(RTTNews) – Turkish President Abdullah Gül has warned that xenophobia, racism and Islamophobia are threatening Europe’s own values and advised the 27-member European Union bloc to continue with an open vision.
“It’s my sincere wish that this threat will be prevented from gaining more ground that will lead the EU to turn further in on itself and to harm the universal values that it pioneers,” Gül said in a statement on the occasion of ‘Europe Day’ on Tuesday.
He urged EU countries to free themselves of “baseless worries” about Turkey’s EU negotiations and to remove “the artificial barriers” raised on its road to accession as he reaffirmed Turkey’s objective of full membership.
Describing Turkey’s aspirations to join the EU as part of the country’s strategic vision, Gül said it was for both sides to crown Turkey’s half-century long journey with this end. A potential Turkish membership in the EU will strengthen the bloc’s global position in the fields of energy, economy, foreign policy and security, Gül was quoted by Turkish media as saying.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also issued a statement saying that the government’s efforts at raising democratic norms through a set of reform packages were evidence of its will to join the EU.
I. Why Turkey does not qualify the tragic events of 1915-1916 as genocide?
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
The main incrimination of the author is that Turkey denies recognizing the 1915-1916 Armenian genocide. Let us scrutinize if such an accusation is legally sustainable.
“The concept of the “Armenian genocide” is being used in a historical and political rather than in a legal perspective. It has become a catchword which reveals deep scars in the Armenian collective memory. Learned legal discussions on the issue of genocidal intent are of little or no relevance to the perception by the Armenians of one of the most defining moments of their history [1]”.
The term “genocide” is a legal term; it describes a crime specifically defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention and must be addressed accordingly. The existence of the crime of genocide can be legally determined only by the judges of a competent tribunal on the basis of the prescribed legal criteria and after a fair and impartial trial. The Genocide Convention does not allow for convictions on genocide by legislatures, scholars, pamphleteers, politicians or others. Some historians, sociologists, politicians and even political scientists who dealt with these issues tend to describe almost any incident which involves a significant number of dead[2] as genocide; they sometimes purposely mislead those who are not familiar with the law; they created an “Armenian taboo” and now they are prisoners of it.[3] Indeed,
“To term the events of 1915 as genocide is to detach genocide from its legal definition and to use it for political or moral purposes. Whether it is sound to keep hammering on a legal term based on non-legal considerations is doubtful… it adds to a wrong conceptualization of the legal system and eventually could lead to a devaluation of the norm itself…” [4]
But, Armenians and some of their supporters have deliberately set aside the legal aspects of the issue, because –they thought- it would weaken their genocide claims. They have chosen to adopt a dogmatic political approach to underline the tragic nature of the incidents so that they can make genocide claims more easily acceptable by the public.[5]
Dolus specialis – special intent
The most important characteristic of the Genocide Convention is that for the crime of genocide to exist, acts must have been committed with the intent to destroy the protected groups as such. The mental or subjective element (mens rea) is a constituent of that crime. The concept of “general intent,” which is valid for ordinary crimes, is inadequate in the identification of acts of genocide.
Sociologically and psychologically, the intent “to destroy a group as such” emerges in the most intensive stage of racism. Racial hatred is quite different from the ordinary animosity laced with anger, which parties engaged in a substantial dispute may feel toward one another. Racial hatred is a deeply pathological feeling or complicated fanaticism. Anti-Semitism is an example in this context.[6]
According to the Genocide Convention, the intent to destroy a group must be in the form of “special intent,” dolus specialis, beyond any doubt. This crucial aspect of the crime of genocide has been underlined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in paragraph 187 of its verdict on Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro[7]: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) examined the allegations by Bosnia and Herzegovina and conducted long and detailed investigations regarding the alleged atrocities, the findings of which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention. With regard to killing members of the protected group, the Court found that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, with the exception of Srebrenica, the Court was not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy in whole or in part the group of Bosnian Muslims. So, if the “special intent” is not proven beyond any doubt, judicially an act cannot be qualified as genocide. The cases of civil war, rebellion, and mutual killings should not be confused with the crime of genocide.
A competent tribunal to judge the genocidal acts
Moreover, the existence of the crime of genocide must be decided by a competent tribunal. Article VI of the 1948 Genocide Convention on the subject reads as follows:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
The issue of a competent tribunal had been debated extensively by the International Preparatory Conference of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The question of determining a competent tribunal was resolved[8] after lengthy discussion and the above-mentioned text was approved. During the discussions, a proposal of “universal repression” was rejected[9]. Universal repression foresees the judging of the suspects by any tribunal of any state. Without a valid decision from a competent court, an act cannot legally be qualified as genocide.
The Turkish government and the overwhelming majority of Turks, as well as other governments [10] and many scholars or experts reject qualifying the tragic events of 1915 as genocide, because the sine qua non legal conditions incorporated in the 1948 Genocide Convention have not been fulfilled. These torts may be legally qualified criminal acts foreseen by the Ottoman Penal Code and / or mutual killings.[11]
On this occasion we would like to underline that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mr. Ahmet Davutoğlu very clearly stated he was not insensitive to the sufferings of the Ottoman Armenians, but was expecting the same understanding from the Armenian side with regard to the plight of the Muslim Ottomans which equally suffered during the same tragic events.[12] The Turkish government has more than once declared that it was ready to consider and eventually accept the conclusion of historians and legal experts who will meet to study the tragic events of 1915-1916; but Yerevan refused.[13] Regardless, Ankara has supported the Vienna platform since 2004, which in 2009 published a large compilation of documents.[14] Turkey fully opened its archives—unlike the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Armenian Patriarchate at Jerusalem—, and, according to Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, a supporter of the “Armenian genocide” label, there is no evidence for deliberate destruction of Ottoman documents.[15]
Other general principles of international criminal law on internationally wrongful acts
Thos who refer to internationally wrongful acts in the context of 1915 events, should also take into consideration the following principles of international law:
“Nulla crimen sine lege”[16] and “Nulla poena sine lege”[17]
The governing principles of criminal law are also valid for the crime of genocide: “Nulla crimen sine lege,” which means no crime shall exist without law, and “Nulla poena sine lege,” which means no person shall be punished without a law foreseeing such punishment.
Ne bis in idem
The principle “Ne bis in idem”[18] means that no person shall be tried with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the competent court.
The Turkish government and the great majority of Turks do not deny that Ottoman Armenians, together with Muslim and other Ottoman citizens, were the subject of a great tragedy[19] during the 1915-1916 events, that they lost their lives, properties, families as well as their homes. During the relocation or the transfer of a population within the borders of Ottoman territory, a number of military personnel or civil servants and other members of the population committed crimes in spite of orders given by the Ottoman government to protect the lives and properties of the displaced Armenians.
The 1915-1916 trials by the Ottoman government for crimes against Ottoman Armenians
In this respect it should be underlined that the criminality associated with the tragic events and the relocation of the Ottoman Armenians during the years 1915-1916 was addressed by the Ottoman judiciary. Individuals or members of the groups who attacked the Armenian convoys and officials who exploited the Armenian plight, neglected their duties or abused their powers were court-martialed and punished.
In 1915, more than 20 Muslims were sentenced to death and executed for such charges.[20] Following a report of Talat Pasha, the Ottoman government created three commissions[21] to investigate the complaints of Armenians and the denunciations of civil servants. As a result, in March-April 1916, 1673 Muslims—including captains, lieutenants, first and second lieutenants, commanders of gendarme squads, police superintendents, and mayors—were sent to martial courts. 67 were sentenced to death, 524 were sentenced to jail, 68 received other punishments such as forced labor, imprisonment in forts, and exile. Since the author of the manuscript stresses the alleged “confiscation” of Armenian properties by the Ottoman State, it is not unimportant to notice that several people were sentenced to death for plunder, and that other death sentences were justified not only by murders, but also by robberies.[22]
[1] Hans Wilhelm Longva, “The concept of genocide in international law , A wound not healed,”Conference on Turkish-Armenian relationship, University of Oslo, February 1st, 2010.
[2] William A. Shabas, Genocide in International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 7.
[3] Ahmet Insel-Michel Marian “Dialogue sur le tabou arménien” Paris Liana Levi, 2009
[4] Der Jan van der Linde, “The Armenian Genocide Question and Legal Responsibility,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 24, 2011, pp. 123-151
[5] Gündüz Aktan “The Armenian problem and International Law,” www.mfa.gov.tr//data/dispolitika/Ermeni iddialari/Document.pdf
[6] Aktan ibid p. 270
[7] Para 187 “Article II (of the Convention) requires a further mental element. It requires the establishment of the intent to destroy in whole or in part the protected group as such. It is not enough to establish, for instance in terms of paragraph. (a) That unlawful killings of members of the group have occurred. The additional intent must also be established and is defined very precisely. It is often referred to as the “specific intent” (dolus specialis). It is not enough that the members of the group are targeted because they belong to that group that is because the perpetrator has a discriminatory intent. Something more is required. The acts listed in Article II, must be done with the intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part. The words “as such” emphasize that intent to destroy the protected group.
[8] See Travaux préparatoires Doc. E/794 page 294 and 97, the meeting of the Conference page 360 and following pages
[9]With regard to the “Power to Exercise Universal Repression” or “Universal Repression” (see: April 5, 1948. Doc. E/794. pp.29-33) The Committee rejected a proposal in this respect (Ibid, p.32).Those rejecting the principle of universal repression argued as follows: “ … universal repression is against the principles of traditional law; permitting the courts of one State to punish crimes committed in another state by foreigners will be against the sovereignty of the State; as genocide generally implied the responsibility of the State on the territory of which the crime was committed, the principle of universal repression would imply national courts to judge the acts of foreign governments. The result will be dangerous international tensions.”
[10] The British government on many occasions officially declared its position on the matter. On April 14, 1999 the Foreign Office spokesperson Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale said that “the British government has not recognized the events of 1915 as indications of genocide”; On February 7, 2001, acting on behalf of the British Government, Baroness Scotland of Asthal declared: “The government, in line with the previous British governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations on genocide….The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate among historians.” The UK government did not accept qualifying as genocide the 1915 events. The Israeli government refused to accept the parallelism between the Holocaust and the tragic events of 1915. The Ambassador of Israel Rivka Kohen in Yerevan declared on February 7, 2002, during a press conference that “the 1915 events couldn’t be considered genocide because the main killings in these events were not planned and the Ottoman government had no intention to destroy a nation or a group of people as such. As a well-known fact many people from the Armenian and Muslim groups had lost their lives in these events. The Holocaust is unique. At this stage nothing should be compared with the Holocaust.” On April 10, 2001 the Nobel Prize-awarded Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Perez said that “the fate of Armenians in Anatolia was a tragedy, not genocide.” He added: “Armenian allegations are meaningless. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegation. If we have to determine a position on the Armenian issue it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities.”
[11] Justin McCarthy,Esat Arslan,Cemalettin Taşkıran,Ömer Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Utah Ser ies in Turkish and İslamic Studies, The University of Utah Press,2006 : “The slaughter of Muslims that accompanied the Armenian revolt in Van Province inexorably led first to Kurdish reprisals on the Armenian, then to a general and mutual massaccre of the people of the East. The Armenian revolt began an intercommunal war, in which both sides, fearing their own survival, killed those who, given the chance,would have killed them.The result was unprecended horror. History records few examples of mortality as great as that suffered in Van Province…. pp.265”
[12] “WWI Inflicted Pain to Everyone, Davutoğlu Says,” Hürriyet Daily News, December 30, 2011 ; “Turkey ‘Ready to Share Pain’ With Armenians,” Hürriyet Daily News, March 1, 2012,
[13] For example: Anatolian News Agency, April 11, 2005; “Yerevan Rejects Turkish PM Erdogan’s Dialogue Letter,” The Journal of Turkish Weekly, April 14, 2005, ; Interview of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Charlie Rose, September 27, 2007; “Turkey’s Proposal Clears Last-Minute Snag in Zurich,” Today’s Zaman, October 12, 2009, ; Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and…, pp. 125-129.
[14] İnanç Atılgan and Garabet Moumdjian (ed.), Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform, Klagenfurt-Vienna-Ljubjana-Sarajevo: Wieser Verlag, 2009.
[15] “We should be really careful about not mixing information. Anything about the CUP archives is sheer speculation. We don’t have any indication that they have been destroyed.” Hilmar Kaiser, interview to Aztag, September 22, 2005. See also “Historian Challenges Politically Motivated 1915 Arguments,” Today’s Zaman, ; Yücel Güçlü, “Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate?”, The Middle East Quarterly, XVI-2, Spring 2009, pp. 25-42, https://www.meforum.org/2114/ottoman-archives-reshape-armenian-debate
[16] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 22.
[17] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 23.
[18] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 20.
[19] Shimon Perez: Statement in April 2001: “What happened to the Armenians was a tragedy, but not genocide.”
[20] Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 111.
[21] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, Facts on the Relocation of Armenians. 1914-1918, (Ankara: TTK, 2002), pp. 84-86; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay (ed.), Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents, (Ankara: TBMM, 2007), p. 294.
[22] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?, (Ankara: TTK, 2008), pp. 82-87; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 112; Yusuf Sarınay, “The Relocation (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915-1916,” Middle East Critique, XX-3, Fall 2011, pp. 308-314.
“It’s not the business of any politician in any country to characterize events as genocide or not as genocide,” former U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza said in an interview with Turkish Hurriyet Daily newspaper.
On Jan 23, after an eight-hour debate, the French senate adopted the law criminalizing the denial of the so-called “Armenian genocide”. The bill demands a year’s imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euro for denying the so-called genocide.
French senators who did not agree with the adoption of the law appealed to the Constitutional Council on Jan. 31 with a request to cancel it. The council should examine issue on the law adopted in the both chambers of the French parliament and which many consider violating the Constitution and freedom of expression.
Armenia and the Armenian lobby claim that the predecessor of the Turkey – Ottoman Empire had committed the 1915 genocide against the Armenians living in Anadolu, and achieved recognition of the “Armenian Genocide” by the parliaments of several countries.
Mr Bryza said it has to be up to societies, not to others, to have a decision taken based on a political calendar.
He noted truth is on everyone side, especially on Turkey’s side. The debate about this issue is really one-sided right now.
“If you believe there was a genocide committed, you can equally argue looking from a narrow definition of the word that genocide was committed to many others, against Turks or Muslims, in eastern Anatolia,” Mr Bryza said
The mother of Stephen Lawrence today listened intently to a graphic account of her son’s murder 18 years ago by five white youths who shouted racist abuse as they stabbed him.
The 18-year-old A-level student was “swallowed up” by the sheer weight of numbers in an unprovoked attack and forced to the ground.
He had been waiting for a bus in Eltham with his friend Duwayne Brooks. Prosecutor Mark Ellison told the Old Bailey the attackers were “a group of like-minded young white men who acted together… reacting as one on seeing two black men”.
He said: “The one that did not manage to run away was forced down and stabbed twice to the torso. The only discernible reason was the colour of his skin.”
The group “shared the same racial animosity”. Stephen’s mother Doreen was in court as the jury was told he staggered 220 yards after being stabbed before collapsing from loss of blood.
Gary Dobson, 36, and David Norris, 35, both of south London, plead not guilty to the murder in April 1993.
The case against them is based on new forensic evidence, the court was told. Mr Ellison said Duwayne managed to escape, shouting “get up and run, Steve”. But Mr Ellison said: “Stephen Lawrence did not manage to get away. The group quickly surrounded him.”
Duwayne told police he heard one of the gang shout “what, what, n****r” as they launched their attack.
Mr Ellison said: “A racist comment was the precursor to a totally unprovoked rushing at them. The group response showed that they had the same racial animosity and motivation and that racist violence of this kind might be the result when they all joined in the attack on the uttering of that racist comment.”
Mrs Lawrence sat with son Stuart close to the dock. Stephen’s father, Neville, left court seconds before Mr Ellison started to address the jury but returned later. Mr Ellison said the attack happened on a Thursday night, as the two teenagers were waiting in Well Hall Road, Eltham, to catch a bus home to Woolwich.
“There was trouble with the buses that night and after waiting for a while at the stop where others were also waiting the two of them walked towards the Well Hall roundabout to see if any buses were coming,” said the QC.
“As they reached the area just beyond the junction with Dickson Road, they turned around and started back towards the bus stop.
“By the time they had reached the zebra crossing there was a group of about five white youths crossing over the Well Hall Road towards them.
“One of the group was heard by Duwayne Brooks to say ‘what, what, n****r’ at the same time the whole group suddenly began to rush towards them.
“A woman at the bus stop also heard something being said by someone in the group but could not make out what it was. Duwayne Brooks turned to Stephen Lawrence and told him to run but the group caught up at the junction of Dickson Road.”
The court heard that even though Duwayne was only a little way ahead of Stephen he managed to escape but Stephen was caught.
Stephen managed to run about 220 yards after he was stabbed. Mr Ellison said: “Although as we know by now he was mortally wounded, Stephen Lawrence was able to run some way up Well Hall Road and join Duwayne Brooks.
“He couldn’t, however, keep up with Duwayne Brooks and having run what was later measured to be around 220 yards or metres from where he was stabbed, he collapsed on the pavement … never to get up again.” Mr Ellison told the court that the group who attacked him had acted “as one”.
He said: “This group, we allege, looking at the eyewitness evidence, had acted essentially as one.
“The stab wounds were inflicted and then they had decamped as one up Dickson Road.”
Mr Brooks called 999 from a call box before trying to get help from passers by. A couple who were walking and an off-duty police officer driving with his wife stopped to try to help.
But by that point Stephen was showing no signs of life and he died later in hospital from loss of blood.
Mr Ellison said that none of the eyewitness had been able to identify the attackers but now there was new scientific evidence which came to light as a result of a cold case review that started in 2007.
Earlier the judge had warned the jury that they should ignore anything they may have seen on last week’s TV drama The Jury.
“That is not real life and how we work in this court, please adhere to the instructions I have given you and I am sure you are all people of sound common sense and fairness and you will understand fully the instructions I have given to you,” said the judge.
He has banned the 12 jurors from doing any research or inquiries on the internet into the case.
Mr Lawrence and his ex-wife sat feet from the accused as the jury of eight men and four women was sworn in. Only one of the jurors was black.
There are six racist incidents in Greater Manchester classrooms every day, we can reveal.
New figures show more than 2,000 cases of abusive language, racist graffiti and violence were reported in the region’s schools last year. No disciplinary action was taken in nearly a third of those cases, school bosses admit.
The figures were obtained by the M.E.N. under freedom of information rules.
Incidents which were highlighted by teachers included racist jokes and name-calling, intimidation, and even pupils bringing racist literature into schools. One school in Oldham – which was not named – dealt with 62 racist incidents last year.
Another unnamed school in the borough has seen 139 cases over the last four years – 26 of which were referred to outside agencies, including the police and social workers. Across all of Oldham’s primary and secondary schools there were 396 race incidents last year, up from 281 the previous year.
In Rochdale, there were 290 incidents last year, up from 242 the previous year. Action was taken on all incidents – including one at a council-run nursery school – with 36 children excluded from secondary schools for racist behaviour.
But schools in Manchester saw a significant drop in race problems. In 2009 there were a total of 598 incidents, but last year the figure was 435 – although action was taken in fewer than half of cases.
Under race equality laws, schools must report all racist incidents – and what follow-up action they have taken.
In some cases, staff tried to deal with the problem by mediation between pupils.
Offenders were also given formal or informal warnings, put on behaviour plans or given mentoring. In more serious cases, pupils were given repeat detentions or temporarily excluded.
Figures from Bolton council reveal that the majority of its 261 cases last year – down from 313 in 2009 – were dealt with through pastoral support. But of these a total of 74 pupils were disciplined, including 36 who were excluded.
In Stockport, where the number of incidents fell from 148 in 2009 to 129 cases last year, 33 took place at just three schools.
There were also falls in the number of cases in Salford (172) and Bury (68). But there was a rise in Wigan, up from 187 incidents to 207.
Deborah Brownlee from Trafford council, where the number of incidents rose from 50 to 57, said: “All of our schools take incidents of this nature extremely seriously and have robust procedures in place for addressing the behavioural issues and any other associated problems.”
Tameside council was unable to provide comparable figures.
Racist incidents in schools 2010 (2009 in brackets):
Bolton – 261 (313)
Bury – 68 (75)
Manchester – 435 (598)
Oldham 396 (281)
Rochdale – 290 (242)
Salford – 172 (188)
Stockport 129 (148)
Tameside – not available
Trafford – 57 (50)
Wigan – 207 (187)
TOTAL – 2,015 (2,082)
menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews, July 27, 2011
Racism takes many different forms. It can range from abusive language or discriminatory treatment to genocide, simply on the basis of someone’s ‘race’ or colour.
Every day, science proves more clearly that humanity, although diverse, is one family and one people. Sadly our common experience also shows that racism, hatred or dislike of others simply because of their origin or culture is a common human failing.
The definition of racial discrimination is contained in Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to which Australia is a party:
“The term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.
Myths and stereotypes are a key component of racism:
they reduce a range of differences in people to simplistic categorisations
transform assumptions about particular groups of people into ‘realities’
are used to justify status quo or persisting injustices
reinforce social prejudice and inequality
Three out of four Indigenous Australians experience racism in their everyday lives.
At an individual and interpersonal level racism often amounts to:
an instant or fixed picture of a group of people, usually based on negative and ill-informed stereotypes
a preconceived negative opinion
limiting the opportunities (intentionally or not) of certain individuals or groups because of personal characteristics such as race or colour
Labelling of Indigenous Australians including stereotypes such as dark skin, despair, levels of alcohol consumption, laziness, levels of intelligence, ability to work and care for children, and levels of criminality are all part of the myths and stereotypes that perpetuate racism in Australia.
Eradicating racism is a task we all share.
Sadly racism is common in Australia. Here, we have put together some stories about the shape that racism takes in Australia of today.
A story from Alice Springs
A group of young leaders from Yuendumu, a remote central Australian Aboriginal community were ejected from an Alice Springs backpacker hostel in March 2008 because some tourists staying there complained they were ‘afraid of Aborigines’.
The 16 people in the group which included women and small children, had driven the 300 kilometres to Alice Springs for lifesaving training run by the Royal Lifesaving Society. Most were young leaders, chosen specially for their standing in the Yuendumu community.
As they were moving into their rooms the resort manager told them they’d have to pack up and go because some tourists in the hostel had complained of being ‘afraid of Aborigines’ and these tourists ‘bring in a lot of money’.
The organisers of the trip are stunned. Angry about the incident, the CEO of the Royal Lifesaving Society is describing it as ‘pure racism’.
5½ hours – a story from Brisbane
Delmae Barton aged 62, a prominent Indigenous Elder and an opera singer, lay for more than five hours on a bus stop seat near Griffith University’s Nathan Campus in July 2006, unable to reach out for help after vomiting from a suspected stroke or diabetes attack.
For five and a half hours, commuters, students and bus drivers ignored her plight until two young Japanese men asked if she needed water and help.
Her friend and the director of the Gumurri Centre at the university Boni Robertson, says it is a disgrace that Auntie Delmae’s plight was ignored by hundreds of commuters as buses came and went.
She said ‘nobody would stop to help me. Is this all I’m worth?’ She believes people thought she was a drunk or a drug addict, and that the colour of skin encouraged them to walk on by.
The then Premier Peter Beattie told parliament he was ‘really disappointed’ by the incident and apologised on behalf of Queenslanders.
A story from Townsville
Aborigines can no longer receive a fair trial in Townsville according to survey results to be released in July that show a majority of residents would be unable to expel racist attitudes in court. The survey was conducted to demonstrate the need for the Lex Wotton Palm Island Riots case to be moved from a scheduled hearing in Townsville to Brisbane to ensure a fair and just trial.
In the survey, commissioned by Sydney-based law firm, Levitt Robinson, over half of Townsville residents claimed they could not disregard negative beliefs held about Aborigines, even if instructed by a judge in a courtroom setting.
These results bring to light a segregated city rife with racist views with only one in ten Townsville residents having a positive attitude towards Aboriginal people in the community.
Ignorance seemed to be a major factor with only one in four people correctly attributing the cause of the Palm Island Riots to a death in custody.
A story from Sydney
In April 2008, a world-renowned Aboriginal composer, buzzing after a standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House, was turned away from half-empty Kings Cross haunt Hugo’s. He and his friend were told, “You can’t expect us to just let anyone in.”
William Barton, a son of Delmae Barton, who has been to some of the world’s top bars over his acclaimed career, was told the venue was “at capacity” as he tried to get it at 9.30pm on a Sunday to celebrate a friend’s birthday. His friend immediately fronted Hugo’s door staff – and was rudely told: “You can’t expect us to just let anyone in.”
Racial discrimination is against the law
The Racial Discrimination Act (1975) makes it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, colour, descent or ethnic or national origin. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone when it prevents them from enjoying their human rights, such as employment, land/housing/accommodation, education, access to public places and facilities, access to goods and services (e.g. doctors, lawyers, applying for credit, entry to pubs, etc.).
“It’s my sincere wish that this threat will be prevented from gaining more ground that will lead the EU to turn further in on itself and to harm the universal values that it pioneers,” Gül said in a statement on the occasion of ‘Europe Day’ on Tuesday.
