva forward on

[Lucho]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nilva Egana 
To: ginger28 at gmail.com 
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 3:14 PM
Subject: Jennifer Martiniello- on Howard's New Tampa- Let's make NAIDOC week (8 to 15 July) bigger and louder supporting Aboriginal Australians - cheers Nilva forward on



Below is the text of an article by Jennifer Martiniello which will be 
  forwarded to major newspapers in Australia. Please pass on to your 
  networks. Jennifer Martiniello is a writer and academic of Arrernte, 
  Chinese and Anglo descent. She is a former Deputy Chair of the 
  Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Arts Board of the Australia 
  Council for the Arts, and a current member of the Advisory Board of 
the 
  Australian Centre for Indigenous History at the ANU. 


  Howard's new Tampa children overboard are our Aboriginal children. 

  The Little Children are Sacred report does not advocate physically and psychologically invasive examinations of Aboriginal children, which could only be carried out anally and vaginally. It does not recommend scrapping the permit system to enter Aboriginal lands, nor does it recommend taking over Aboriginal 'towns' by enforced leases. These latter two points in the Howard scheme hide the true reason for the Federal Government's use of the latest report for blatant political opportunism. 

  It has been an openly stated agenda that Howard wants to move Aboriginal people off their lands, and has made recent attempts to buy off Aboriginal people by offering them millions for agreeing to lease their lands to the Federal Government, e.g. Tiwi Islands and Tangentyere in Alice Springs. There was also the statement by the Federal 
Government that it could not continue (?!) to provide essential services to remote communities, which raised an uproar of responses in the press. The focus on the sexual abuse of children is guaranteed to evoke the most emotive responses, and therefore command attention, just like the manipulation of the Tampa situation. But while the attention of the media and the public is being emotionally coerced, what is being sneaked in under the covers? 

  Two issues specifically - mining companies have applied for morezexploration permits in the Northern  Territory, the Jabiluka uraniumzmining operations at Kakadu have already hit the media because of the mining company's applications to the Government to significantly 
expand its operations, including establishing new mines at Coronation 
  Government has already mooted that nuclear waste should be dumped in the Northern Territory, on Aboriginal lands. Aboriginal traditional owners are absolutely opposed to this. We have a long history of deaths and illness from radiation, from the atomic tests at Woomera in the 1950s to the current high incidences of carcinomas in the community at Kakadu near the Jabiluka site. The main obstacle to the Federal Government's desired expansion of mining operations in the Northern Territory and nuclear waste dumping is, of course, the Aboriginal people who have occupancy of, and rights under the common law to, their traditional lands. 

  Following the stages of the Howard Government's usual modus operandi (defund, blame, eliminate), defunding of critical programs for remote Aboriginal community projects began in July 2004, with coerced changes to funding contracts, and monies for critically needed youth and health programs in remote areas being the first dollars to go. Take Mutitjulu for example, which was notoriously profiled by the ABC's Nightline program. I say notorious because one of Senator Mal Brough's personal staffers was the so-called ex-youth worker interviewed on that program, and the content of that interview was laden with myths and 
mistruths. 
  The staffer in question failed to appear when summoned before a 
Senate inquiry to explain and the Senator's office is yet to issue a 
statement. 
  When the community lodged a formal protest to Government, it was raided and their computers seized. But the program did show the effects of the Howard Government defunding of essential programs on that community, in particular the youth centre and health centre. The people at Mutitjulu also just happen to be the traditional owners of Uluru, one of this country's most lucrative tourist attractions. The Howard Government would not like us to ask who benefits by the people of Mutitjulu being forced off their community. Under the amendments to Native Title made by the Howard Government, once Aboriginal people have left their traditional lands, forcibly or otherwise, their rights under the common  law that every other Australian enjoys over their land are significantly impaired. 

  Progressive defunding of Aboriginal art centres has also begun, with 
a 
  range of community art centres not having their funding renewed by 
DCITA 
  in July 2005 and 2006 in the Northern  Territory, from communities 
in 
  Arnhemland to mid and southern Territory communities. The art 
production 
  facilitated by those Aboriginal art centres are the only means 
through 
  which members of those communities can actually earn a living, as 
  opposed to being on welfare. But then, dependent people are easier 
to 
  control by means of that dependency. The Howard Government's failed 
  Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) have also been the catalyst 
for 
  further blame shifting and progressive defunding, take Wadeye for 
  example. 

  Our Aboriginal communities are being squeezed further into 
dysfunction 
  and disenfranchisement by carefully targeted political engineering, 
the 
  systemic and ruthless roll-out of a planned agenda. It is no 
accident 
  that Howard's scheme to address what he calls the urgency of the 
Little 
  Children are Sacred report's 97 recommendations was trotted out so 
very quickly, and addresses so very few of those recommendations. It is 
sheer political opportunism to advance an already in motion agenda, and to score points in an election year. After all, The Little Children are Sacred report is not the first of such reports, nor are its findings and recommendations new. The Federal Government has had the 1989, 1991, 1993, 1997 and 2002 reports gathering dust and deliberate inaction 
on 
  its shelves. Perhaps Mr Howard has been saving them up for a rainy 
  election year? And of course Mr Howard's scheme targets only 
Aboriginal 
  communities, despite the fact that the findings specifically state 
that 
  non- Aboriginal men, that is, white men, are a significant 
proportion of 
  the offenders, who are black-marketeering in petrol and alcohol to 
gain 
  access to Aboriginal children. What measures is the Howard 
Government 
  going to take about non-Aboriginal sex offenders, pornographers, 
  substance traffickers and the like? Nothing according to the 
measures 
  announced, but then, they're not Aboriginal and they don't live on 
the 
  Aboriginal communities where their victims live. 

  So who are the real victims here, the silenced victims of John 
Howard's 
  scheme? Aboriginal children, of course, who will be subject to 
  physically and psychologically invasive medical examinations, 
  irrespective of their home and family circumstances, and who will 
deal 
  with the mental and emotional fall-out from that? Aboriginal men, 
too, 
  who become the silenced scapegoats, painted by default by John 
Howard as 
  all being drunken, child-raping monsters. Perhaps the fact that 
almost 
  every picture shown of Aboriginal men in the media these days shows 
them 
  drunk, with a slab, cask or bottle under their arms leads Mr Howard 
to 
  expect that one to pass unchallenged, irrespective of the fact that 
  statistics show that only 15% of Aboriginal people drink alcohol, 
  socially or otherwise, compared to around 87% of non-Aboriginal 
  Australians. The greater majority of Aboriginal men are good, decent 
  people. Perhaps the media would like to rethink its portrayals of 
  Aboriginal men? How about some photos of the other alcoholics, you 
know, 
  the white ones. There's more of them.And what of our communities? 
The 
  Howard Government also hasn't mentioned that the majority of 
Aboriginal 
  communities in the Northern  Territory are already dry communities, 
  decided and enforced by those communities. But then that would spoil 
the 
  picture Mr Howard wants to paint of our Aboriginal communities. 
Other 
  large communities, such as Daly River, have controlled the situation 
by 
  only having alcohol available from the community's club and enforce 
a 
  strict four can limit. Also forgotten in the current politically 
  opportunistic furore is the fact that Aboriginal communities around 
  Tennant Creek and Katherine have been lobbying Governments and town 
  councils for decades to restrict the sale of alcohol on Thursdays, 
when 
  Aboriginal community people come to town for supplies. So far their 
  pleas have been rejected. Nothing in Mr Howard's plan to facilitate 
  that, either. Or about the control of alcohol when those people, 
once 
  forced off the communities into the towns, bring their problems with 
  them, child abuse or alcoholism and all the rest. Of course that 
would 
  make access to Aboriginal children a lot easier for white offenders, 
  they won't have to go so far to find a victim. 

  One last word on focus of attention. In the famous Redfern Address, 
the 
  then Prime Minister, Paul Keating asked perhaps the most important 
  question for all Australians to consider. He said 'We failed to ask 
the 
  most basic of questions. We failed to ask - What if this were done 
to 
  us?' What if this were done to us - to Mr and Mrs Average 
Australian, to 
  our schools, youth centres, health centres, access to medical care, 
  communities, homes, children, grandchildren? After all, current 
national 
  health reports from a wide range of health organisations name sexual 
  abuse of non-Indigenous Australian children as a crisis area in need 
of 
  urgent attention. And the numbers of victims are higher. National 
  reports into mainstream domestic violence, alcohol and substance 
abuse 
  also call for urgent action, again the issues are at crisis level, 
and 
  the numbers of victims and abusers are far higher than in the Little 
  Children are Sacred report. None of the recommendations in all of 
those 
  hundreds of national health reports recommend compulsory sexual 
health 
  tests for every Australian child under sixteen. Not one of them 
  recommends that a viable solution is closing down youth and health 
  programs, in fact they all advocate that more are needed. None 
recommend 
  that the victims' or the offenders' communities and homes should be 
  surrendered to the Federal Government and put under compulsory lease 
  agreements, and none advocate processes which would lead to either 
the 
  victims or the abusers losing their rights under common law to their 
  property as measure to control or remedy the occurrence of abuse. 
Would 
  the Howard Government even dare to contemplate such as that? I think 
  not. It would be un-Australian, and the Government it would expect 
  immediate legal repercussions on the grounds of impairment of human 
  rights, extinguishment of rights under common law, discrimination, 
and a 
  raft of other constitutional issues. Besides, Mr and Mrs Average 
  Australian don't, for the most part, live on top of uranium and 
mineral 
  deposits or future nuclear waste dumps. 

  But seriously, the most critical question for all Australians to ask 
  themselves in the lead up to this year's Federal Election is just 
that - 
  What if it were done to us? With full acknowledgment of what has already been done to workers, trade unions, student unions, public primary, secondary and tertiary education, elderly care, palliative care, medicare, crisis health care, nurses, teachers, multicultural affairs, migrant groups, women, child care, small businesses and artsworkers, among the many, through the exercise of policies of social engineering and fear, your answer at the polling booth may just determine whether it will be done to you, or continue to be done to you. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald 25th June, the Howard Government last week used the military to seize control of 60 Aboriginal communities in the  Northern Territory, which are now under military occupation. This is not Israel and Palestine. The Northern Territory is not Gaza or the West Bank. This is Australia - but is it the Australia you thought you lived in? Walk in our shoes, Aboriginal Australia's, and ask yourselves, what would it be like to have this done to us? And then, walk with us. 
  Jennifer Martiniello 

-- 
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Think Hew Griffiths - The Australian extradited to the USA
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
"You try not ever to be in the position to compromise by coercion on your sovereignty." Perry G. Christie PM of the Bahamas
Statement when he was being pressured by the George W. Bush administration to enter into an agreement with the United States to abrogate his nation's treaty obligations regarding the International Criminal Court, 2003 " Courtesy: Eigen's Political & Historical Quotations." 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.latinlasnet.org/pipermail/lasnetmail/attachments/20070701/58d6ff22/attachment.htm