Australia PM to Ban Alcohol for Aborigines

The_Coo

i ll bet this would never be imposed on a white community in Australia,

Funny you should say that. I was reading the other day that this program is being scaled up for all of Australia, all in the name of saving the children. :shk:

According to one article I read, it has widespread support amongst the general population.

Interestingly enough, Britain's new boss is leaning towards the same.



[edit on 27-6-2007 by WyrdeOne]

Theres no way this would be extended across Australia , for one the major brewers would go crazy if suddenly their goods were banned across the country, Fosters, Castlemaine XXXX etc as for Britain banning alcohol that would be really weird as theyve just rcently allowed pubs and bars to be allowed open 24 hours a day .



[edit on 27-6-2007 by The_Coo]

As some one who has lived in very close proximity to aboriginal communitys and still has family that deals daily with aboriginal community's it is long overdue that this problem received some attention. I'm not suggesting that this is the right way to go about it but it is a good start.
Believe me there are aboriginal children being abused and molested as we speak (type, whatever) by adults and siblings who are under the influence of alcohol and drugs in these communities.
What would be even sadder if is the government continued to do nothing as they have done for the last 100 years.
Hmmm there must be an election in the air, i only hope that they continue to focus on this issue after the elections no matter who wins government.
A high ranking member/elder of the aboriginal community applauded this initiative in the media yesterday. I also applaud the fact that at the very least the issue of abuse of aboriginal children in remote communities is receiving the attention it deserves for a change.

Sorry I wasn't clear - I mean the mandatory child health checks as a condition for welfare payments, not a ban on alcohol consumption or porno...

I think it would be better idea to impose this right across the country , then at least it can be said that laws in Australia affect every Australian equally. Im sure child abuse goes on elsewhere in the country as it now seems to be a huge problem for every western country nowadays.

Originally posted by The_Coo
I think it would be better idea to impose this right across the country , then at least it can be said that laws in Australia affect every Australian equally. Im sure child abuse goes on elsewhere in the country as it now seems to be a huge problem for every western country nowadays.

No where near to the same extent.
What you need to understand is that some of these communities are many hundreds of kilometres from civilisation, they are living in squalor, petrol sniffing and alcohol abuse is rampant and the abuse of their own children is a result of these conditions.
What i find particularly distasteful about the whole thing is that after 3 terms in government they are only now getting serious about the problem because there is an up coming election and the govt is behind in the polls.
But better to save one child today than none at all.

So I guess that makes me a monster, because I'm willing to sacrifice the comfort, the sanity, and the safety of children (and adults alike) for the 'constitutional niceties' that Howard holds in such low regard.

If this has anything to do with protecting children, I'll eat a sombrero.

So much nonsense legislation has been passed, all over the globe, using this same old grease for the wheels; it's getting old. What's perhaps most lame is that it's impossible to argue against without sounding like you're anti-child - like the whole pro-life thing, what does that make me? Nonsense.

Mandatory mental health screening, and even medication for kids in the American public schools. :shk: Yeah, it's for their own good - Big Pharma is just an innocent and uninvolved bystander.

Are we having fun yet?

@Wyrdeone, I certainly dont believe you are a monster, was that aimed at me?

I think as many people as possible should be involved in the debate and hopefully the answer to the problem, and believe me it is a problem.

I am just as skeptical as the next guy as to the timing of the governments program, however, nothing has been done for decades, aboriginal suicide is many times higher than other ethnic groups, the child abuse is not imaginary, the living conditions and health issues are disgraceful, it at least has sparked debate here which can only be healthy.

There are those within the aboriginal community who welcome such drastic measures, there are others who would welcome them but are unable or are too scared to speak out.
Then there are some pc minded individuals who are foaming at the mouth about civil liberty's but are unable to offer any real alternatives. Btw that was not aimed at you.

My family has lived in the outback of Australia for over 60 years and has dealt with aboriginal communities first hand, something needs to be done, if a better alternative is found then that should be adopted. What we have had for many years now is token govt programs, committees, free for all welfare distribution, red tape and when none of that has worked they have turned a blind eye to the problem.

I was making a comment about the general state of affairs when a discussion is framed in this way - one side is doing it 'for the children', which automatically disadvantages those who oppose it. Not directed at you so much as screamed into the wind.

I used to work for an organisation that specialises in childrens' health. It is held in high regard by its world-wide peers. It recently started a program where every new mum is visited at home in the six weeks after the birth of her child. This program identifies many medical or environmental problems and initiates solutions. The children AND the parents benefit. Parents can refuse but rarely do. It should be mandatory world wide.

In the first few months of operation it turned up a number of older siblings who had NEVER had a health check. One was thirteen years of age. He had problems and the accidental discovery of his situation started the ball rolling to help him and his parents. While a most of the discovered children were indigenous Australian he wasn't - he belonged to a small migrant group (caucasian) from a country that had been oppressed for years. The parents had learned to distrust authority and not to draw attention to themselves. Their children were suffering still.

The health checks (which seem to be a real stumbling block in this issue) offer so many benefits to the individual, the community and the populaton at large that I cannot understand why anyone would oppose them except for those that have something to conceal. The health checks WILL expose any physical abuse and this is probably the main reason that the abuse perpetrators don't want the health checks.

Giving the remote children a health check will actually start to bring them up to the excellent standard of health care enjoyed by the vast majority of Australian children. Lessons learned and data gathered will assist in getting health care to other groups who miss out such such as some refugees fleeing oppressive regimes.

Now that we have had some time to hear from interested parties it seems to me that indigenous Australians who already enjoy the benefits of accessing mainstream benefits are for the government initiative and those who have something to hide are against it. It also appears to me that many indigenous communities which were iniitally opposed to the initiative are now coming around or, at least, watching and waiting.

On a separate thrust. Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Rights of the Child where every child is guaranteed education, health care, food and protection. The fact is that not every Australian child has been getting those rights as guaranteed by the treaty because of remoteness and cultural issues. For too long the cultural issues have been put in the too hard basket and so formed barriers to the detriment of the vulnerable children. Criticise the methodology all you want but the government is finally coming to grips with its international obligations.

They first require to be deloused. They are then bathed for considerable time, during which their skin appears to be peeling off. It is not skin however: it is clothing --- layer upon layer -- which they have worn for so long, that it has adhered to their skin

The single most disgusting post Ive read on this site....I thought guys like you had died out in the 19th century.