Media coverage: protest re: proposed remote community closures

Advertise with us
gas guyz
shop deals on amazon
inkbird
Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
manticle

manticle

Standing up for the Aussie Bottler
Joined
27/9/08
Messages
25,707
Reaction score
6,124
Location
Glenorchy, TAS
A few weeks ago, the Herald Sun (bastion of unbiased, neutral reporting) described a protest group of around 4000 people as a selfish rabble because they disrupted the movements of pedestrians and some public transport during peak hour in Melbourne's cbd.

For those unaware, the discontent was due to the likely forced closure of a number of remote aboriginal communities in WA/Kimberly region and the total lack of consultation or alternative vision from State and Federal government.

Yesterday a similar protest but with 12000 people took place and was described today by the HS (page 1 and 2) as 'still a rabble, still selfish'. This protest was one of many around the country and there were mirrored support protests internationally, including Berlin, London and elsewhere. Lord Mayor Doyle has described protestors as self indulgent. At what point does civil unrest become viewed as more than selfish nuisance and an issue worth considering? If not 12,000, how about 18,000? 21,000? 50,000?
 
You have been inundated with the political apathy that white Australia greets this issue with...enjoy!
 
Funnily enough, I came across that article yesterday and was going to post a topic on it but thought I'd limit my political contributions to one topic a day.
I wrote a lot about industrial development and conservation of petroglyphs in the murujuga region when I did my masters a few years ago so I'm familiar with a fair bit of the story. There has been some incredible destruction and denial which would have received widespread condemnation if it were in any other context.
 
manticle said:
At what point does civil unrest become viewed as more than selfish nuisance and an issue worth considering? If not 12,000, how about 18,000? 21,000? 50,000?
Click to expand...
Concern for another person's community plays second fiddle to getting to the shops in Melbourne. It's not just Melbourne, the whining would have been the same in any city throughout the country. It is a great shame that Robert Doyle's view is shared by the majority of people. I would have thought showing concern for people on the other side of the country is the antithesis of self-indulgence. On the other hand, people complaining about transport delays whilst other people are potentially having their lives turned upside down is quite self-indulgent.
 
Tis ok when it's for the melbourne cup, afl grand final, visitation from the queen or moomba.
 
And there will be of course some sort of closure for the latest Princess born in another country and whom is unlikely to rule, ever; let alone in our life time, yet this will be lauded in the press as something wonderful. The down trodden and least affluent of our society, should just quietly stay that way! There has been a long history of Australian governments, placing the care for others in far off lands ahead of those so close to home. These poor folk will probably join the tens of thousands of homeless in this country. State and federal governments have successively cut funding in the community service sector, very soon Australia will have it's own sprawlling ghettos at the city limits.
We aren't American.
It's bloody UnAustralian.
 
In the words of J.W Howard "We will decide who comes to how they live in this country and the circumstances in which they come live "
 
I just read a blog by Andrew Bolt on the topic and then perhaps stupidly, the comments left beneath. Everything from accusations of terrorism and racism to suggesting the current Labour government in VIC is communist and should be dragging out the water cannons. I scratch my head.
 
How else can I keep in touch with the toxic venom of Australia's most read columnist?
Know thine enemy.
Most of the time he's so far off the planet, he's amusing in a black, disturbing kind of a way.
Recently he accused the ubiquitous 'left' (who apparently dominate the Australian media) of getting their voices heard by shouting loudly. They do this because they have better access to microphones and paper keyboards.

Sent from my huwaei device using a paper keyboard.
 
I would have thought showing concern for people on the other side of the country is the antithesis of self-indulgence

General rule: the further away people are from us the more things we tend to make up about them. Why not? There's virtually no-one with direct experience to contradict us and gossip and hearsay spread instantaneously.

This is playing out in relation to the apparent 'forced shut down of Aboriginal communities' in remote WA in interesting ways. It's very difficult to get specific information about the actual communities. Why? Are they the sort of communities where travelling into and out of the communities is tightly controlled, and media usually aren't lt in? Are they dysfunctional communities where community housing is provided and is subsequently neglected, where there are big problems with unemployment, alcoholism, violence? I suspect this could be evident in many of the communities.

But we don't know. So to the protesters, the removal of special welfare money for those communities is interpreted as a 'forced shut down'. To supporters of the government, perhaps, it's seen as removal of funding for violence or whatever.
 
I dont know anyone who reads ( or watches ) Bolt...

His ego is certainly bigger that his readership base
 
TimT said:
I would have thought showing concern for people on the other side of the country is the antithesis of self-indulgence

General rule: the further away people are from us the more things we tend to make up about them. Why not? There's virtually no-one with direct experience to contradict us and gossip and hearsay spread instantaneously.

This is playing out in relation to the apparent 'forced shut down of Aboriginal communities' in remote WA in interesting ways. It's very difficult to get specific information about the actual communities. Why? Are they the sort of communities where travelling into and out of the communities is tightly controlled, and media usually aren't lt in? Are they dysfunctional communities where community housing is provided and is subsequently neglected, where there are big problems with unemployment, alcoholism, violence? I suspect this could be evident in many of the communities.

But we don't know. So to the protesters, the removal of special welfare money for those communities is interpreted as a 'forced shut down'. To supporters of the government, perhaps, it's seen as removal of funding for violence or whatever.
Click to expand...
Dont forget its the government that withdraws the funding for communities, which then in turn causes the array of social problems.

Then the government can turn around and say " Hey, we are doing it for the good of the community...etc...etc..."
 
TimT - this article gives some indication as to the criteria for shutdown/funding withdrawal

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-26/funding-to-dozens-of-remote-communities-under-proposed-strategy/6350932

Mostly about what is considered sustainable in terms of population but also health. Oddly though, it is the ones that rank lowest (ie most needy) that get funding removed. Wherever your thoughts lie on the issue though, it's mostly a lack of clarity, transparency and communication with relevant people that is driving the dissent.
 
Ducati- Now you know one person who does read Bolt. Need to get my comedy from somewhere.
 
The problem being the majority of those in power making decisions have no grip on the reality of life for normal everyday hard working Aussie, let alone those far less fortunate. There is not a lawyer, Judge or politician, that has ever skipped a meal or done without medical treatment or basic needs to feed their children. The only time most politicians see a shopping centre is at polling time. Until we have leaders that have actually live a real life without a silver spoon in their mouths from birth little will change.

E.G. The first Family Court Magistrate to have been divorced and sat on the bench was 2003, he would still be one of a very few even today.

Until we have people who have done work (real experience) and lived the circumstances in places of power to affect change for those currently in those circumstances and doing that work, there will always be lobby groups, self interest and agendas to take precedent.
 
Like this bloke

Finished uni in 1990, became solicitor in 91, got elected in 93....been in the trough ever since...

Photo_of_the_Hon_Christopher_Pyne_MP,_Federal_Member_for_Sturt_in_Parliament_of_Australia.jpg
 
You'd feel sorry for yourself if your larynx made your voice sound like a squashed donkey fucked a gen y teen who got their playstation confiscated.

My rational debating skills get thrown out the window when Christopher Whine gets mentioned. I apologise for any aspersions cast.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top