Dear List,

RE: PROFESSOR LOWITJA O'DONOGHUE

please pass this on
________________________________________________________

Please pass this on to as many people as possible.
>
Lowitja O'Donoghue has asked that this be passed
amongst as many people as possible.
> >
Friday 23 February 2001
> >
Media release - Professor Lowitja O'Donoghue
> >
The Murdoch press coverage of my lengthy interview
with journalist Andrew Bolt has been simplistic,
sensationalist, misleading and mischievous.
This is both personally distressing and, more
importantly, potentially very damaging to the causes I
have devoted my life to working for.

Let me make the following points absolutely clear:
1. Significant numbers of Aboriginal children were
removed, or stolen, from their families.  And such
practices were enshrined in the policies of the time
and endorsed by government.

2.  The legacy of these policies and practices has
been devastating for my people.  This legacy continues
to impact on each successive generation, causing
immeasurable grief and trauma and loss of culture.

3.  The term 'stolen children' covers a wide range of
different circumstances. In all cases there was
compulsion, duress or undue infleunce.

4.  Whether children were forcibly removed by the
authorities or whether parents were encouraged by
force of circumstances to surrender their children is
largely irrelevant.  The consequences have been
equally tragic.

5.  For my own personal circumstances, in which my
white father appears (as far as I know) to have
relinquished his five children, I now prefer to use
the term 'removed'.  I have always tried to represent
this situation accurately to the public, to the best
of my limited knowledge, for I was only two years of
age at
the time.  I absolutely understand and respect that
for many others the term 'stolen' more accurately
describes their circumstances.

6.  I know that my Aboriginal mother would have had no
legal recourse, nor any moral support, in resisting
our removal.  I also know that her grief was
unbearable.  Our removal would have been seen as
consistent with the policies of the time which
effectively sought to erase or assimilate the
Aboriginal population.


7.  I do not caution others against using the word
'stolen'.  For many it is the most accurate
description of what happened.  I absolutely respect
their right to use the term and I acknowledge that the
term has come to have a broad meaning that encompasses
a variety of circumstances of removal.

8.  I still believe that Aboriginal people are owed a
formal apology. In no way should my comments about my
personal circumstances be used to imply that the past
should not be acknowledged and apologised for.

9.  Similarly, my comments should not be construed to
discredit legitimate claims for  compension.  I have
always said, and I reiterate, that I believe that a
reparation tribunal is preferable to the adversarial
court process. But I respect the right of others to
seek redress through the courts.

10.  Finally, I am very angry and upset at the
selective way in which some of my comments have been
reported.  I deeply regret that some subtle
distinctions I made in a legthy and manipulative
interview have been taken out of context and distorted
by Andrew Bolt and the Murdoch press. That this report
will be used by some as a 'divide and rule' strategy
to hurt my people and  undermine the legitimacy of the
claims of the stolen generations is doubly
distressing.

Tessa Boyd-Caine
CrimNet Administrator
Institute of Criminology
University of Sydney


_____________________________________________________________________________
http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Organise your Mardi Gras party online!