Opinion

Blogs

Racial rort

Police are required, as I detail in my column in The Herald today, to notify the Aboriginal Legal Service before they question a detained Aboriginal person. There's no such privilege for the rest of us, and indeed police are not required to delay their questioning of us by more than two hours to await the lawyer we may have called ourselves. Even those deemed in legislation to be "vulnerable persons" in company with Aborigines miss out on the special police call to a lawyer. Those other vulnerable people, by the way, are children, people with intellectual or physical disability and people of a non-English-speaking background.

This onus on police to immediately call the Aboriginal Legal Service is made the more disturbing by two facts: one is that lawyers are inclined to silence in police interviews of suspects; the other is that silence in such interviews very often thwarts the police preparation of a case.

Why such a protective barrier for Aborigines? Why not such a protective barrier for all of us?

Some will say that Aboriginal people need protection because they are often uneducated and unsophisticated, but if that is the justification why are police not required to immediately notify Legal Aid of their intention to question an intellectually disabled person? Why should such privilege extend only to uneducated people of dark skin? Why not to the many uneducated and unsophisticated people of pale skin?

And what determines aboriginality? The suggestion that it is skin colour is deemed to be offensive. Is it simply the claim of aboriginality?

I claim a link to Mary Bugg, the aboriginal wife of Captain Thunderbolt the bushranger, and the fact that my Aboriginal cousins at Port Stephens are not thrilled by my presence in the family does not diminish my aboriginality. Being the black sheep of the family should not deprive me of my heritage. Would the police call the Aboriginal Legal Service for me and would its lawyer come runnng lest I make admissions?

If ever there was a need for special protection of Aboriginal people being investigated by police and for only Aboriginal people, it does not apply now. It is a racial rort.

Posted By: By Jeff Corbett on 15/12/2008 4:29:40 PM | Comments (25)

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Jeff, i think you will find that notifying Aboriginal Legal Aid when an Aboriginal person is in custody was brought in after the Royal Commission into deaths in custody in NSW. Other recommendations included, a support person and if incarcinated that the person be put in with other Aboriginal persons if possible. Also the watch time for this person had to be short. Unfortunately there were a disproportional amount of Aboriginals who died while in custody. Other recommendations were cell design, and investigation into the types of charges. Mostly the trifecta, Offensive conduct/language, resist and assault Police. Now in a lot of towns there are members of the Aboriginal community who are called out to take charge of the person and take them home. 99% of the time Jeff a Solicitor would tell the Aboriginal person not to be interviewed without even attending. So all in all it has been a good thing, deaths have fallen, and persons in authority have had much better training. All other vunerable persons have the right of a support person, no-one with an intelectual diability would be interviewed without one, even then the interview may not be admissible. It is tricky dealing with evidence. There are alot of bad people out there of all colours, and all have access to solicitors and can elect not to be interviewed. The racial card you are playing here is not warranted. Great to feed the rednecks but not warranted.

Posted by Buell, 15/12/2008 6:03:42 PM

Objecting to special treatment of people on the basis of their race is playing the non-race card, buell. Special protections on the basis of vulnerability is one thing; special protections on the basis of race is quite another. It is as much a nonsense to say that all Aboriginal people are vulnerable as it is to say that no non-Aboriginal are vulnerable.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 16/12/2008 12:06:26 PM

Pauline Hanson (only) represented the fact that Australians are descriminated against by other minority groups. Equal rites for the majority I say.

Posted by bend, 15/12/2008 8:25:26 PM

I believe the somewhat dubious criteria for aboriginality is that the person in question, in their own mind, "identifies" themself as one who is of that particular ethnic/racial persuasion. I say "persuasion" as that appears to be the main criteria. That and perhaps a drop of "black" blood. Conversely, if this definition is to hold up, wouldn't it mean that a "black" person with a drop of white blood could claim to be "white" regardless of how dark their skin is? Some of the "aboriginal" activists are snowy-white and have no facial features whatsoever that might identify them as aboriginal. I sure hope these particular "aboriginals" aren't pulling the wool over our eyes. While we're (almost) on the subject, isn't it strange that aboriginals now claim to be "traditional owners" of the land when up until at least the early 1990s they contended that they had never owned the land but that "THEY belonged to the land"?

Posted by helper, 16/12/2008 2:53:05 AM

You're probably right, Jeff. It does seem inequitable. One could suggest that the reason that Aboriginal people are over represented in prisons is PARTLY due to the fact that they don't have to contemplate the same force of law or consequences as other members of society. We should also recognise that, at a population level, Aboriginal Australians do seem to be profoundly less well off, and no doubt there are skillful people working hard to address that issue. Is reverse discrimination (or positive discrimination) a way to help solve that problem? It doesn't seem so.

Posted by StopPayingTheBludgers, 16/12/2008 8:15:54 AM

buell, on this issue i agree with you wholeheartedly (yes i do infact have a heart). The comment that brought the issue home to me was in the form of a question to me a few years back when i was quite intolerant. The question was "If you could receive all the advantages you perceive the aborigines get, and ALL you had to do to get was be aboriginal, would you do it?" My response "hell no". And that crystalizes the fact that i intuitively know that they are disadvantaged. Do some exploit this? Of course, but until we address the underlying issues we will never have true equality.

Posted by fista , 16/12/2008 10:35:10 AM

I don't want to be a filthy rich American, either.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 16/12/2008 12:07:43 PM

Jeff, the Cops know how to play the game. They seem to get alot of convictions working within the rules. I support the Police, but Aboriginals in custody are very hard for Police Custody Managers. The last thing Police want is to have coronial hearings addressing Deaths in Custody. As i said the recommendations are working, so leave them alone. And stop trying to pull the reverse discrimination. The recommendations work for the whites as well. All deaths in custody have decreased. And as for the Filthy rich American he can expect to live 25 years longer than the Australian Aborigine. You choose!

Posted by Buell, 16/12/2008 12:27:29 PM

Many rich Americans choose a lifestyle that leads to a shortened life and many Aboriginal people choose a lifestyle that leads to a prolonged life.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 16/12/2008 12:34:40 PM

[Jeff - the Aussie response would be unprintable :) ]

Posted by StopPayingTheBludgers, 16/12/2008 1:31:27 PM

A difficult one today - I understand that disadvantage is entrenched for many of aboriginal descent, and that initiatives in housing education and health are appropriate. However, it is my gut feeling that we should all be equal before the eyes of the law, and should I get arrested I would like to be assured that I would be treated no differently from anyone else in the same boat - regardless of race - and that should I have to ever front a jury of my peers that again I would be treated the same as anyone esles - irrespective of my race or the race of the jurors and judge.

Posted by Directeur Sportif, 16/12/2008 1:58:39 PM

Jeff, you are 100% right, and this is just one of many examples of the hypocrisy in the anti discrimination act. I think the Discrimination Act should state, " A White person can not discriminate against race, etc etc because the average white person is the most persicuted and discriminated against race in the country. Simple example is the current tragedy in Melbourne where a 15 yr old boy was shot and killed by 3 police, while a day later, 15 Aboriginal people chased police away with spears, sticks and boomarangs. I think the police would have been more scared faceing 15 angry aboriginals compared to a distraught 15 year old. Why were no shots fired??? simple answer to that.

Posted by Nafe, 16/12/2008 2:00:55 PM

DS, you have no peers.

Posted by fista , 16/12/2008 2:19:53 PM

1 | 2 | 3 | next >