Appologies WTF??

Jagera

"... and for a certain french individual who's slight of hand caused unwarranted grief to millions... I'm sorry"

Zambia

esharknz wrote: »

Absolutely, I believe they denied them citizenship too until the 1950s. They were treated like absolute rubbish, and tend to fare very poorly in health, life expectancy still. Good on Kevin Rudd for apologising to them.
Someone had to do it. I'm actually ashamed that it's possible my ancestors played a part in this sort of treatment.

Kevin Rudd or his goverment did nothing to them. The only reason he apologised is to win votes from people like your good self.

jank

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So St Kevin of Dalby has appologisd to yet another group witha percieved wronging by PREVIOUS generations of Australians

Before you go any further hold on there.

Perceived wrongdoings?

Do you think being raped and abused while in the care of the state is a perceived wrong doing?
Do you think taking land, destroying communities, cleansing the local population of its people which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing today is a perceived wrong doing?
:eek::eek:

Jesus wept with such ignorance.

Mahatma coat

Do you think taking land, destroying communities, cleansing the local population of its people which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing today is a perceived wrong doing?

and did any of those things happen to the people in question???

mickoneill30

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and did any of those things happen to the people in question???

How about their parents and grandparents? Have any of the choices or experiences your parents and grandparents had, affected your life at all? Would you say that could be true of the aboridginies?

Saying sorry for previous wrongdoings will not mean a new flood of compo claims. If stuff happened and compo is warrented then saying sorry won't change that. I know the argument there is that it's admitting guilt. I think that ship has sailed a long time ago.

jank

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and did any of those things happen to the people in question???

Mate you brought up the OTHER group....and nice dodge as well as I wrote about the present group as well. Ignore away as your ignorance is palpable.

moremysterious

Mahatma, go back to your freak show threads on the conspiracy section.

Jumpy

jank wrote: »

Before you go any further hold on there.

Perceived wrongdoings?

Do you think being raped and abused while in the care of the state is a perceived wrong doing?
Do you think taking land, destroying communities, cleansing the local population of its people which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing today is a perceived wrong doing?
:eek::eek:

Jesus wept with such ignorance.

Well done in bombing the living **** out of Northern Ireland. I hear you killed thousands. Oh wait ... it wasnt that bad you say? I dont know what I am talking about you say? But I live here now! That means I know everything.
A guy in the pub told me, no wait, it was the newspapers. They also told me that Brad and Angelina are adopting again. How dare they! It is my right to intrude into things that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

jank

Lay off the speed jumpy....

Mr Benevolent

Jumpy wrote: »

Well done in bombing the living **** out of Northern Ireland. I hear you killed thousands. Oh wait ... it wasnt that bad you say? I dont know what I am talking about you say? But I live here now! That means I know everything.
A guy in the pub told me, no wait, it was the newspapers. They also told me that Brad and Angelina are adopting again. How dare they! It is my right to intrude into things that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

I think you might've taken that one up wrong.

Jumpy

Confab wrote: »

I think you might've taken that one up wrong.

Not from what I read. I would just like to see if the information jank has is more than what he read in the papers.

Daithio

Jumpy wrote: »

Well done in bombing the living **** out of Northern Ireland. I hear you killed thousands. Oh wait ... it wasnt that bad you say? I dont know what I am talking about you say? But I live here now! That means I know everything.
A guy in the pub told me, no wait, it was the newspapers. They also told me that Brad and Angelina are adopting again. How dare they! It is my right to intrude into things that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

What on earth are you talking about?

Jumpy

Daithio wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

I was in a rant about jank quoting press style stuff about aussie atrocities when he is a corkman living in NZ. The exact reason why I dont talk about "the troubles" with Irish people. Because I dont know what I am talking about and would not assume that I ever would.

Plus I had not had my coffee.

jank

Jumpy wrote: »

I was in a rant about jank quoting press style stuff about aussie atrocities when he is a corkman living in NZ

Press style quotes? OK here is your chance to convience me that I am wrong...

Go on...

I am listening, I would be very interested to hear that ANYTHING I have said is proved wrong.

Jumpy wrote: »

The exact reason why I dont talk about "the troubles" with Irish people. Because I dont know what I am talking about and would not assume that I ever would.

I guess this is a fairly common problem with you.

jank

Jumpy wrote: »

Not from what I read. I would just like to see if the information jank has is more than what he read in the papers.

What information do you want to know.

When I read the OP I thought of this interview on today FM by Bill Donohue.
Pure head in the sand stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvLPLGHD_OI

m@cc@

jank wrote: »

What information do you want to know.

When I read the OP I thought of this interview on today FM by Bill Donohue.
Pure head in the sand stuff.

This really isn't relevant to the discussion.

jank

Oh but it is.

Jumpy

jank wrote: »

Press style quotes? OK here is your chance to convience me that I am wrong...

Go on...

I am listening, I would be very interested to hear that ANYTHING I have said is proved wrong.



I guess this is a fairly common problem with you.

No way man, you win.

I am just going to sit back and watch now.

jank

Watch what.. Some mystical keyboard warrior is going to rip my argument apart?:rolleyes:

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a thread then don't post, otherwise its just spam and that is something we can all do without.

hussey

so a thread about Kevin Rudd apologising to victims of abuse, has turned into a thread on IRA, aboriginals and a Boardie Vs boardie "I'm right ... no I'm right" arguement that will go around in circles ...

Doc

jank wrote: »

When I read the OP I thought of this interview on today FM by Bill Donohue.
Pure head in the sand stuff.

What has this got to do with the Australian government apologizing again to another group?

If you want to discuss abuse in Ireland there are other far more suitable forums and threads than this. If you don’t remember this topic is about Australia not Ireland.

I think the people arguing against the apologies are making the valid point that these things happened in the past and the current government and people are not responsible and therefore should not issue an apology. I disagree with this stance but I understand the reasoning behind it.

I wonder if in 50 years the Australian government will be apologizing for the treatment of the people being detained on Christmas Island?

jank

Doc wrote: »

What has this got to do with the Australian government apologizing again to another group?

If you have listened to the clips you will see what my reason is to post them. If not then try and put 2 and 2 together.

Doc wrote: »

If you want to discuss abuse in Ireland there are other far more suitable forums and threads than this. If you don’t remember this topic is about Australia not Ireland.

Correct but I am pretty sure you will spot the pattern.

Let me sum it up.

Report by an Irish judge says there was systemic abuse in Ireland in state and religious run schools over the last 100 hundreds.
Crazy American guys says this is all hysteria and that its a conspiracy against the catholic church to get money out of them.


Kevin Rudd apologies on behalf of the state to people who had been physically and sexually abused under the supervision and care of the state.
Some crazy Bordie's rants that these are "perceived" and that they are in it for the money.

More clear??

Doc wrote: »

I think the people arguing against the apologies are making the valid point that these things happened in the past and the current government and people are not responsible and therefore should not issue an apology. I disagree with this stance but I understand the reasoning behind it.

I wonder if in 50 years the Australian government will be apologizing for the treatment of the people being detained on Christmas Island?

Kevin Rudd if the head of state (well actually its the queen but anyway), so he is well entitled to say he is sorry on behalf of the state as these abuses were carried out under state care.

He is not saying sorry as Kevin Rudd, he is not saying sorry for you, he is saying sorry on behalf of the Australia, the state. If you dont like it then dont vote for him.... problem sovled. He had his say, then you can have yours!

m@cc@

I think I've taken on board what the title of this thread is saying. There's a good article in this week's The Spectator on this subject. It makes the very good point:

The Spectator wrote:

Mr Rudd apologises for the 'regimented routines' and the 'drudgery of menial work' that orphans faced. But Australia and Britain - which is charged with the brutal deportation of children to Australia - were much poorer societies, even 50 years ago, then they are today. The bureaucrats and religious officials that made decisions then were subject to economic constraints that today's do-gooders do not face.

Moreover, many of the supposed 'forgotten children' were already orphans; and some of those removed were at least removed with good intent. The horrific abuse they suffered may have been no worse than the fate that awaited them in the original circumstances. Human nature was on average no more evil or self-centred in the 1950s than it is today. If this is so, is it not silly to apologise for too slow rate of economic progress? We should be grateful any progess was made at all.

The only true apologies are between the individuals: the aggrieved and the accused. Then, the cost of an apology is felt and appreciated, respectively. Those who are mollified by government apologies, which carry no compensation whatsoever, are cheated. This is why John Howard expressed regret for the 'stolen generation' and every other sympathetic sentiment under the sun, but realised that an apology was absurd.

Doc

jank wrote: »

If you have listened to the clips you will see what my reason is to post them. If not then try and put 2 and 2 together.



Correct but I am pretty sure you will spot the pattern.

Let me sum it up.

Report by an Irish judge says there was systemic abuse in Ireland in state and religious run schools over the last 100 hundreds.
Crazy American guys says this is all hysteria and that its a conspiracy against the catholic church to get money out of them.


Kevin Rudd apologies on behalf of the state to people who had been physically and sexually abused under the supervision and care of the state.
Some crazy Bordie's rants that these are "perceived" and that they are in it for the money.

More clear??



Kevin Rudd if the head of state (well actually its the queen but anyway), so he is well entitled to say he is sorry on behalf of the state as these abuses were carried out under state care.

He is not saying sorry as Kevin Rudd, he is not saying sorry for you, he is saying sorry on behalf of the Australia, the state. If you dont like it then dont vote for him.... problem sovled. He had his say, then you can have yours!

I did listen to them but they are not relevant to this discussion no mater what you think no one here is acting like that guy and certainly the OP is not.

You have obviously not read all of this tread as you are making out that I don’t agree with what Kevin Rudd did when I have already said that I do. Just because I understand another persons point of view and think they have a point dose not mean I support it.

Mahatma coat

Thanks M@cc@ that sums up my thoughts on the matter nicely.

Mahatma coat

in 50 years time someone else will be apologising on behalf of the current Government and their unwillingness to do anything for the James Hardie victims besides bluster and bullsh1t.

thats what pisses me off the most about this, there are real issues happening NOW which Mr Rudd IS Mandated to solve, but they are not nice political soundbyte Grandstanding moments, so instead he does this top deflect a bit of heat from his utterley contemptable ETSh as it stands is just us the Taxpayer diggin out the major resource industries because of their rather lax environmental policies.;

Jumpy

Words in this case cannot hurt Mahatma. The compensation claims have already happened and in the cases where they were won, the land etc has been returned. It needed to be said.
In saying that, I dont think Rudd was the best choice for the person to say it. I am sorry to say I backed him. Mainly because there really wasnt anyone else. Plus I wanted us to sign Kyoto.
Note that I am not for either side here. I have both white Australian and Aboriginal blood and I find it sad what previous generations have done and I find it sad that the majority of Aboriginals that are still around (and there really isnt many) wont integrate due to alcohol, drugs or just plain (possibly justified) hatred.

Jank I apologise about my rant earlier, but several of your posts so far about Australians have got my back up. Its a subject you need to tread carefully around Australians (and converted Irish it seems judging from Mahatma)

watna

Ok, I think people need to calm down a little bit here. This thread has got a bit out of hand and wildly off topic. Jumpy I appreciate you apologised to Jank but I'd like to see this thread continued as a civil discussion from now on - and on topic. If not, I'll have to lock it.

m@cc@

In a summation so far, I think the crux of the argument is, maybe the kids from Britain are owed an apology, but not from Kevin Rudd.

Daithio

Jumpy wrote: »

I was in a rant about jank quoting press style stuff about aussie atrocities when he is a corkman living in NZ. The exact reason why I dont talk about "the troubles" with Irish people. Because I dont know what I am talking about and would not assume that I ever would.

Plus I had not had my coffee.

That's a really dangerous view to hold. Do you think that Hitler shouldn't be criticised by non-Germans, because we "don't know what we're talking about". The absue of children isn't really a very complex issue, it's wrong, plain as. Your being Australian doesn't give you any more of a right to hold an opinion on the morality of it, just because it happened there. And if you want to avoid talking to Irish people about the troubles, then fair enough. But you're still entitled to an opinion about it, whether your Irish or not.