Completely Unnecessary

As I was saying the other day, no one seemed very interested in the actual people involved in the Aurukun case.

News Limited finally got around interviewing ‘rape girl’s’ family (and I’m just going to hope my inverted commas there let you know how I feel about that moniker).

The uncle said no authority had contacted the family since the story was reported. He first heard about it on the radio, and he welcomed the opportunity to speak to the media.

They apparently warned authorities that the girl would be in danger if she was returned to the community because they feared the boys would rape her again.

“She should never have been allowed to come back from foster care while those boys were still here,” the girl’s mother told a News Limited newspaper today.

“We told that to welfare. (Some of) those boys had raped her in the past.”

So, the family asked authorities to keep her safe, they were rebuffed, and then their child was attacked again. And yet we’re told that ‘new paternalism‘ is the best way forward?

Man, I am just feeling so stabby today - the joys of watching Alan Keyes do the crazy dance at the Republican debate notwithstanding.

Links:
Rape Girl Family’s Warnings Ignored [the Age]
Aboriginal Gap Prompts Call for New ‘Paternalism’ [CS Monitor]

Extra Links:
A new paternalism for Aboriginal Australia , which nicely sums up a number of the problems with the Intervention and the Howard Government’s approach to problems in Aboriginal communities. A longish, but good read.

Vaguely Related

• More ‘Fun’ For Australian Boys
• Women and the World: It’s Not Going Well.

I’m addicted to the news. I know this. But I really wish I wasn’t. I had this nice little post I was going to write just before bed. Short and sweet. It was entitled, “Off the Market” and all it said was, “Go see Lars and the Real Girl.”

Unfortunately, I chose to read the Age. Now it’s 1:53 in the morning and I have to write a post that’s going to get me all agitated right before bed.

The child described in my previous post was also group raped at seven. Really, the whole situation is just appalling and you can read about it here because I just can’t detail it all.

No one denies there’s a problem with child abuse in some Aboriginal communities. The Little Children Are Sacred report clearly identified this, but there’s a myriad of politics caught up in it, as well.

And part of what is upsetting is the tone taken in the unsigned AAP piece to which I’ve linked above:

The child - who cannot be named - was gang-raped at the age of seven in Aurukun on Cape York in 2002, and was later put into foster care with a non-indigenous family in Cairns.

However, child safety officers in April 2006 returned her to Aurukun, where she was raped again at the age of 10.
…
The girl is now in the care of the Child Safety Department away from Aurukun.

The juxtaposition of the girl’s safety with the non-indigenous (presumably white) family before being thrown back to the dogs, so to speak, is just not the proper way to address a story with this much emotional and political content. The subtext of this article just screams ‘Intervention in Queensland.’

Most disturbingly, it seems to suggest that separating Aboriginal children from their families and communities is the only way to ’save’ them. I don’t think ‘been there, done that‘ is a strong enough sentiment.

This is a highly emotional issue - and rightly so. Such a situation requires incredibly careful, nuanced reporting. This is a hard news piece; it’s not really the place for detailed analysis. And this is a breaking story. But missing here is any voice from the community, any sense that these are acts committed by and inflicted on real people. They just seem to be things spoken about.

I don’t think I can say that’s equally disturbing, but it’s definitely part of the problem. And, more importantly, part of the reason why the problem exists in the first place.

These early pieces are going to set the tone for what looks to be a national debate about expansion of the Intervention. I just hope a traumatized young girl isn’t going to become the latest cudgel with which to beat indigenous Australians.

Vaguely Related

• More ‘Fun’ For Australian Boys
• Family of ‘Rape Girl’ Finally Interviewed

In case you thought Werribee was a one-off, Judge Sarah Bradley wants you to know that boys’ fun is for all ages.

Judge Bradley refused to record convictions against six teens and suspended the sentence of three more in the gang rape of a ten-year-old girl in far north Queensland. In her ruling, the judge said that the girl had ‘probably agreed’ to the sex.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a ten-year-old can’t legally consent to sex with anyone - really Judge Bradley? You think a fifth grader said, ‘Yeah, let’s get it on’ to nine boys and men several years (at least) her senior?

Three of the men, the ones who received suspended sentences, are 17, 18 and 26 years of age.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the men all come from powerful Cape York Aboriginal families, whereas the girl ‘does not enjoy the elevated family status of her attackers’. She’s now been put in foster care.

Judge Bradley argues that her judgment was legitimate since it’s the ruling for which the Crown asked.

I know it’s unfair that I’m extra appalled that a female judge handed down this ruling. Women shouldn’t be held to higher standards, nor should they be expected to rule more harshly cases where violence has been visited upon women. But, god, all I can think about is how little I was when I was ten.

From what I’ve read of the court statements, it seems as though Judge Bradley is explaining to the men that sex with those under sixteen is wrong. And ideas about legal consent are different in some Aboriginal communities. But I just can’t understand a 24-year-old man who participates in the gang rape of a fifth grader.

Or the judge (and Crown) who excuses him.

Links:
PM ‘disgusted’ at gang rape comments [The Age]
Row over gang rape of 10yo [The Daily Telegraph]
Girl, 10, ‘probably agreed’ to sex [The Courier Mail]

Vaguely Related

• Family of ‘Rape Girl’ Finally Interviewed
• Women and the World: It’s Not Going Well.

Things not going so well? Seemingly every single poll predicting ALP defeat? Anti-immigrant fear mongering less popular than in previous election cycles?

You may want to consider reconciliation!

Speaking [11 October] to the Sydney Institute, [Prime Minister Howard] indicated he now accepted that the symbolic side of [Aboriginal] reconciliation — which he previously rejected — was important, along with the practical side of reconciliation.

It’s incredible timing - what with the PM’s return to Canberra tonight indicating that he’ll likely call the election tomorrow. It’s almost as if the PM’s new-found feelings toward the indigenous population are cynically timed to coincide with the election. But don’t take it from me:

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser said whatever Mr Howard did now was election driven, because he was desperate. He said a referendum would not do anything unless it was accompanied by a 20-year commitment on health, education and housing.

Luckily, Mr Howard knows how to spin it both ways:

“There have been low points when dialogue between me as Prime Minister and many indigenous leaders dwindled almost to the point of non-existence. I fully accept my share of the blame for that.”[...]

“I have always acknowledged the past mistreatment of Aboriginal people and have frequently said that the treatment of indigenous Australians represents the most blemished chapter in the history of this country.

So while indigenous relations have been poor, mistreatment is just history and not, say, policy of the Howard government.

“Some will no doubt want to portray my remarks tonight as a form of Damascus Road conversion. In reality, they are little more than an affirmation of well-worn liberal conservative ideas,” he said.

I don’t think there’s many who would confuse John Howard with Paul. The road to Damascus wasn’t to the polling booth.

Links:
Howard’s 11th-hour rethink on reconciliation [The Age]
10 Ministers Face Wipeout: Poll Warning [The Age]
Community’s Anger Spills Over [The Age]
The Aboriginal Intervention Policy Isn’t Working [The Age]

Vaguely Related

• Level of Interest
• Tapping (in Australia, not MN)

Somehow, the story about NT legislation, which can only be described as a completely ineffective (unless you’re trying to grab land), has already made it off the front page of the Age.

Nice work, guys.

The actual story is here - there’s a lot to read between the lines, but I’m a big fan of this sentence:

The laws - which are discriminatory, by the government’s own admission - were passed on an unusual Friday sitting of the Senate after a marathon 27 hours of debate.

Other notable items:

The laws only provide for indigenous people to be offered “a reasonable amount” of compensation.

…

The government says the temporary seizure of indigenous land is needed to ensure open access to previously closed settlements so that houses and community facilities can be built and repaired.

As I understand it (and I’d be happy to be corrected on this), as soon as the Government begins to build things with government money, the land automatically becomes theirs and does not revert to indigenous control after this temporary ‘process’.

Election in 3…2…1…

Vaguely Related

• Yea the Age!
• Quentin Bryce: Gender-Tagging the New Governor-General