Comments on: More must be done to restrict the flow of alcohol to those who abuse it, says Chief Justice

By: Russell Guy

Russell Guy — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:58:22 +0000

Rex, Pearson advocates an inter-Aboriginal discussion about cultural obligation and alcohol. If this is allowed to bear fruit and governments listen, then perhaps there is hope for the vulnerable. Clearly, it is a problem for some Aboriginal leaders who have the safety of women and children in mind.

By: Rex Neindorf

Rex Neindorf — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:39:07 +0000

From Leigh’s comments in reference to Noel Pearson it seems there is a simple solution. We just ban Aboriginal people from drinking as was the case originally. But then that would be racist wouldn’t it?

By: Leigh Childs

Leigh Childs — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 04:04:36 +0000

In the current issue of The Weekend Australian [Sorry Erwin, I do read other publications] there are at least six articles relating to the connection of alcohol abuse to Aboriginal violence. Noel Pearson has a column as do doctors and other commentators. The articles were generated by comments made by the Queensland Premier to allow wet canteens on Aboriginal communities again.
In fact the lead article states that the LNP lost votes and seats because the communities didn’t want the alcohol-fueled violence back and voted accordingly. A study done by, I forget who, [name supplied in article] proved conclusively that alcohol abuse was connected to murders, rapes, bashings, poor health, malnourished children, poor school attendance and shortened life expectancy. Fairly important outcomes, I would have thought.
Pearson talks about why Indigenous people can’t and will never be able to handle alcohol, for cultural reasons. It is worth a read. But it was the medical doctor’s comments that resonated most with me. In this forum we argue back and forth about “rights”, “responsibilities” and whose to blame … blah, blah, and more blah.
The doctor in this article, points out that there two “freedoms”: One, the freedom to and the other, the freedom from. All adults have the freedom TO drink alcohol BUT and this is the MOST important; women and especially children should have the freedom FROM abuse.
Janet, our whole society is geared to deal with the “minority”. The majority of people are law abiding citizens but we have a police force to deal with the minority. The majority of businesses are law abiding organisations but we have consumer laws for the minority.
Most drivers do the right thing on the road but we have road signs for the minority. I could go on and on. Society has to deal with the lowest common denominator and we have done a fairly good job up til now. Now we have to deal with alcohol misuse. Even though you don’t have the problem [neither do I!] other people do and a lot of those people are powerless.
I want some protection for those innocents. If it means I can only buy alcohol at certain times or whatever – then so be it. I can cope, lots of other people in abusive situations can not.

By: Hal Duell

Hal Duell — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:09:19 +0000

@Janet
Please read my comment to the end. You will see that I said: “Self-preservation. Personal responsibility. They count, but they are in no way meant to be taken as a mitigating factor in the man’s violent behaviour.”
I’ll say it again. They are in no way meant to be taken as a mitigating factor in the man’s violent behaviour.
The man in this story used a knife on another person. Not good. He is now locked up. Good.
About the victim, and to repeat – I do not blame her for being assaulted. I do question her choice of drinking partner.
Why sit down with someone who you know from past experience will hammer you? Why bother?

By: Janet Brown

Janet Brown — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:11:02 +0000

So Hal. The grog and the victim are to blame. Not the drunk bloke with the knife. You mentioned self-preservation, personal responsibility. What about the bloke. He is the person in this event who used a knife with the intent to get her attention if the written reference is correct. I’d love you talk to the domestic violence unit with you victim analogy. Domestic violence victims like the alcoholics and drug addicts are caught in a psychological turmoil.
They need rehabilitation facilities to assist with the healing process and the support to over come and deal with issues. Not all alcoholics are violent not all drug addicts are violent but in domestic violence there is always violence. And there is a lot of domestic violence happening without drug and alcohol excuses. But in all of that I ask again why is it that there is still the old and outdated blame everything and anyone except the person who committed the criminal assault. Hence my use of the girl with the short skirt. This type of outdated thinking out loud has to stop. And you used the right terminology. Self responsibility.
Why should everyone in the community change their behaviour. We are expected to do this for a very small group who are not required to change their lives and behaviour. When the alcoholics change their life styles to help themselves, I like many other decent people will assist their recovery in many varied ways. Lead by example and please, Hal, the reason victims are given that reference is due to the fact they are victims of a criminal act. So decent people with empathy do not attract the victims they attack the person/s who committed the assaults or criminal act.

By: Hal Duell

Hal Duell — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:59:47 +0000

@Janet
Yes, Janet, I did think abut what I wrote. Nothing to do with wearing a short skirt and getting raped – everything to do with sitting down with a known violent offender and getting on the grog.
From the story, it sounds like similar assaults have happened before. If true, why put oneself in the way of it happening again?
Also from the story, it sounds like without grog the couples’ relationship is not violent. So, again, why put oneself in the way of becoming part of a violent incident when history shows what is likely to happen when grog enters the picture.
It’s not too hard to see how to avoid it – don’t go drinking with known violent offenders.
Self-preservation. Personal responsibility. They count, but they are in no way meant to be taken as a mitigating factor in the man’s violent behaviour.

By: Janet Brown

Janet Brown — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:08:15 +0000

Hal, did you really think about what you just wrote? It sounds like the comment she wore a short skirt and asked to be raped.

By: Hal Duell

Hal Duell — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:06:40 +0000

Along with his other comments, the Judge said that a drunken Aboriginal man had assaulted his drunken Aboriginal wife.
Not to blame the victim, but if the woman wants to put a stop to being assaulted, she might consider not getting on the grog with a known violent offender.

By: Tim Collins

Tim Collins — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:47:39 +0000

@ Kate … read some of the articles on this site recently. there is a direct correlation between alcohol supply and violence. Do you actually have an argument to counter the judge’s comments?

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 07:25:28 +0000

I think focusing on alcohol misuse is not the issue here. The issue as I see it is violence against women. This is a cross cultural issue, nothing however the devastatingly high incidence of domestic violence in the NT. Whatever supports the women in question states she needs to continue her ability to survive domestic violence, that is what society should do to assist her.