Stealing them softly
Decades ago, Aboriginal children were removed by the authorities from their families and communities because, as the opponents of the policy claim, the authorities wanted to commit a racial and cultural genocide against Indigenous Australians, or, as the supporters maintain, to remove from danger children who were neglected and abused and sometimes even at the risk of death on the account of being the despised “half-caste”. These days, the fear of being branded racist and culturally insensitive is keeping the authorities from removing Aboriginal children who are suffering from sexual and physical abuse and neglect. Lives and futures are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and identity politics.
“Sunrise” is facing a backlash after a discussion on taking Aboriginal children out of abusive family environments sparked accusations of “blatant racism” and “bottom feeding”.
The controversial chat on the Channel 7 breakfast show came after children’s minister David Gillespie’s proposal white families should be able to adopt indigenous children to save them from rape, assault and neglect.
Currently, they can only be placed with relatives or other Aboriginal families.
For “backlash” read a few random people with a few followers on Twitter are unhappy. Be that as it may, the response is indicative of the broader problem – the “Stolen Generation” controversy makes it more difficult today to protect Indigenous children from harm. Who, particularly in the left-dominated field of child protection, wants to branded a racist? But isn’t it actually racist not to act? Imagine if there were remote communities consisting solely of white Australians, where children were raped, abused and neglected at levels multiple times those elsewhere in Australia (“NT Aboriginal girls are now 60 times likelier to contract syphilis than the wider community and 30 times likelier to contract gonorrhoea.”) – can anyone seriously think that the authorities would not have stepped in a decisive way to tackle this horror? Why do we then care less for the black kids than we do for the white ones?
I’m agnostic on the concept that Aboriginal children can only be placed and adopted with other Aboriginal people. But again, it strikes me as unrealistic and putting principles ahead of lives and well-being of the most vulnerable. If the number of Aboriginal children being rescued from abuse is being kept low because there is only a limited number of Aboriginal families available and willing to adopt them, this is tantamount to abetting the ongoing abuse. It takes an ideologue to argue in effect that it’s better that a child continue to be raped and mistreated by his or her own people than be saved by people of a different race, because there is a chance that the child grows up disconnected from their culture and the traditional way of life (whatever is left of it) – in effect, better dead than white.
This is not just sad but criminal.
P.S. If you want some more informed debate than The Daily Chrenk can offer, make sure you follow what my friend Jeremy Sammut has to say.