A prayer for mothers

God from whom we have all received life,
    Thank you for mothers: for the women who gave each of us birth, and for the women who preceded us in the faith.

Thank you for Eve, the mother of all the living.
    You love all her children: those who came before us, those who will come after us, those who are (or seem to be) our enemies, those whose suffering is distant to us, those whose lives are harmed by the systems from which we profit and prosper. Teach us once more that we all belong to you, that we are one family. Forgive us when we forget that we are still called to be our brothers’, our sisters’ keeper. Give us today our daily bread, that we may learn to share it generously and justly. And let us not neglect the bread, the land, the respect and honour that we have stolen from Australia’s first peoples. Forgive us our trespasses.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Sarah, mother of Isaac, who laughed at your crazy promise and then laughed again in joy when she held it in her arms.
    You are patient with all of us who struggle to see your goodness in the pain and misery of the world. You hear the cries of those suffering crippling drought in Zimbabwe, drought and famine in Ethiopia, drought and heat waves in Vietnam, Thailand and India, those thousands who have lost homes in the heat wave and fires of Alberta, those still rebuilding after cyclone Winston in Fiji, those slowly losing their homeland in Bangladesh and low-lying Pacific islands, those reliant upon bleached coral reefs for food and livelihood, and all those whose future seems to have dried up, who cannot imagine how you could be faithful to them on a planet getting dangerously warm. Give us a renewed trust in your goodness, and an eager desire to embody that goodness in your world, to be living symbols of your care and delight in all your children. Thank you for those around the world taking peaceful direct action today and this week to break free from dirty energy and the dirty politics it engenders. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Tamar, mother of Perez and Zerah, a woman abused, exploited, shamed and threatened with death – all due to the failures of men in her life – yet whose resilience and creativity turned the tables on her abusers.
    You cherish all your daughters: including all those bearing scars of the body and of the soul. Too many of those wounds were inflicted by men: fathers, brothers, husbands; bosses, pimps, priests. Break the entitlement, heal the bitterness, dissolve the disdain and dismantle the systems that teach our sons to scorn their mothers and to mistreat the mothers of their own children. Rescue women trapped in cycles of violence and abuse, liberate the enslaved and empower the voiceless. Provide resources to domestic violence services, wisdom to policymakers and humility to your people to learn afresh your gentleness. Deliver us from evil.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Jochebed, the mother of Moses, who gave birth in secret then entrusted her child to the waters in order to escape Pharaoh’s murderers.
    You embrace all mothers living under tyrants, and all who entrust their children and even their own lives to the waters. Guard and protect them. Raise up those who will take them into new homes. As we hear of tens of millions fleeing war and persecution, fill our hearts with compassion towards all those in desperate need. You love the mothers of those trapped and suffering on Nauru and Manus Island. You know their fears, the withering of their hopes. Comfort those mourning the death of Omid Masoumali. Preserve the life of Hodan Yasi. And as our government’s policies have faced condemnation in multiple courts this week, bring fresh vision and deep wisdom to our national imagination, that we may share more fully your heart for all who cry for help. Make our churches places where hospitality is practised and practised and practised until it is second nature for your people to extend protection and care. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Naomi, the mother-in-law of Ruth, who became like a mother to her when they were both widowed.
    You welcome all those whose family lives have been fractured and reformed, with bonds formed not by blood but still with great loyalty and love. Be with all those estranged from their mothers, and with mothers estranged from their children. Bring healing, perseverance, insight and even (we dare to ask) the usually-slow often-imperfect miracle of reconciliation. Provide extra nurture and care for those whose mothers have recently died, or for whom today is a fresh reminder of old grief.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Hannah, mother of Samuel, who for year on year was deeply distressed at not being able to have children and who faithfully brought her tears to you.
    You care for all those without children who mourn (often in secret): the involuntarily single, the infertile, the ones wounded by broken dreams. Hold close today those who have lost children: whose babies were carried but never met, or who were held but couldn’t be taken home, or who came home but didn’t stay. Build us into a body that is attentive to our members who need particular honour and tenderness.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Esther, an orphan who became queen, without recorded children, yet who is known today as the mother of all Persian Jews on account of her thwarting a genocidal plot through her courage and boldness.
    You delight in all who stand against injustice and are not silent in the face of wickedness. Thank you for the examples and legacies of so many women throughout history whose contributions to your people and your world have involved so much more than raising children. Remind us all that we are first your children and that you bless your church with all kinds of gifts. May we cultivate, encourage and equip one another for every act of service without enforcing stereotypes or implying that motherhood is the epitome of femininity.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Thank you for Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus.
    You love her and all those like her who receive your grace, obey your command, wait for your promise, and heed your Son. May your church follow her example and walk in his true and living way. Give us here in this place humility and patience as we listen to one another and reach out to our neighbours with the message and love of Christ.
    Lord in your mercy,
        Hear our prayer.

Let us pray together the family prayer that Mary’s son taught us.
    Our Father in heaven,
        Hallowed be your name…

An environmentalist martyr? Some Christian reflections

Honduran indigenous and environmental organizer Berta Cáceres, winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize, has been assassinated in her home. She was one of the leading organizers for indigenous land rights in Honduras, which Global Witness says has become the deadliest country in the world for environmentalists.

- Democracy Now, 3rd March 2016.

This crime is part of a broader pattern of indigenous leaders being assassinated and repressed in Honduras since the coup in 2009.

It is also part of a broader pattern (especially in Central and South America) of environmental activists being murdered. Hundreds are killed each year.

What is different here is that Berta Cáceres had more global prominence than most indigenous leaders and global south environmentalists, partially due to having received the Goldman Prize.

Persecution of environmentalists and indigenous people in (some) western nations, generally takes more subtle forms: designation as terrorists, surveillance, restrictions of legal rights, demonisation in the corporate press for environmentalists and dispossession, marginalisation, racism (overt and systemic), elevated incarceration, and demonisation in the corporate press for indigenous peoples.

Christians who follow the crucified and risen Messiah are discipled into a narrative that often places us in conflict with empire (even if some Christians haven't realised that yet or suppress it). If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar's claims to universal jurisdiction are idolatrous and false. Failure to recognise and submit to imperial claims can be bad for your health. This is why so many Christians have been killed through the ages (and today!) for following Christ.

Today, empire takes various forms: aggressive militarism, economic exploitation, corporate hegemony, individualist consumerism, neo-colonialism and what Karl Barth called the "almost completely demonic" force of capitalism (CD III/4, 531).

But empires are empires because they become adept at wielding the sword (in its various guises) against all opponents, not just Christians. That environmentalists and indigenous leaders (and in this case, both) are being persecuted and killed for standing against corporate profits and corrupt governments ought to lead followers of a crucified man into a measure of solidarity with them.

Christians bear witness to the truth of Christ's victory through words and lives that conform to a different logic of grace and peace. This will lead us into a variety of responses to the contexts in which we find ourselves; there is no one-size-fits-all Christian response to empire. However, the Nazarene will not let us make any lasting peace with empire. If we don't at times find ourselves in (at times) dangerous contradiction to the powers of this age, then perhaps we've grown a little too used to seeing through the eyes of our dominant culture and may need to be awakened once again to the call of the one who bid his first disciples leave their nets, their tax booths, their swords and take up their cross.

Berta Cáceres was very likely killed for her work bearing witness to certain truths. Are there any truths that you believe are important enough to risk doing the same?
Image from online search. Photographer unknown.

Forty years ago

On August 16, 1975 Prime Minister Gough Whitlam gave the following speech when handing over freehold title of the Gurindji lands to Vincent Lingiari. The speech was written by Dr HC 'Nugget' Coombs.
_______________________

On this great day, I, Prime Minister of Australia, speak to you on behalf of all Australians who honour and love this land we live in. For them, I want: first, to congratulate you and those who have shared your struggle on the victory you have won in that fight for justice begun nine years ago when, in protest, you walked off Wave Hill station;

Second, to acknowledge we have still much to do to redress the injustice and oppression that has for so long been the lot of black Australians; third, to promise you that this act of restitution we perform today will not stand alone. Your fight was not for yourselves alone, and we are determined that Aboriginal Australians everywhere will be helped by it; fourth, to promise that, through their government, the people of Australia will help you in your plans to use this land fruitfully for the Gurindji;

Finally, to give back to you formally, in Aboriginal and Australian law, ownership of this land of your fathers.

Vincent Lingiari, I solemnly hand to you these deeds as proof, in Australian law, that these lands belong to the Gurindji people, and I put into your hands this piece of the earth itself as a sign that we restore them to you and your children forever.

Happy Amnesia Day

Language NSFW. Colonialist guilt NSFL.

What can we afford?

"Why can we afford to tackle so many problems, yet we can’t afford to tackle climate change? [...] We can’t possibly imagine tackling something like climate change because we are busy actually causing that climate change with the world’s biggest mining boom"
[...]
"[W]hy [can] Melbourne [...] subsidise a car race but [...] no longer afford to subsidise fresh fruit in public schools? Why [can] Sydney afford to host the Olympics but not house the homeless?"
[...]
“It is very hard to get on mainstream TV talking about issues of Indigenous disadvantage, but gee it is easy every night to get 30 seconds about the Hang Seng and the Nikkei-Dow. I don’t know anybody who doesn’t have an economics degree who even knows what the Hang Seng is! Do you really think that the people who need to know are tuning in to the Channel 10 News to find out? So what is it doing there on the news every night? It is telling you that big, important things that greater minds than yours have puzzled over are happening in the world. And you might think we can afford to spend more on health, you might think we can afford to spend more on education, and you might think we might do something sensible like tackle climate change, but you don’t even know what the Hang Seng is. So why should we listen to you?"

- Richard Denniss, Executive Director of the Australia Institute,
Address to 13th Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia.
H/T Peter Lockhart.

What we can or can't afford is always a matter of priorities. Scarcity is not the problem.

A manifesto of sorts

We have enough.
We can share what we have.
If we used less, it would be fine.
We can move ourselves.
The economy does not need to grow in order for us to thrive.
Business can be ethical and fair.
Business can express and nurture cultural values.
Health is the care of humans.
Public space belongs to humans.
We can meet at the market face to face.
We can have humane relationships with the animals we depend on.
We can work with Earth's systems.
We can build our homes and buildings to last for 600 years.
We look upstream to manage our waste.
We derive wealth from our waste.
We protect and restore what nature creates.
We listen to what Earth's complex systems tell us.
Our leaders listen to us and derive power from the mana of ethical behaviour and decisions.
The powerful protect the weak.
We are becoming indigenous.
We are weaving all the threads together.
The most important people in our village are those who will be us some day
and we are listening to them.

- From a statement adopted at the Signs of Change conference.

Are there any of these that particularly stand out to you? Any with which you violently agree or politely disagree (or vice versa)?
H/T Tom.

Sustainable development?

Here is a short cartoon booklet offering a satirical look at what "sustainable development" often means for indigenous peoples.
H/T Jeremy Kidwell.

Amongst the most vulnerable peoples in the world are the so-called "lost tribes". Did you know that there are still over one hundred tribes around the world who are largely isolated from the rest of the world, in fact who reject contact? For many of these "uncontacted peoples", their immune system has never faced disease or illness and even a common cold can be fatal. Most tribes at first contact experience horrific mortality rates (up to 100% in some cases) from such deadly viruses as the common cold or chickenpox. Many of these groups are not entirely uncontacted, but their experience of civilisation has been of disease, violence, slavery, exploitation and contempt. No wonder they choose to go it alone.

I came across this issue as the result of reading about this story, which presents an interesting ethical debate about the risks that are acceptable in expanding human knowledge. An update to this story can be read here.

UPDATE July 2011: After the failure of the natural history museum project, the real dangers to the ecology and uncontacted tribes of this area are becoming clearer.

On track for going off the track

Perhaps you've heard that Arctic sea is "recovering" or is "just fine": unfortunately not so. You may also have heard that warming has stopped: unfortunately not so (and this doesn't include the record-breaking 2010).

Where's the talk of peak oil? Just where it should be: behind closed doors. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

The rapacious hunger of the ever expanding global economy means that it is not only species that are threatened with extinction.

Goliath whips David: enormous fossil fuel companies outspent the environmental lobby by about 8:1 blocking any US action on climate chaos.

Speaking of big money: keeping the wheels of denial, um, oiled.

Norway sells shares in illegal logging. What is it about the Norwegians that makes them smarter than the rest of us? Or maybe not.

Thank God global warming is a hoax.

Super-extreme weather in Indonesia is the worst on record.

NYT: What is the legal status of submerged countries?

NYT: Developing a climate plan Z.

Scientists reach for new term to describe super windstorm.

In case it felt left out: Atlantic garbage patch found to rival Pacific's.

The North West passage in the Arctic has melted open for only the fourth time in recorded history. The first three occurrences were way back in 2009, 2008 and 2007.

Heat records broken in 17 countries this year so far. Only one country has set a record for cold. No year has prior to this one has come close to having this many records broken (and remember, each year such a feat becomes statistically less likely if temperatures fluctuate randomly).

How green are the parties?

In a comment on a recent post, I was asked "which party [do] you think people should vote for if they really care about environmental issues?"

You can read my response, or better, you can listen to one of Australia's oldest and largest environmental organisations. The Australian Conservation Foundation, a non-profit non-partisan non-government organisation founded in 1966 and with about 40,000 members, has put out a 2010 election scorecard comparing the three major parties across twenty four tests. The ranking may not be a surprise, but the gaps are larger than I expected. You can download the full scorecard (including a discussion of method) here, but the summary table looks like this:

	ALP	Coalition	Greens
Reduce pollution	37%	13%	90%
Clean energy	47%	27%	100%
Sustainable cities	67%	20%	80%
Healthy environment	55%	23%	88%
Overall	50%	20%	89%

Despite claims of some Christians that they all "support greater care of God's environment", the parties are far from equal on this front.

Many readers may also be interested to compare the parties' commitments to international poverty reduction. The Make Poverty History website has published a 2010 election scorecard (or as a pdf). The differences between the parties are again quite significant.

Or if you're concerned about social justice within Australia, UnitingCare has this scorecard (Anglicare's election contribution is here). Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) have also put together this scorecard comparing the parties on indigenous affairs, and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre have put out this one.

Of course, these are not the only issues, but they are a few of issues that are (to different degrees) quite likely to come up in the next parliament (and, in the case of Senate elections, the next two Parliaments), and which Christians may find particularly interesting, especially since they are not always adequately covered by the mainstream media.

Are we to believe in the Antipodes?

Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes
But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.

- Augustine of Hippo, City of God XVI.9.

In Augustine's day, it was widely known and accepted (at least among the educated) that the earth was round. However, this raised a problem. Since it was also known that the equatorial regions are impassable (think Sahara) and the necessary ocean voyage too lengthy to be feasible, then how could there be humans on the far side of the globe? It would only be possible if these hypothetical Antipodeans were not historically connected to the human civilisations which Augustine knew and to which Christ had come. For Augustine, although he had never been there, for the Antipodes to be inhabited would mean an unacceptable bifurcation in humanity - unacceptable because without the possibility of travel they were also without the possibility of hearing the good news. Given the impossibility of contact, to believe in life on the far side raised a series of problematic questions. Had God created two human races? Were there then also two Christs? Or were the others left without the gospel?

This may all seem fantastically speculative in today's globalised society, but the question of God's witness to those historically disconnected from the spread of the Christian message is a genuine theological and ethical issue. Is the chance to be saved a historical cultural lottery?

One attempt to answer that question is found the new preamble the Uniting Church in Australia has proposed to add to its constitution. Ben Myers is posting excerpts from a paper he is writing reflecting critically on that preamble.

UPDATE: Ben has just posted the conclusion to his paper.

Six simple ideas towards reconciliation

Tonight we had a follow-up meeting after the GetUp GetTogether for reconciliation a couple of weeks ago. Jason, an indigenous artist who participated in the first gathering, invited us to the Boomalli Art Gallery in Leichhardt for tonight's discussion. We brainstormed ideas of small practical steps we could each take to help move towards reconciliation in our local area and in Australia. Here were some of the group's ideas:

• Be willing to take risks and be thick-skinned and patient enough to keep trying if and when there is misunderstanding;
• Write letters to the paper and to politicians to keep reconciliation on the local and national agenda;
• Say "hello" and show basic respect when passing strangers on the street;
• Share positive stories and challenge negative stereotypes when they are expressed;
• Volunteer with a local organization working towards reconciliation;
• Start a conversation with your friends and family: "what does reconciliation mean for you?"

I may have missed some of the ideas we discussed because I only started taking notes towards the end. Does anyone have further suggestions? Remember: from little things, big things grow.

GetTogether for reconciliation

Last night Jessica and I hosted a GetUp GetTogether for reconciliation in our flat. Thirteen people from the local community (only two of whom we'd met before) came along to hear each other's experiences and think about reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, especially as it relates to our local area. This gathering was one of around 350 across the country (see image for locations) organised by GetUp under the theme "From little things, big things grow".*

Quite apart from the content of the discussion (which was surprisingly high quality, given that most of us didn't know each other), I found the evening a fascinating exercise in community building. Again, I was struck by how hospitality is a key part of planting trust. I think it is rare for Sydneysiders (not sure whether this is true of urban Westerners more generally) to have strangers into their home. Sharing our spaces is part of sharing our lives.

Speaking of which, one of the Indigenous Australians who came along invited us all to a follow up event to be held at his local art gallery.

New single released
*From little things, big things grow is also the title of a new single released last week by GetUp in partnership with Paul Kelly, Missy Higgins and many more (and featuring Kevin Rudd). It debuted last week at #4 and you can spend $1.69 to buy it and help it get to #1. You might be able to guess that the idea was partially inspired by "Yes we can". All the lyrics come from Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations and responses made on the day by Indigenous Australians (plus a little at the end from Paul Keating's famous 1992 Redfern speech).
Before someone tries to score points for saying there are only twelve people in the photo, one member of the group had to leave early.

Williams on racism

"[...] racism is not evil because its victims are good, it is evil because its victims are human. They share a common humanity, complete with its failings as well as its beauties, with their oppressors. If I do not grasp this, I am not really open to the possibility of ordinary human relationship with the victimized group. I 'atone' for my primal sin of oppression by according a superior instead of an inferior place to my victims, placing a moral scourge in their hands to beat me as I once beat them; and this is a travesty of the human reconciliation and restoration: my imagination is still trapped in the illusion that the basic and ultimate form of human relation is between the powerful and the powerless."

- Rowan Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel
(Darton, Longman + Todd, 1982), 11.

I thought this quote was particularly relevant this week as Australia faces its own history of government-sanctioned racism. That opposition leader Brendon Nelson thought it necessary to dwell upon the ongoing failings of indigenous people and the noble achievements of previous generations of European Australians as part of an apology displayed the fear that apologizing might simply reverse the previous moral polarity: black becomes white and white, black, so to speak. Some of the outraged reaction to his speech also betrayed a similar lack of imagination.

The good news is that Jesus opens a different way of relating between perpetrator and victim in which the hurt of both can begin to be healed without merely exchanging one kind of abuse for another.

Apology: full text

Here is the text of the motion of apology to the Stolen Generations that Kevin Rudd will deliver at 9 am AEDT this morning as the first act of the new federal Australian parliament:

Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

H/T Jason, who has posted the full text of Kevin Rudd's speech (not just the actual motion).

Confused about the apology?

This Wednesday, Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, will apologise to the "Stolen Generations" on behalf of the Australian parliament for policies implemented until the 1970s in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians were forcibly removed from their families and placed into institutional or foster-family care simply on the basis of race. This has been a controversial and highly politicised issue in Australia for many years. As a result, there is much confusion over what the apology will and will not mean. Although the specific wording to be used will not be released until tomorrow, it is worth addressing some of the common questions about this event.

#1 I didn't do it, why should I apologise?
The apology on Wednesday is being made by Kevin Rudd on behalf of the Australian parliament, not the Australian people. The apology is for specific government policies relating to the removal of children, not generally for all mistreatment of indigenous people. As a parallel example, a few years ago John Howard apologised to Vietnam veterans for how they were mistreated upon their return from the war.

#2 Why bring up ancient history?
Not only do such traumatic actions have repercussions extending beyond a single generation, but these policies were still being implemented into the 1960s and early 70s. Many of those directly affected as children and family members are still alive today.

#3 Saying sorry won't change anything
An apology is a necessary but not sufficient step in the path to healing and reconciliation. In this case, it ought not to be a distraction from or alternative to seeking better results in health, education and housing. It will not change what happened in the past, but it is the only way to seek a better future.

#4 The policies were executed with good intentions
Intentions are not irrelevant, but by themselves are insufficient when evaluating an event. The majority of indigenous children were removed from their families purely on the basis of the colour of their skin, not the level of their care. Many were abused physically, sexually or emotionally as a result. It is difficult to find a member of the Stolen Generations who is happy about being denied the love of their parents and extended family.
Modified from The Stolen Generations’ Apology – 7 Handy Mythbusters published by GetUp.

If you want to watch the apology on Wednesday, here is a list of locations. It will be screened live on ABC at 9 am EST. Here are some FAQs answered by Reconciliation Australia. I also gave some more recommended links on the topic back here.

Saying Sorry

Yesterday it was announced first act of the new Australian parliament on 13th February will be to say "sorry" to the stolen generation.* Our previous government was willing to express regret, but refused to apologise for the sins of a previous generation, despite the recommendations of the 1997 Bringing Them Home report from the Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission.

This continues to be a divisive issue in Australia. I found this short paper of the Social Issues Briefing to be the most helpful short item I have read on the topic. It argues that the logic behind such an apology is deeply Christian. If you would like more information about the apology and what it will mean, Reconciliation Australia has published this FAQ document.

Rory suggests that the apology ought to be made by the Governor General as head of state, in order to lift it above party politics. Jason offers some more theological reflections upon forgiveness and saying sorry, as well as some relevant book reviews. GetUp has a campaign encouraging this action to be bipartisan and more than token.

Does anyone have other ideas on how to mark the significance of this step?
*(from Wikipedia): "The Stolen Generation (or Stolen Generations) is a term used to describe the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, usually of mixed descent who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions, under various state acts of parliament, denying the rights of parents and making all Aboriginal children wards of the state, between approximately 1869 and (officially) 1969."

Northern Territory intervention revisited

Back in June, the Australian government announced an 'intervention' of sweeping proportions into the Northern Territory to reduce widespread child abuse amongst indigenous communities. While there is a broad consensus on this goal, the specific measures to be taken have proved controversial, sparking widespread community debate.

The Sydney Anglican Social Issues Briefing has recently published a response which briefly summarises a number of the key issues and ends with some useful questions for both the government and its opponents to ponder:

Questions to Government:
      1. Is government being honest about its limitations? a) Is it clear on what forcefulness can, and cannot, achieve in people’s lives? b) Has it taken enough notice of local knowledge concerning what will and won’t work, and what has and hasn’t worked, on the ground in each place?
      2. Does government have long-term proposals for the self-sustaining health and good order of these remote communities, a genuine process of review, and an appropriate exit-strategy?
      3. Is government honest about those failures in indigenous communities that have occurred because productive pilot programs have not been maintained long-term?

Questions to its opponents:
      1. Are opponents honest about some of the intractable problems facing indigenous communities, and willing to concede the failures of some previous strategies?
      2 Are opponents willing to suggest at what points force is necessary or in-order (or do they believe that all government use of force is evil)?
      3. In what way can they encourage government in its efforts while at the same time suggesting improvements?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these questions, especially if you first take the time to read the briefing.

UPDATE: A NT linguist reports on some effects of the intervention. (H/T Ruth)

Howard on the end justifying the means

The Hon John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, has recently announced the effective annexation of the Northern Territory by the federal government due to a crisis of widespread child abuse amongst the indigenous population. In his own words:

The level of intervention here is quite dramatic and quite sweeping. We ought not to not mince words, we are in effect supplanting the Northern Territory Government in many of the areas of responsibility.

Others have discussed the timing, motivation and political effect of this move (this is a very sudden and dramatic move on an issue that has been reported for decades), as well as the more important question of whether it will actually help to reduce abuse. These are complex questions on which I have hunches, but little expertise. However, one thing that grabbed my attention while listening to Mr Howard's defence of his actions was his appeal to the logic of the end justifying the means:

Interviewer: This appears to be a blow at any semblance of self-determination.
John Howard: Well, some may see it that way, but is that more important than fixing the problem? I mean, see, this has been the problem with so many of the approaches in the past to indigenous affairs, that doctrines and notions have been given greater prominence than outcomes and solutions.

Later he said:

I don't think you can respect power structures in these communities when clearly those structures have failed to deliver the right outcomes, and you've got to, as in always, you've got to pay on results.

Does the end ever justify the means?
All quotes can be found in this interview on ABC's Lateline.

UPDATE: Thanks to all those who have commented on this very complex issue. A number of the comments have helped clarify my original question. The issue is not so much about the ends justifying the means as the intention of certain (very worthy) ends being used to justify potentially ill-conceived, ineffective or even self-defeating means.

UPDATE #2: It is worth at least reading this summary report from the NT government inquiry. H/T CraigS.

UPDATE #3: My local federal MP, Tanya Plibersek, talks sense on the issue in today's (27th June) SMH. Again, H/T CraigS. She doesn't, however, touch on the issue of empowerment/ownership - bringing local communities on board, which also means listening to their concerns and being willing to negotiate.