A poisonous Leftist myth is hurting black kids

The Leftist myth of a "Stolen generation" has by now been pretty well debunked but Leftists are immune to facts so still believe and preach it.  Aboriginal families are often highly dysfunctional, with childen being seriously abused and neglected.  In such circumstances, social workers would take ANY child (black or white) off its parents and foster it out.  So they did that a lot with black kids.  Such kids were the allegedly "stolen" generation, though there was never anything remotely like a whole generation being "stolen".

When Leftist historians created the myth, however, it generated a great uproar -- with social workers being much demonized.  Guess what?  Social workers effectively went on strike when it came to Aboriginal families.  To avoid being demonized they largely  ceased taking black kids into custody, leaving them to suffer and die at the hands of their neglectful families.

Something I have heard from a few people who worked with Aborigines (not social workers) was that if Aboriginal families went on walkabout they would sometimes "lose" a child on the way.  The family might have (say) six children and, after a stop, they would go on with only five, making no attempt to shepherd all six.  It took whites to reunite the "forgoten" child with its family.  It would take an anthropologist to work out why that happens but you can see that social workers would be horrified by such behaviour.  Now they don't want to know

THE real concern with Malcolm Turnbull’s hastily arranged royal commission into youth detention in the Northern Territory isn’t whether it will do any good, it’s how much harm will it do – and to whom?

This may sound counterintuitive, but as has been the case in similar inquiries, a few words cherry-picked from the findings can have enormous, damaging, long-term ramifications for indigenous Australians.

The 1997 Stolen Children report is the most obvious example. It contained the killer phrase: “The policy of forcible removal of children from indigenous Australians to other groups ... could properly be labelled ‘genocidal’.”

Thanks to that lethal finding, subsequent generations of indigenous children have arguably been condemned to a higher risk of sexual and/or domestic abuse. Why? Because the “system” today prefers to leave indigenous children with their own parents, even when those parents are total basket cases.

Adopting or fostering out such children, as Jeremy Sammut wrote in The Weekend Australian, is only a “last resort”. What Sammut describes as the “scandalous state of child protection systems” is often driven by the fear of creating “another stolen generation”.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that hundreds – possibly thousands – of abused indigenous children suffer unnecessarily because of political correctness.

The 1991 report from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody made more than 300 recommendations, including No. 92: “Imprisonment should be utilised only as a sanction of last resort.” There’s that deadly phrase again – “last resort”.

This may appear to be a logical conclusion from the commission’s main finding that: “Aboriginal people do not die at a higher rate than non-Aboriginal people in custody, but the rate at which Aboriginal people are taken into custody is overwhelmingly different.”

But “last resort” is a pretty loose term. If all judges apply recommendation 92 literally to all indigenous criminal cases, it is unavoidable that many Aboriginal thugs who should be behind bars are not, with potentially lethal results for themselves and their communities.

The risk is that Turnbull’s royal commission will, unavoidably, end up recommending that incarceration for young indigenous Territorians should equally only be a “last resort”.

Royal Commissioner Brian Martin, QC, in his former role as Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, made headlines when he sentenced an indigenous 55-year-old man to only one month in jail for having assaulted and sodomised a 14-year-old girl the man claimed was his “traditional” wife. The reason Martin’s sentence was so lenient (it was later increased on appeal) was sympathy to Aboriginal “customary law”.

Given that the majority of juvenile inmates in the Territory are black, and the majority of guards white, it’s likely that “racial abuse” will feature prominently in the commission’s testaments, anecdotal evidence and possible findings.

One former NT correctional officer told me: “Juvenile detention centres everywhere in Australia tend to be, in general, a bit more brutal and chaotic than adult facilities. That’s partly because ‘juvies’ can often be harder to manage than adults.”

This officer fervently hopes the inquiry results in clearer, more comprehensive rules and guidelines.

“It’s not the use of spit hoods and restraints and uses of force that’s disturbing in the ABC footage, it’s the way there seems to be no standard procedure. The gas is the worst: you shouldn’t just be able to get it out of the cupboard and use it whenever you want,” he said.

“A thorough investigation – if done right – can set the rules in a way that few other mechanisms could. When the rules are clear, most correctional officers are happier and more effective, and it is easier to spot the thugs and weed them out.”

Yet the risk is that the political correctness industry and the Aboriginal grievance activists will seize on key phrases in Martin’s eventual findings that pin the blame for certain “bad” practices on “racism”. Inevitably, this will lead to judges and magistrates hesitating to lock up juvenile indigenous offenders.

The fear is that Turnbull’s royal commission will – again – become a rallying call for strident Aboriginal activism and the “anti-racist” brigade.

Political correctness may, once again, prove lethal to young indigenous Australians.


No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them