What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN  except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..

She found that  over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments  there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault. 

If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them -   then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?

Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top  legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre  even while you are reading this post? 

Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.

At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government  or even  the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?

[poddster]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

All this kerflufle about the children of non citizens, yet there is very little said or done about the ill treatment on children who are Australian

 There has recently been a massive, country wide enquiry in the form of a Royal Commission into the ill treatment of Australian children. One of our CS members actually gave evidence to it. How on earth did you manage to miss it?

Yep, missed it, it propbably was not shrill enough

The righteously indignant should get their priorities in correct order.

Are you suggesting that the welfare and safety of children should be evaluated on a sliding scale depending on whether or not they are "citizens"?

Yep

Just a question to ponder over, what rights should be extended to an invader?

How many children have invaded  Australia in the last 20 years and what arms were they carrying?

What makes you think that invasion has to be aemed invasion?

 invasion = an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

---

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:
You dont need to carry arms to be an invader.

Citizens are prioritised in other things.

I just wish we didnt have to spend so much money on this type of thing.

---

Invade,

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage: The Romans invaded Britain.

2. To enter as if by invading; overrun or crowd: Each weekend, skiers invade the mountain town.

3. To enter and proliferate in bodily tissue, as a pathogen: Bacteria have invaded the lungs.

4. To encroach or intrude on; violate: invade someone's privacy.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invader

[poddster]

Bacteria with guns?

[icyfroth]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

Do you not see how this would open the floodgates to people using children as a way to bypass Australia's border protection laws?

Do you not see that half the capacity of the MCG in arrivals over a 6  year period is not "opening the floodgates"?

Do you not see that parents attempting to seek a safe haven with their children in an attempt to save their lives is not using children?

---

It's not the question of how many more arrivals.

The  question is, how many people would use children, not necessarily their own,  to bypass Australian border security laws?

If we're talking about abuse the the children in detention, this point should be addressed.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

Are you suggesting that the welfare and safety of children should be evaluated on a sliding scale depending on whether or not they are "citizens"?

Yep

well colour me gobsmacked! I really did believe that somewhere underneath that cynical exterior there lurked a half decent mhuman being

[poddster]

ele if you had the means to protect one of 2 children and one of them happens to be a family member, wouldnt you protect that one?

[vicr3000]

I don't see why you are gobsmacked.

We should prioritize based on citizenship.

Other countries put their citizens first all the time. in evcuations, it is your citizens only unless specifically

requested by a country who might not have the means and not too many of them.

Libya being a good example. Clandestine night flight in, load up with UK citizens, fly out. Those close to coast went by ship.

Sierra Leone is another example of UK Citizens only.

Re post above this one.

Well said Pods. You protect your own first.

[poddster]

Judging by your rosy hue it would appear that you have been not only gobsmacked but smacked all over, 🙂

[vicr3000]

Since the UN HCR is so concerned, we should hand them all over to the UN and let them sort it out.

We build the camp (Manus, Nauru), let them pay for everything else, find out where the people come from

and the true identities and then they present the info to Aus.

I bet you "missing identity documents" would suddently turn up if that was the case.

But the UN wouldn't like that, they like to snipe from the sidelines but not actually take responsibilty

or do the work/heavy lifting. Except buying brand new, air conditioned 4WD's to drive around in.

[poddster]

So ele which one would you choose? You have the captain's pick.