Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Racist change to Qld law sought

LAWYERS for the alleged ringleader of the 2004 riots on Palm Island, which were sparked by an Aboriginal death in custody, have launched an extraordinary campaign to change the laws and reduce the maximum sentences for those involved.

Citing parallels with riots in Tibet and Burma, Sydney-based lawyer Stewart Levitt has written to Kevin Rudd and other federal and state politicians asking them to support proposed changes to the Queensland Criminal Code.
The change?

The amendment would apply only to "a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race" who was involved in protests on Palm Island following the death in custody of Cameron Doomadgee, now known for cultural reasons as Mulrunji.

One of the mitigating factors suggested is "a sense of outrage or indignation" at the inadequate investigation into his death.

From The Weekend Australian, Palm riot lawyer seeks law change.

Might as well just let everyone go if the lose it and do the wrong thing. But only if they're indigenous. How long until the law may be changed to excuse bashing the missus, molesting the kids, murdering the neighbour?

Update:
I've been accused by Anonymous of being racist because of this post.
Is it a troll, or just someone who's mistaken. I'll think some more on it.

12 comments:

Wand said...

A supporter of Apartheid.

There will always be some in society along with bigots, cranks, wowsers, lefties and Labor Party supporters.

Anonymous said...

One of society's biggest cancers and unfortunately a reflection of my generation are the left leaning freedom right's solicitors who roam in their 1000s along the corridors of power in Australia.

While we're working our rings off to produce profits and taxes, these germs work equally hard to create laws that weaken our societal fabric. Lax legal judgements, calls for Bill of Rights etc are all reflections of these commies.

Anonymous said...

I see you've cleverly neglected to post certain aspects of the newspaper articles. Such as the maximum penalty for destruction to a building in Queensland is still set at life (!). It is archaic and needs to be changed.

I am sick of these accusations that legal recognition of cultural difference is a form of segregation. Think about this for one second, the justice system and other institutions were created by white people to suit white society. If the same applies to everybody then of course the people who different are going to remain disadvantaged by the very system they are subject to.

I am disgusted by the implication the blackfellas think that beating their wives and molesting their children is a good thing and would do so freely if it wasn't for the strong arm of the law.

I'll tell you what weakens our social fabric, an unjust legal system that would see a man standing up for the recognition of injustice to a member of his community by inciting a political protest gone bad sent to prison for life while a police officer walks free for the manslaughter of an innocent man and would probably not even faced trial if it was not for the riot in the first place. If I had spent a life time being neglected and unheard, I too would do whatever it takes to see justice done. But then again it must be impossible for a white person to understand the desperation Aboriginal people in this country must feel. So don't pretend you do.

splice said...

Anonymous Social Fabric Protector seems to be saying that the rule of law doesn’t match his personal moral outlook and therefore it isn’t right.

It’s a compelling argument.

Why make Australian law just to suit white people or change it to accommodate black people? That’s just plain racist.

We’re a wealthy nation with carbon taxes to spare. Surely we can create different laws to apply to each and every individual!

For example, Robert’s Law stipulates that Robert must eat his greens if he wants dessert. Bethanny's Law states that Bethanny must tidy her room to avoid a $1,200 fine and/or six months in jail. The Namatjira Act of 2009 states than Namatjira will receive an extra weekly subsidy and free housing if he stops sniffing petrol and goes to school once in a while. Aisha of course cannot be an individual. She is subject to Sharia Law. Aisha will wear a burqa in public and marry her grandfather’s brother or she will be buried waist deep in sand and stoned to death by dozens of cheering village men-folk.

How hard can it be?

Wand said...

Splice,

Correct.

One set of rules for us, one set of rules for them.

Then we set about working out who we are and who they are so we can all fit neatly into our racial classes.

I'm sure it can work as well as it did in South Africa.

kc said...

..it must be impossible for a white person to understand the desperation Aboriginal people in this country must feel. So don't pretend you do.

It's not impossible to feel compassion for the truly oppressed. No matter what my skin (my religion, my location on the globe, my language) may say to YOU, I am a fully functioning Human Being & I know that injustice hurts us all. Injustice & oppression are not selective, belonging only to brown or black or female...evil people force slavery upon others today and have done so since we crawled out of the swamp.

The greatest wrongs in human history have occurred because so many of us insist on separating ourselves along colour, gender, religious or geographic lines & then declaring Our Own Superiority. Time to call Evil Evil no matter what mask it wears. Punishing THIS generation forever for the actions of past generations is Evil.

Anonymous said...

The suggestion is not to create two separate legal systems, but to work towards creating laws that accommodate all Australians, not just mainstream ones. Segregation and accommodation are two very different things entirely. Minorities and the vulnerable require and have a right to special legal protection within the ONE system.

Minicapt said...

"Minorities and the vulnerable require and have a right to special legal protection within the ONE system."
Someone has been spending too much time downwind a grow-op. "Special legal protection" precludes "ONE system"; figure out how that functions, then come back for the discussion. It is incumbent that the minority learn to acquire accommodation within the majority, not standing offside and bitching that no one likes them. In other words, if one cannot 'accommodate' the majority, known as "Australians", then transportation to another location might be desirable.

Cheers

Kaboom said...

Minorities and the vulnerable require and have a right to special legal protection within the ONE system.

YES, YES, YES! The whole point of a legal system is to provide protection for the powerless - it is our social contract which you Neandercons (my invented word, but you may use it) COMPLETELY fail to understand.

Where there is an oppressed minority, it deserves special protection, compensation, and fiscal support and assistance. The law SHOULD respect any differences in culture, as this is the only way in which we can truly extend multiculturalism into the pluralism of mainstream societal mores.

Bloodnut, your continued highlighting of these proposals for selective application of "white" justice over and beyond true "people" justice (slightly tweaked) is abhorrently racist.

There will be laws which will stop you (and people like you) from spreading this hate, in the not too distant future.

I, for one, welcome our new legislative overlords.

Anonymous said...

Kabooom. You didn't turn the sarc off. I'll do it for you.

sarc offssssssssssssssssssssssssst

Boy on a bike said...

"If I had spent a life time being neglected and unheard, I too would do whatever it takes to see justice done."

You've pretty much summed up my life, but I don't feel the need to sit around in a slough of despair, getting drunk and smashing up everything around me, including my family.

No one ever listens to me. Boo hoo. So what? Why should they listen to me? What worthwhile things have I got to say?

Wand said...

Hey Nonny, can you think of some special treatment and laws for this minority group?