Previous issues
Contact Us

Winter 2000 cover

National Observer Home > No. 45 - Winter 2000 >Editorials

The Hypocrisy of Aboriginal Claims

"Political correctness" sets out to dictate that Aboriginal claims must not be denied, however ill-based or even absurd they may be. Likewise Aboriginal spokesmen must not be criticised, however offensive and mis-directed their statements.

Unfortunately it appears that the essential complaints of Aborigines are hypocritical:

1.  Part-Aboriginals - commonly the loudest in their abuse of ordinary Australians - have no intention whatsoever of adopting a primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but they protest about land rights whilst extracting all of the benefits of Western society. They not only seek normal welfare payments, but also demand additional payments by reason of their part-aboriginality; and it is established that billions of dollars flow to Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal groups.  Much of this money is misused, just as much of it funds the generous salaries of Aboriginal activists, most of whom apparently lack balance and integrity.

2.  The same criticisms may be made of full-Aboriginals, except that this much smaller group behaves with more dignity than part-Aboriginals.  Many full-Aboriginals living far from cities and attempting to adapt to the modern world wish simultaneously to preserve their "culture" (which is primitive and hardly to be supported as viable for the future save on an emotional "noble savage" basis) and to obtain generous financial support under the general welfare system and as many additional benefits as they can, by reason of their aboriginality.

The regrettable and pervasive dishonesty of the Aboriginal lobby can now be seen almost every day in newspaper reports. The so-called "stolen generation" claims provide regular examples.  It is now clear of these claims that in fact:

•  Aboriginals commonly exposed half-caste children to shameful mis-treatment, by physical abuse, harassment, sexual mis-treatment and even  murder, since half-caste children were unwanted.1

•  In virtually all cases the children accepted by institutions to be cared for were accepted on their families' request or approval.  In the few other cases when there was no consent or approval the children appear to have been often in danger of mis-treatment, injury or death at the hands of Aboriginals.2

•  The numbers accepted into institutions to be cared for did not represent a "generation".  Material put forward recently suggests that less than ten per cent of children were involved.

Far from involving any blame on the part of Government welfare officers, the "stolen generation" controversy has disclosed disgraceful behaviour by Aboriginals, who victimised and often killed part-Aboriginal children.

Fraudulent and Unbalanced Claims

The fraudulent and unbalanced nature of Aboriginial claims is well illustrated by Aboriginal demonstrations in Federal Parliament on 6 April 2000.  Previously evidence of the falseness of "stolen generation" propaganda had been made public.  For example, it had been found by the New South Wales Supreme Court that an activist, Ms. Joy Williams, had not been "stolen", but rather had been "dumped" by her mother into the care of an institution, and evidence in the recent Cubillo and Gunner cases in the Federal Court has demonstrated further the falseness of propaganda from the Aboriginal lobby.  But what inflamed this lobby on 6 April was the news that the Government submission to a Senate inquiry had indicated that only perhaps ten per cent of children could be involved, not a "generation".  In fact, the Government submission appears to have been too mild, and to have been intimidated by political correctness so as not to cast blame properly upon the Aboriginal communities.  But "stolen generation" activists resented so greatly this infusion of truth that they disrupted proceedings in the Parliament, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

The reaction of the media was curious but predictably "politically correct".  The disruption of the Parliament was reported favourably in "The Australian", and an outburst from one activist, a Ms. Barbara Asplet (described controversially as a "stolen generation member") who was escorted from Parliament, was reported as though she was a heroine.  "The Australian" misreported the Government's submission, stating wrongly that the Government had conceded that ten per cent of children had been stolen, whereas in truth the Government stated merely,

"[T]he proportion of separated Aboriginals was no more than ten per cent, including those who were not forcibly separated and those who were forcibly separated for good reason, as occurs under child welfare policies today."

In other words, the maximum figure of ten per cent included (and from other sources it appears, largely consisted of) (a) children whose lives and safety and mental health were threatened by Aboriginal communities and also (b) children taken with the consent of their families, as well as the very few (if any) not separated on a proper basis.

Even graver criticisms of "The Australian" must be made.  On 3 April 2000 an editorial criticised Senator Herron, who had supported the Government submission, on the basis that he should not have denied that there was a "generation" of "stolen children": this was "insensitive and mean spirited".  But what, one may ask, of truth?  Is truth to be kept out?  For here again there is perceived a large-scale fraud on the part of the Aboriginal lobby.  The Government is being asked to pay large amounts of compensation (to be funded by taxpayers) on claims which in many cases are clearly false.  No plainer example could be found of the evils of "political correctness" as a system that seeks to prevent truthfulness and the expression of views other than those of the "politically correct".3

Meanwhile intemperate comments - many of them abusive or threatening - from the Aboriginal lobby have been continuing.  On 2 April 2000 a Mr. Lyall Munro (described as an Olympic protest campaign delegate to the Metropolitan Land Council), said that "massive protests" would be organised.  He said, "Aboriginal people will rise up in this country and show the world how racist Australia is".  (This venomous comment was the precise opposite of the truth.  Far from being racist, Australia provides Aboriginals with many benefits denied to non-Aboriginals.)

The prominent activist, Mr. Charles Perkins (wrongly asserted by "The Australian" to be "himself a member of the stolen generation") claimed that Senator Herron's statement would force Aboriginals into direct conflict with the white Australian community and threatened, "Certainly the Olympic Games will now be in jeopardy", claiming also there would be torched cars and burning buildings.

Reconciliation and Doublespeak

Meanwhile the Aboriginal lobby is continuing to promote extreme results under the guise of "reconciliation".  In effect, the approach is to say "we should be 'reconciled' with you" but "we will be reconciled only if you provide us with all that we demand, including (and especially) large amounts of money, a treaty favouring us and so on; but we do not need to provide anything in return".

There are fortunately signs that this transparent device is now being recognised by more reflective observers.  At the same time, the extreme nature of the Aboriginal lobby's purposes is becoming evident.  On 6 May 2000, Mr. Geoff Clark, Chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, claimed that there must be a "treaty" between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals (doubtless intended to confer large pecuniary and other rights on Aboriginals).

The absurdity of a "treaty" is self-evident.  Apart from other considerations, Aboriginals and part-Aboriginals have in almost all cases caused themselves to be absorbed into general Australian society - they make use of all the benefits provided by the various governments and in particular claim welfare and other pecuniary benefits whenever possible.  Further, who would the parties to such a "treaty" be?  The principal members of the Aboriginal lobby, and a majority of those who describe themselves as Aboriginals, are in fact only part-Aboriginal, commonly with more white than black blood.  What standing do any of these people have to participate in a "treaty", even if a treaty were appropriate (which it is not)?

These considerations demonstrate that an essential step, which must be taken at once, is to prevent the dishonest activities of part-Aboriginals in which they claim to be "Aboriginals".  And in fact all Australians born in Australia, of whatever colour, are indigenous.

A strict definition of "Aboriginal" must be established for all statutory, welfare and pecuniary puposes.  An initial limitation should be that unless a person proves himself to be more than one half Aboriginal,4 he should not be treated as an Aboriginal for official purposes.  This simple step will remove many of the more irrational elements from the Aboriginal lobby.  It will enable Aboriginal matters to be put into a proper perspective at last.

National Observer No. 45 - Winter 2000