Comments on: Sorry about the forced adoption

By: Australia…backsliding | SorryWatch

Australia…backsliding | SorryWatch — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:36:14 +0000

[…] well for the country’s sad history of taking babies away from single mothers — Sumac covered that apology for […]

By: smc

smc — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:54:00 +0000

If this has been going on as recently as Cameron Horn indicates, then some of those responsible are doubtless still around, and even still in government. Indeed these people can be, and should be, held accountable in a far more tangible way than merely a statement of apology.

By: snarly

snarly — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:38:58 +0000

In reply to Cameron Horn (Origins Fathers). Thank you for commenting, Cameron.

By: Cameron Horn (Origins Fathers)

Cameron Horn (Origins Fathers) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:30:44 +0000

correction to above – it should say 1950s to 1970s.
Sorry! 🙂

By: Cameron Horn (Origins Fathers)

Cameron Horn (Origins Fathers) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:29:23 +0000

As someone interviewed for about 5 hours by 4 Corners but left completely on the cutting room floor, let me make a few observations …
Firstly, if I hear or see one more media report referring to this as “between the 1970s & the 1990s”, I think i will slit my wrists. This stuff was going on in the 1920s and continued unabated well into the 1990s, possibly even into the 20th century. We get reports of similar treatment of young girls even today.
As for “sorry” – well, sorry seems to be to 21st centuries numbero ne weasel word – the word you use when you have no intention of (a) admitting anything, (b) doing anything tangible about what was done, and (c) calling to account those who perpetrated crimes which utterly ruined people’s lives.
The media, the politicians and the perpetrators like the one quoted in 4 Corners, need to get a grip on what went on here – this is not some unfortunate accident – this was deliberate stealth against the vulnerable for personal gain, and it needs to be addressed as the systematic crime that it was, and not as some oops-a-daisy misdemeanour. many many sufferers have committed suicide over this and those that haven’t have either gone to an early grave through self-neglect or live shatterd lives as hollowed-out human shells.

By: Frances

Frances — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:06:56 +0000

I like how she says “there are two sorts of apologies” and she is right in so far as there are two kind of statements that are *called* apologies. The first one is a real apology (“You apologize for something that you’ve done that was wrong.”) The second is frequently called an apology, but is actually just a statement of sympathy. “I’m sorry if you were offended” is very much like “I’m sorry for your loss” and not at all like “I’m sorry that I offended you with my thoughtless statement.”

By: macoyote

macoyote — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:45:17 +0000

One of the problems with unjust laws is that those who pass those laws do not have to either carry them out, or consider the welfare of those who do have to to carry them out.

There would be fewer death penalties, I think, if the juries had to witness the execution.

By: smc

smc — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:51:11 +0000

The Queensland Legislative Assembly policy was excellent and appropriate.

I always wonder about government apologies that are (and often have to be) made by people who did not have any hand in the act being apologized for. I had wondered whether they really carried any weight. Especially if all those directly wronged are already dead. Fortunately, in this case some of those wronged are still alive to hear the apology. In this situation the legislative body’s apology has one more current effect. The fact that those who complained or inquired were branded liars, and probably worse, still needed to be addressed. This apology addresses this well.

Clearly for Margaret Oakhill-Hamilton, the apology, however late, has great meaning for her, and for others who suffered the same atrocities.

Since the apology was addressed to a large group of people, having one of the wronged group help craft the apology was really excellent and probably had a big and direct bearing on the quality of the apology. No WEASELING on this one!

The second almoner did not make anything that even resembles an apology. She’s working hard to skitter out from any direct responsibility for her actions. It sounds like she is afraid to admit the scope of her actions even to herself. I don’t know how much pressure such workers were under. This may have been an injustice (albeit lesser) on these women too.

By: Anita

Anita — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:43:54 +0000

Well, we didn’t get all the Puritans, now did we…