Appologies WTF??

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.

Jumpy

Daithio wrote: »

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.

Thats an exaggeration of my view. I dont think that Hitler should be criticised by people who only get their information from press or tabloid sources, and as he is a very well known historical figure, that is not usually the way people form opinions on him. What is discussed in school or what is researched out of interest as an adult is at least giving you an educated view instead of an inflated "OMG" view of the subject.

If I formed my view of the Irish based on news reports from when I was growing up, then you would all be murdering, psycho scumbags in my mind. Thankfully I didnt. So I generally dont post things such as "Irishmen known as murdering scum is not exactly news". *cough*
My reply was aimed specifically at one poster Daitho hence the apology. Unless of course he was referring to Ozzie the ostrich who is of course racist, pink feathered scum.

Daithio

Jumpy wrote: »

Thats an exaggeration of my view. I dont think that Hitler should be criticised by people who only get their information from press or tabloid sources, and as he is a very well known historical figure, that is not usually the way people form opinions on him. What is discussed in school or what is researched out of interest as an adult is at least giving you an educated view instead of an inflated "OMG" view of the subject.

If I formed my view of the Irish based on news reports from when I was growing up, then you would all be murdering, psycho scumbags in my mind. Thankfully I didnt. So I generally dont post things such as "Irishmen known as murdering scum is not exactly news". *cough*
My reply was aimed specifically at one poster Daitho hence the apology. Unless of course he was referring to Ozzie the ostrich who is of course racist, pink feathered scum.

Well just because you got your information about Ireland from tabloid sources, that doesn't mean that everybody else got their information about Australia from tabloid sources.

Jumpy

Daithio wrote: »

Well just because you got your information about Ireland from tabloid sources, that doesn't mean that everybody else got their information about Australia from tabloid sources.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63162168&postcount=42

Traq

Jumpy wrote: »

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63162168&postcount=42

that link that you posted proves absolutely nothing, quoting yourself to try prove a point...

Jumpy

Traq wrote: »

that link that you posted proves absolutely nothing, quoting yourself to try prove a point...

Read the second sentence again. Welcome to the discussion by the way, we were warned to stay on topic.

Traumadoc

Doc wrote: »

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

I was involved in the care of some of the detainees in Baxter detention camp, ( originally El Alamain), there will be a lot of consequences in the future for some of the children that were detained there.
It was a punitive system, designed to destroy families, to "encourage" them to seek "voluntary" repatriation back to the war zones where Diggers are now dying. FUBAR

Traq

Jumpy wrote: »

Read the second sentence again. Welcome to the discussion by the way, we were warned to stay on topic.

I understand the second sentence and still don't see how it helps your case. Sure, Jank says that he read about the issue, but surely this could imply that he researched it out of interest, which you concede you have no issues with. You are the only one to mention that Jank formed his opinion from reading tabloid newspapers, and then you quote a link back to your own post to "prove" that Jank gets his opinion from tabloid sources.

Interesting logic to me.

watna

ok, this thread is just going round in circles.