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 influence.
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.
Lowitja O'Donoghue
Media release - Professor Lowitja O'Donoghue, 28th February
© all rights reserved
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/copyright.html for copyright notice.