Support NeoGAF

[jgminto]

boatpeopleitarian.

 

[markot]

Out going Labour administrator of Christmas Island: Keeping kids in detention for a year is kind of dickish.

Incoming Liberal administrator of Christmas Island: "The existence of the detention centre is no more significant than the existence of the local social club," Mr Haase said.

"They are simply activities that occupy the space.

"One will have no greater significance to me as administrator than the other."

Also a Casino?!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...ator-jon-stanhope-replaced-by-barry-h/5760658

 

[wonzo]

 

[Arksy]

Such a definitional/semantic thing.

Just like killing someone isn't necessarily murder.....killing an entire race isn't necessarily genocide.

For a homicide to be a murder the perpetrator requires a requisite level of intent....and Australian courts have found the same intent to be requisite for genocide to have occurred. The court found no intent to enact a genocide, therefore a genocide didn't occur.

This is what he's basically saying, yes we fucked them over, but it ain't genocide.

 

[jgminto]

Out going Labour administrator of Christmas Island: Keeping kids in detention for a year is kind of dickish.

Incoming Liberal administrator of Christmas Island: "The existence of the detention centre is no more significant than the existence of the local social club," Mr Haase said.

"They are simply activities that occupy the space.

"One will have no greater significance to me as administrator than the other."

Also a Casino?!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...ator-jon-stanhope-replaced-by-barry-h/5760658

Do they have Keno?

 

[Yagharek]

Such a definitional/semantic thing.

Just like killing someone isn't necessarily murder.....killing an entire race isn't necessarily genocide.

For a homicide to be a murder the perpetrator requires a requisite level of intent....and Australian courts have found the same intent to be requisite for genocide to have occurred. The court found no intent to enact a genocide, therefore a genocide didn't occur.

This is what he's basically saying, yes we fucked them over, but it ain't genocide.

Get that nonsense out of here and learn some goddamn history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War

 

[Arksy]

Get that nonsense out of here and learn some goddamn history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulyarimma_v_Thompson

Learn some law.

For the sake of completeness, it's not entirely clear whether the facts surrounding the black war were incorporated into the judgement...arguments can be made on both sides, but since customary international law isn't law in Australia until Parliament deems fit, it's the kind of thing that we can debate endlessly.

 

[Dryk]

Hmm, looks like the military intervention has officially made us a target.

By which I mean they hate us because of what we believe in of course

 

[Yagharek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulyarimma_v_Thompson

Learn some law.

For the sake of completeness, it's not entirely clear whether the facts surrounding the black war were incorporated into the judgement...arguments can be made on both sides, but since customary international law isn't law in Australia until Parliament deems fit, it's the kind of thing that we can debate endlessly.

The claim of no intent is bollocks. What was it then, an accident?

When settlers came here and found what they considered a sub-human race of primitives, what do you think they were going to do once some inevitably fought back?

The British had ample experience with the results of colonising previously occupied land. They knew what was going to happen.

edit: if you're going to argue "law" then I think its safe to say Australian Commonwealth law wouldn't even apply, regardless. Since terra nullius was falsely claimed, under international law, the Australian judgement in 1999 carries zero weight internationally. Thus it doesn't matter what the Australian courts decide as to whether a genocide occurred or not. The international courts make that call.

 

[Arksy]

The claim of no intent is bollocks. What was it then, an accident?

When settlers came here and found what they considered a sub-human race of primitives, what do you think they were going to do once some inevitably fought back?

The British had ample experience with the results of colonising previously occupied land. They knew what was going to happen.

edit: if you're going to argue "law" then I think its safe to say Australian Commonwealth law wouldn't even apply, regardless. Since terra nullius was falsely claimed, under international law, the Australian judgement in 1999 carries zero weight internationally. Thus it doesn't matter what the Australian courts decide as to whether a genocide occurred or not. The international courts make that call.

Yeah...no that's not how the law works.

That case decided that customary international law doesn't apply in Australia until Parliament says it does. It's the last of a long line of cases that says no law applies to Australia except for the laws democratically passed in our own Parliament.

There is no connection between Terra Nullius and the case decided in 1999...I have no idea what point you're trying to make by bringing it up.

You're correct in that the judgment carries zero weight internationally...but I don't see the relevance. International law doesn't give a shit what we do in Australia, conversely, we in Australia don't give a shit what international law says.

No international court has looked at it, nor will they ever look at it...because the powers of the international courts are not retroactive.

 

[Yagharek]

So you are saying it was an accident?

 

[Arksy]

So you are saying it was an accident?

False equivalence. There's a difference between being not-guilty of a crime, and being innocent.

 

[Yagharek]

False equivalence. There's a difference between being not-guilty of a crime, and being innocent.

Disingenuous deflection. What's in between intentional and accidental?

 

[Yagharek]

Also, the definition of genocide is independent of Australian law. Decisions in 1999 are an irrelevance.

 

[Arksy]

Disingenuous deflection. What's in between intentional and accidental?

A million things, recklessness being one of them. There may have been intent, but not at the requisite level. There may have been intent, but it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There may have been intent, but there may have been a defence.

Also, the definition of genocide is independent of Australian law. Decisions in 1999 are an irrelevance.

Again, you're showing your ignorance of the law. Feel free to actually take the time to read the case and then come back.

 

[Myansie]

Arksy, has any country's court ever found themself to have committed genocide? That's a pretty big conflict of interest. The conquerors write the laws.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

The ruling was that genocide wasn't illegal at the time and international law shouldn't be utilized or retroactively applied. A legally sound, consistent judgement which has little to do with the truth of history.

The element of intent being necessary to establish actionable genocide was part of the dissenting opinion in that case, not the ratio I believe. And it's fucking weird: I wonder how proposing accidental genocide would go over with a judicial bench entailing less personal ties to the nation or peoples involved (i.e. international bodies which have presided over criminal acts in militarily defeated or developing nations)?

The truth is, colonialism involved a lot of ugly, terrible things and it makes certain people uncomfortable--to the point where they want to white-wash history already biased toward the moral authority of the victors.

 

[munchie64]

Scott Ludlam was really good on Q&A.

Edit: Good show overall in fact.

 

[Yagharek]

A million things, recklessness being one of them. There may have been intent, but not at the requisite level. There may have been intent, but it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There may have been intent, but there may have been a defence.



Again, you're showing your ignorance of the law. Feel free to actually take the time to read the case and then come back.

You dont get it.

When does any other country get to decide its own guilt or otherwise when it comes to genocide? Australia sure loves telling other countries in the world off for being naughty but is deaf to criticism of its own actions.

But hey, I guess by American laws no crime against Sioux, Cherokee etc occurred.

Saddam Hussein never broke any of his own laws either. Fidel Castro never did either because his own courts said so.

So either you think what happened to indigenous Australians was an accident or you think Australian courts have the authority to decide. Both are nonsensical.

Genocide occurred, in Tasmania at the very least. Entire cultures were destroyed, systematically removed and deliberately so. How was that not done with intent?

'oh but the law says...'

pffffffffft. Fuck the law, especially when it's used to deny the facts because you think it is inconvenient. Yours is an intellectualy hollow and disingenuous argument.

 

[Fredescu]

Again, you're showing your ignorance of the law. Feel free to actually take the time to read the case and then come back.

The case seems to be specifically about Howard's legislation. I think it's a bit silly to use that case as evidence that genocide has never occurred in Australia.

 

[Yagharek]

There were also forced removal and relocation of children as part of official policy in the 19th and 20th century. This also involved forced conversions to Christianity.

How different those kinds of actions are treated in todays world when it happens in, say, Iraq or Nigeria.

 

[wonzo]

lmao

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...palmer-and-jacqui-lambie-20140923-10koq9.html

 

[Jintor]

Shorten doesn't say a word either about Abbott's ducking 'less freedom for security plz'

fuck everything

 

[Yagharek]

Not surprising though. Once a topic is framed as "national security" all questioning goes out the window since neither side wants to get the "unstrayan" label from the Murdoch press.

 

[Quasar]

Not surprising though. Once a topic is framed as "national security" all questioning goes out the window since neither side wants to get the "unstrayan" label from the Murdoch press.

That sounds suspiciously like siding with terrorists.

 

[Quasar]

Poor Andrew Bolt

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ever_been_a_more_dangerous_and_despicable_qa/

Has any Q&A panel been more frightening and threatening?
The claim that terrorists have “legitimate concerns”, although, of course, the killing is bad.
The unchallenged vilification of Israel and its “war crimes”.
The describing of Israel as a “root cause” of Muslim terrorism.
The insistence that we will keep getting extremism unless we end our support for evil Israel.
The steering of this discussion away from Islamist threats to Australians and onto alleged Australian meanness to Muslims.
The dismissal of terrorism as “theatre”.
The repeated attacks on the government for allegedly arranging the police raids for political purposes.
The repeated claims that white racists aren’t policed as Muslims are.
The repeated complaints - by people in the audience, too - that Muslims are picked on.
The attacks on the expectation that Muslims follow “the Australian way”.
The heckling of Justice Minister Michael Keenan, with claims the timing of the raids was convenient for the Government.
The barrage of tweets attacking the Government and Islamophobia, and suggesting the police raids were a stunt.
The West created this threat by invading Iraq.
The pack attack on politicians opposing the burqa, a shroud of oppression of women.

 

[Jintor]

This is the oldest, cheapest, easiest, dumbest ploy in the political playbook and if anybody falls for it they should be shot out of a cannon in the name of national security

 

[Quasar]

*double post*

 

[Arksy]

You dont get it.

When does any other country get to decide its own guilt or otherwise when it comes to genocide? Australia sure loves telling other countries in the world off for being naughty but is deaf to criticism of its own actions.

But hey, I guess by American laws no crime against Sioux, Cherokee etc occurred.

Saddam Hussein never broke any of his own laws either. Fidel Castro never did either because his own courts said so.

So either you think what happened to indigenous Australians was an accident or you think Australian courts have the authority to decide. Both are nonsensical.
re
Genocide occurred, in Tasmania at the very least. Entire cultures were destroyed, systematically removed and deliberately so. How was that not done with intent?

'oh but the law says...'

pffffffffft. Fuck the law, especially when it's used to deny the facts because you think it is inconvenient. Yours is an intellectualy hollow and disingenuous argument.

No an intellectually hollow and disingenuous argument would be to compare common law courts, which constantly tell the government to go jump off a cliff, with courts in countries where courts are the tool of the executive.

Edit: You're also incorrect about the US Supreme Court, which has consistently recognised the injustices made towards native people in recent decades.

 

[Arksy]

The case seems to be specifically about Howard's legislation. I think it's a bit silly to use that case as evidence that genocide has never occurred in Australia.

It was specifically about Howard's ten point plan, yes, however during submissions they did refer to this act as the latest in a long line of acts aimed at systematically wiping out the indigenous people of Australia. Not authoritative but it's the best we have.

The ruling was that genocide wasn't illegal at the time and international law shouldn't be utilized or retroactively applied. A legally sound, consistent judgement which has little to do with the truth of history.

The element of intent being necessary to establish actionable genocide was part of the dissenting opinion in that case, not the ratio I believe. And it's fucking weird: I wonder how proposing accidental genocide would go over with a judicial bench entailing less personal ties to the nation or peoples involved (i.e. international bodies which have presided over criminal acts in militarily defeated or developing nations)?

The truth is, colonialism involved a lot of ugly, terrible things and it makes certain people uncomfortable--to the point where they want to white-wash history already biased toward the moral authority of the victors.

Correct in that the majority didn't even look at intent. The majority stopped at the point where they said that international law doesn't apply to Australia until parliament says so. Still, it's the case that if this part of international law was incorporated into Australia, the government could rely on the opinion as highly persuasive.

The question of whether a court would find for genocide is purely academic. Unless Parliament were to introduce retroactive legislation against itself criminialising genocide, it's never going to happen.

 

[Fredescu]

however during submissions they did refer to this act as the latest in a long line of acts aimed at systematically wiping out the indigenous people of Australia.

I don't see how that helps your case. Obviously the court wasn't ruling on those acts.

 

[Arksy]

12 However, deplorable as our history is, in considering the appropriateness of the term "genocide", it is not possible too long to leave aside the matter of intent. As already mentioned, it is of the essence of the international crime of genocide that the relevant acts be intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Some of the Australian destruction clearly fell into this category. A notable example is the rounding up of the remaining Tasmanian Aboriginals in the 1830s, and their removal to Flinders Island. There are more localised examples as well. Before that date in Tasmania, and both before and after that date on the Australian mainland, there were shooting parties and poisoning campaigns to "clear" local holdings of their indigenous populations. Nonetheless, it remains true that the biggest killers were diseases unintentionally introduced into Australia by whites and the consequences of denying Aboriginals access to their traditional lands. With the benefit of hindsight, we can easily see the link between denial of access and those consequences; but it is another matter to say they were, or should have been, foreseen by the first Europeans who settled on the land (with or without official approval), whose main objective was to make settlement pay.

There you have it, the exact same court saying that genocide occurred against Tasmanian's during the 1830s.

 

[markot]

I agree to an extent, intent is needed really, it's like the difference between murder and manslaughter. The end result is the same for the victim. What happened on Tasmania was probably genocide and ethnic cleansing.


But ark is half Turk so he will rather die then admit to a genocide.

 

[Fredescu]

There you have it, the exact same court saying that genocide occurred against Tasmanian's during the 1830s.

So a genocide did occur. That could have saved a lot of typing.

 

[Arksy]

I don't see how that helps your case. Obviously the court wasn't ruling on those acts.

Yep, willing to admit that as an error on my part. It's been years since I read the judgment, and I read it again last night after making those comments. It's entirely about whether the ten point plan amounts to genocide but the Court has obviously looked at other events in history. It's a good judgment and people should read it.

 

[markot]

They're different though.

Is like the pogroms in Russia versus the Nazi concentration camps.

Also, Therese a difference between labeling all of Australia's actions as genocide and labeling specific events during it.

 

[Arksy]

So a genocide did occur. That could have saved a lot of typing.

Arguable. One can easily say it wasn't a crime then so saying it was a crime is absurd. One can easily look at the definition of the crime of genocide and find that other elements of the offence have not been met. This question is ultimately academic, this is an off remark by a court and not a detailed legal analysis. We'll never know how a court would decide on the Tasmanian incidents. I think it's a bit unfair to say it would be a wash though. What they said wasn't a ruling, so it's persuasive but a court would spend a lot more time with the question.

 

[Yagharek]

The question of whether a court would find for genocide is purely academic. Unless Parliament were to introduce retroactive legislation against itself criminialising genocide, it's never going to happen.

It is irrelevant what a court would find . What matters is whether a genocide actually happened, which it is pretty safe to say it did happen in Australia.

 

[Arksy]

It is irrelevant what a court would find . What matters is whether a genocide actually happened, which it is pretty safe to say it did happen in Australia.

A lot of people disagree. John Howard is one of those people. I don't see how a court's finding would be irrelevant though. Genocide is a crime..a legal construct that's is interpreted by the courts.

 

[Yagharek]

A lot of people disagree. John Howard is one of those people.

John Howard said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. His opinion on current world events is inaccurate, so his opinion on past events is meaningless.

 

[Dryk]

Poor Andrew Bolt

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ever_been_a_more_dangerous_and_despicable_qa/

He's right, the truth is very frightening and threatening, that's why nobody talks about it.

 

[Fredescu]

We'll never know how a court would decide on the Tasmanian incidents. I think it's a bit unfair to say it would be a wash though.

I know what my money would be on. Since you point out that "we'll never know" the strictly legal outcome, it seems distasteful for a public figure to start splitting hairs on the particular label we give an atrocity.

 

[Myansie]

Howard? He was also pro apartheid.

 

[Quasar]

Katherine Murphy is liveblogging what was supposed to be debate on the new anti terrorism laws for the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...arliament-to-debate-terror-laws-politics-live

Suppose its unsurprising Q&A gets mentioned.

 

[Dead Man]

1. Arksy, the law of any one country is not the only, or even the most important, definition of a word.

2. Shorten is a spineless bitch.

3. Fuck everyone that falls for this security theatre distraction horseshit.

 

[Quasar]

In other news UWA seems to be first to set its fee pricing under the liberals new system.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...cent-if-deregulation-gets-green-light/5762240

$16k a year for undergrad degrees. Though medicine looks to be over $100k overall.

Curious to see what the more premium Universities charge.

 

[magenta]

Considering that it was Labour that authorised the spying on Indonesian officials I am not surprised that they would not contest any expansion to our current laws. Nobody is left to fight this. 😩

 

[Arksy]

In other news UWA seems to be first to set its fee pricing under the liberals new system.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...cent-if-deregulation-gets-green-light/5762240

$16k a year for undergrad degrees. Though medicine looks to be over $100k overall.

Curious to see what the more premium Universities charge.

For those of us who don't know, what's the current rate?

1. Arksy, the law of any one country is not the only, or even the most important, definition of a word.

Since we ratified the international criminal court treaty, we've used the ICC definition of genocide...as far as I can tell the only (legal) definition of genocide that I know about.

This one:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

 

[Arksy]

Oops

 

[Aarglefarg]

For those of us who don't know, what's the current rate?

I would gather it's around $12,000.

"The university said it would charge a flat fee of $16,000 a year for full-time domestic students enrolled in one of the institute's five undergraduate courses from 2016.

That is at least 30 per cent more than current charges."