Rape in marriage is illegal in Australian law - hmm, although the Northern territory is extremely conservative - not sure about there...
If people on this thread are unable to see that there is a case for combining aspects of traditional law with European law in the case of tribal Aborigines, who have long argued, through their Councils and their legal representatives, that they wish to have some matters considered under Tribal law, as a matter of justice, and respect for their culture, which they are wishing to maintain as a way of healing and nurturing their people - then no amount of arguing about it will do any good. It is clearly a matter of opinion and experience. In my view, opinion is generally better based on SOME experience of the matters being discussed, but there you are.
As to the specific case - clearly it has aroused a good deal of disgust here as well as overseas. It is WONDERFUL to hear the voices of Aboriginal women and scholars on this, and I sincerely hope they will be heard.
In my view, (which I have stated before on this thread) the judge was clearly mistaken. He was not the first, nor will he be the last, legal person to make mistakes on matters of sexual assault and rape in this or any country. I hope he is "re-educated" - however, bearing in mind the need for an independent judiciary, which seems to be a valued thing in most western and many other cultures, they are a hard bunch to control. The matter would need to be appealed.
This does not, in my view, destroy the argument for the hard-won and tentative acknowledgement of Aboriginal traditional law in certain matters. I expect that mistakes will continue to be made and people will continue, fortunately, to argue and fight about it.
This is a subject of great debate here - and will continue to be. The law is a clumsy and blunt instrument - it oughta be done away with - if only we could find a better way of doing things.
I might add that the law everywhere that I am aware of does a terrible job in matters of sexual assault and abuse - I know - I work with the results of it.
Of course Aboriginal people are citizens. In some places and some ways they are given some special rights in recognition of their special circumstances. This seems little enough.
I might add, that one of the arguments against tribal law is its harshness - it is not a soft option. However, to move tribal Aboriginal people away from their people, into a western prison - is a punishment unimaginably awful and destructive - far worse than it is for a main-stream culture person. Even short hospitalizations are torture for these people. Sigh. I do not know how to balance these things out.
I am sorry if I sound defensive and angry - but honestly, some of the attitudes about Aboriginal people expressed on this thread have sickened me - and for the whole idea of some shared justice to be seen as a racist thing has made me wanna spit. Good grief - it is a tiny bit of restitutive justice to attempt to make some inroads into the appalling effects of what the Aboriginal people call "White-man's law" on Aboriginal people. I know that Canada is attempting to do something with this, as is New Zealand. Is there nothing like this in the USA?
Very much so. There was a case with some American Indian youths recently -- I don't remember enough right now, but will do a search.
dlowan wrote:
In my view, (which I have stated before on this thread) the judge was clearly mistaken. He was not the first, nor will he be the last, legal person to make mistakes on matters of sexual assault and rape in this or any country. I hope he is "re-educated" - however, bearing in mind the need for an independent judiciary, which seems to be a valued thing in most western and many other cultures, they are a hard bunch to control. The matter would need to be appealed.
This does not, in my view, destroy the argument for the hard-won and tentative acknowledgement of Aboriginal traditional law in certain matters. I expect that mistakes will continue to be made and people will continue, fortunately, to argue and fight about it.
This is a subject of great debate here - and will continue to be. The law is a clumsy and blunt instrument - it oughta be done away with - if only we could find a better way of doing things.
I might add that the law everywhere that I am aware of does a terrible job in matters of sexual assault and abuse - I know - I work with the results of it.
Very well-said, and I agree. In fact, it was hard for me to stop with the excerpt that I found especially well-said -- first it was one paragraph, then two, then... Having also worked with the results of sexual assault and abuse, I very much agree with that, as well. Women should not be abused. Check. Women should have the right to leave their abuser. Check. Women who don't want to leave their abuser...? Oy.
I believe that the official line in the United States is that ON THE RESERVATION, tribal law prevails except when it is over-ruled by federal law (for example, by taking a minor across state-lines). There are tribal police, tribal courts and tribal jails.
Every "recognized" Tribe is considered a sovereign nation within this country. That is the reason that various tribes can promote gambling, sell cigarettes without taxes, sell dangerous fireworks, etc., as well as hunt for whales, take hallucinogens and punish trespassers, among other things.
Even off the reservation, tribal law has begun to be used. There was a nasty young juvenile perpetrator whose actions merited either several years in prison or being turned over to his Tlingket tribe who left him on an island in the middle of winter as a form of banishment. I don't know how that worked out -- I heard that some of his friends were coming over to the island and partying with him... I don't know how that was resolved.
Unfortunately, in this case, there is an young girl being victimized by an older man - who should know better. Ignorance of harm is no excuse to harm another human. c.i.
As for your beliefs about the benefits of christianization to the Aboriginal people, Steissd, they would be likely to argue that they saw little immediate benefit in a religion which saw no apparent problem with taking their land and killing them if they resisted too much.
They might also say, if they were not, as they often are, very sensitive and tolerant about such matters, that they had a perfectly good religion, thank you - one which allowed them to live in this land without doing it an awful lot of harm, and one in which they found great meaning and spiritual satisfaction in their identification with the land. Is christian mythology in some way superior to all other mythologies?
They might point to the Biblical injunction that humans were to consider themselves masters rather than fellow creatures to the creatures we live with, as having aided in the appalling process of intensive damage caused by European settlement to this dry, salty, ancient and immensely fragile land and ecology.
Having also, as they did, suffered terrible abuse - as we are finding so many other vulnerable people did in the same circumstances - at the hands of many of the good christians put in charge of them as children might also cause them to doubt the glories to which they were being so assiduously exposed.
I know that the missionaries and many of the workers in so many church institutions believed, given the tenor of the times, that they were doing good- and we have to honour them for that. It is not fair to judge by the beliefs we now hold, just as future generations will be appalled at so much that we now hold dear.
Nor do I believe generally that church workers are any worse than anyone else - however, the history of appalling abuse perpetrated by the churches in so many places cannot be denied as a "few bad eggs". Power over allows abuse of, in many cases - and these people had immense power over vulnerable people. Sometimes this specifically attracts monsters.
These abuses were not dealt with by the churches - they were covered up in many instances - this is INSTITUTIONAL abuse of which we are speaking - aided and abetted by an arrogance of belief about the rightness of the goods being peddled that is NOT a feature of all religions, though it is of some big ones.
Missionaries also did a lot of caring for - some of this was very counter-productive, given 20/20 hindsight. Nomads stayed still, and became dependent on the unhealthy white flour, sugar, tobacco that still causes so many Aboriginal health problems today. Hygiene practices which worked well when you moved about failed, with terrible results. Again, 20/20 hindsight is a great thing -and we can all be so wise now - (except it seems some of us are not) - I understand their intent- so, surprisingly, do many Aboriginal people who have suffered terribly from them. They say that the original settlers here were wounded, damaged, sad people - and they played this outon the land and its people. They were certainly hard, desperate times. However, to hear you, Steissd, speak of this brutal process as good for Aboriginal people is not easy to hear.
I do not deny the possible benefits of much of our culture to them - I say possible - ideally it would heve been up to then to choose.
cicerone imposter wrote:Unfortunately, in this case, there is an young girl being victimized by an older man - who should know better. Ignorance of harm is no excuse to harm another human. c.i.
Who do you think is saying that it is an excuse, CI?
Thanks for your words dlowan
That old man or that judge doesn't seem to understand "rape" or "violence" against a young girl. They are both guilty of excusing that violence as non-criminal behavior. c.i.
OK, dlowan, let us assume that you have convinced me. But does this mean that there are two different sets of laws in Australia: one for aborigines, and another for Whites, Blacks and Asians?
I have some more questions regarding status of these people:
1. Do their kids attend the same schools the White, Black and Asian kids do? What is the literacy rate among aborigines (I mean, English language literacy)?
2. Are there any aborigines having university diploma? Are there businessmen of aboriginal descent?
3. Are there any Congressmen or Senators of aboriginal descent on the federal and/or state level?
steissd, I met a gentlemen with a mix of aborigini, Polynesian, Swedish, and English background. He has a masters degree, and is involved with the aborigini cultural center in Cairns. He now works for Overseas Adventure Travel as a tour guide. When we visited Australia, he provided us with a lecture on the history of aboriginis in Australia. The picture is not pretty. c.i.
steissd - there is quite a bit of information available on-line in re the last group of questions you posted about aboriginal peoples in Australia. One site that seems to have some good basic information is
Year Book Australia. Not perfectly up-to-date, but a decent start. If you're interested, it would probably be worth it to do a good google search. I got close to 19,000 hits on my first key-word run at it.
Thanks, ehBeth. This was a useful link.
this one has quite a bit on the specific questions related to education
this is from the australian board of statistics
ehBeth, Good link on aboriginals. Will go back to reread again. c.i.
that last one has info from pre 1788 - 2001 - lots to read - i'm still in the glossary!
this is from the pre-1788 page (check it out for the beautiful graphics)
Quote:Victorian Koorie Education
Aboriginal education encompasses an enormous time span. It does not begin with European contact, nor did it end with this contact. Prior to 1788, our people developed a complex education system. It was a system that was very different from the non-Aboriginal system. Education was not limited to a set period of time. "The education system had definite stages which in many ways equate to today's pre-school, primary, secondary, technical and tertiary levels. However, our people were educated for living and education was aimed at enabling them to function effectively in a society which did not worship material values, but was in harmony with the environment." (Colin Bourke, 1986) Education was a lifelong process, from birth to death, as individuals in the community underwent an increasing process of education throughout their lives. Education was oriented towards the achievement of goals. Every individual was seen as a valuable member of the community and, as they achieved the levels and expectations that were set by the community, they were promoted into another level of knowledge in the community.
Quote:This process was not established only so the individual could achieve, it was about how the education and development of the individual benefited the whole community. Each individual had responsibilities before they were born, and as they grew, they learned the cultural values of respect for their elders, sharing and caring, and obligations to their kin and to their land. Education was a community responsibility and everyone was involved in the process.
"For the Koorie community, education is a vehicle for empowerment for the whole community to enhance life skills from birth to death. The education of the individual is vitally important because as they become educated, they contribute to the knowledge within the community. It doesn't matter how many Degrees you get, it matters how they help to empower the Koorie community as a whole." Dr. Mary Atkinson, 2001.
(it's in 2 pieces cuz i couldn't cut and paste the graphic mid-page)
Thanks, ehBeth. But I get an impression that after having looked through the site that the aboriginal education system is a segregated one, that they do not study in the same schools the White/Black/Asian Australians do.
