Quantum redactiones paginae "Aetas Surrepta" differant
Content deleted Content added
→Nexus: commons documents |
m Ut erat consuetudo. &c. |
||
Linea 1:
<!--[[Imago:QVB135lg.jpg|thumb|300px|''Pueri rapti'' in [[Magnum Horologium Australianum|Magno Horologio Australiano]] in [[Aedes Victoriae Reginae|Aedibus Victoriae Reginae]], Sydney]]-->
'''Aetas Surrepta''' (Anglice: ''Stolen Generation'' vel ''Stolen Generations'') est nomen [[Aborigines Australiani|Aboriginum Australianorum]] et Insulanorum [[Fretum Torres|Freti Torres]] qui pueri, usitate mixto genere, ab administrationibus et ecclesiis Christianis a Parlamento permissis ex familiis remoti sunt et facti civitatis pupilli inter annos fere [[1869]] et [[1969]].
Aetas Surrepta est late in Australia nota post annum [[1997]], cum ''Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families,'' relatus publicus, editus est.<ref name="bth1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/index.html|title=Bringing them home: The 'Stolen Children' report |accessdate=2006-10-08|publisher=Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission|year=2005}}</ref> Numerus puerorum relegatorum manet res ignota et in sermone de republica Australiana habito caput controversum.<ref>Ryan, Peter. [http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=293 A better place], [[Quadrant (magazine)|Quadrant]], January 2003, Volume XLVII Number 1-2</ref><ref>Barrett, Rebecca. [http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s250904.htm Stolen generation debate re-ignited], [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], February 23, 2001</ref>
Linea 7:
==Emergentia ratio rei publicae gerendae==
A policy of removing Aboriginal children from their parents is argued by some to have emerged from an opinion based on late [[19th century|19th-]] and early [[20th century|20th-century]] [[Eugenics|eugenics doctrine]] that the 'full-blood' [[tribal]] Aboriginal population would be unable to sustain itself and was doomed to inevitable extinction.<ref>Russell McGregor, ''Imagined Destinies
The earliest introduction of child removal to legislation is recorded in the ''Aboriginal Protection Act 1869.''
By [[1950]], similar policies and legislation had been adopted by other states and territories, and it has been alleged that this resulted in widespread removal of children from their parents and exercise of sundry guardianship powers by Aboriginal protectors over Aborigines up to the age of 16 or 21. The alleged aim was to
Some commentators argue that the impetus for at least some of the various pieces of legislation arose from an observed need to provide protection for neglected, abused or abandoned mixed-descent children.<ref>http://www.nationalobserver.net/2001_winter_legal.htm</ref> They assert that mixed-descent children were not wanted or welcome in some Aboriginal groups and communities. In the 1920s, the Baldwin Spencer report {{Fact|date=January 2008}} made it known that many mixed-descent children who had been born during construction of [[the Ghan]] railway were abandoned at early ages with no-one to provide for them. This incident and others spurred the need for state action to provide for and protect such children.-->
==Relegationis rationes==
▲The report closely examined the distinctions between "forcible removal", "removal under threat or duress", "official deception", "uninformed voluntary release", and "voluntary release".<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen04.html</ref> It noted that some removals were certainly voluntary. Mothers may have surrendered their children for any number of reasons (due to sickness, poverty, living arrangements, racism, etc). There was also evidence that some Aboriginal parents voluntarily released their children, in the hope that at least in this way they would be able to retain contact with their children and some knowledge of their whereabouts. Furthermore, the report acknowledged that in several cases the state took responsibility for children that were genuinely orphaned or in a state of neglect.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
▲Conversely, evidence indicated that in a large number of cases children were brutally and forcibly removed from their parent or parents, possibly even from the hospital shortly after their birth. Aboriginal Protection Officers often made the judgement on removal. In some cases, families were required to sign legal documents to relinquish care to the state, though this process was subverted in a number of instances. In [[Western Australia]], the ''Aborigines Act 1905'' removed the legal guardianship of Aboriginal parents and made their children all legal wards of the state, so no parental permission was required.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.aus-vn672744-2x Aborigines Act of 1905]</ref>
The report identified instances of official misrepresentation and deception, as when caring and able parents were incorrectly described by Aboriginal Protection Officers as not being able to provide properly for their children, or when parents were falsely told by government officials that their children had died.
Line 56 ⟶ 54:
In [[July 2000]], the issue of the Stolen Generation came before the [[United Nations Commission on Human Rights]] in [[Geneva]] who heavily criticised the Howard government for its manner of attempting to resolve the issues related to the Stolen Generation. Australia was also the target of a formal censure by the [[UN]] Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/0007/22/text/pageone8.html</ref><ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/20000718/A12986-2000Jul17.html</ref>
Global media attention turned again to the Stolen Generation issue during the [[Sydney]] [[2000 Summer Olympics]]. A large "aboriginal tent city" was established on the grounds of Sydney University to bring attention to Aboriginal issues in general.
Die [[11 Decembris]] [[2007]], the newly elected federal government of Prime Minister [[Kevin Rudd]] announced that an official apology would be made to Indigenous Australians by the federal government. The wording of the apology would be decided in consultation with Indigenous leaders.
==Apologia==
Line 119 ⟶ 109:
*[[May O'Brien]], caput educationis Aboriginalis
*[[Doris Pilkington Garimara]], [[scriptor]]
*[[Bob Randall]], [[scriptor]]
*[[Rob Riley]], [[advocatus]] et [[scriptor]]<!-- (deceased), CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Service 1990-1995, author of ''Telling Our Story'' which instigated the National Inquiry into Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families.
*[[Cedric Wyatt]], Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in
==Notae==
Line 158 ⟶ 148:
*[http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-sorry-way-to-right-a-terrible-wrong/2008/01/11/1199988589363.html "A sorry way to right a terrible wrong"], Anne Summers, ''Sydney Morning Herald'', [[January 12]], [[2008]]
[[Categoria:Controversiae Australianae]]
| |||