Modified:
25 Nov 2009
by Booji
Vote totals:
Yes:
50%
No:
50%
Neutral:
0%
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.
Misc Debates
Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Search:
DEBATE: GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
Posted by: LLBlynch
Karma:
2628
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has apologised to those who were forcibly relocated while still children from Britain from the 1920s to the 1950s to provide a white workforce for the empire and dominions. They were told their families were dead when they were not and many were abused in Australian homes. Gordon Brown has said he will apologise in the new year. It was Britain that committed the greater wrong and should apologise rather than Australia who were acting as recipient for British Government policy. Should out current PMs even be apologising for something they had nothing to do with?
Executive Summary
Join The Debate
All the Yes points
All the No points
GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
Cynical as it may be, our PM needs to win people over
A great political leader is a leader who has political favour with different nations. Gordon Brown is a harsh man with very little charismatic appeal unlike Tony Blair pre-2001 and Barack Obama. Therefore he needs to win people over by offering a sincere apology to the Austrailian children who endured hardship due to British polics in the 1920’s. Apologising will do more favour to Gordon Brown than harm and it will give him a better political standing.
GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
I understood he was going to, it's planned for January
I understood he was going to, it's planned for January
GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
It's not just an apology, it's a promise.
As absurd as it might sound for a present Government to apologise for the actions of past Governments, it serves a purpose in sending out a message for the future.The atrocities of the past cannot be changed, but those who sufferred can draw comfort from the acknowledgement of culpability. The head of any Government apologising for the actions of his predecessors, sends a strong message that the present Government is no longer the same as those of the past, nor does the present Government condone the actions of its own predecessors. It's an assurance of the morals that the Government of today holds and a promise that the terrible things that happenned in the past will never happen again. As head of our Government, that responsibility falls on Gordon Brown.
GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
You should only apologise for that which you contributed to
It is silly to apologise for that which you have not done or contributed towards. In fact, to apologise on the behalf of a previous Parliament can be seen as redeeming those who actually caused the monstrosities from their blameworthiness and moral culpability. This act of silliness was demonstrated to it’s extremity when in 2001 Pope John Paul II seemed to apologise to the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Athens for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Western knights[1]. What good can possibly come of such meaningless idle talk? None, it only shows stupidity.
- ^ David Aaronovitch, The Austrailian, November 2009
GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
It will only cause more resentment
Historical errors are in the history books, and that is where they should remain. By apologizing for the misdemeanors of the past, all you are doing is provoking the subject into reprisal. An apology would do no more than cause debates like these to be started up which may cause tension in Australia. Right now, Australians are probably seething that Kevin Rudd apologized first when it was English policies that dumped children into Australia. This resentment and seething could bite back in the form of protest groups or even terrorists. The history should be left in the past and allow future generations to forget the grave errors of previous figure heads. Since when has holding a grudge ever done the human soul any good?
GORDON BROWN NOT KEVIN RUDD SHOULD BE APOLOGISING TO THOSE CHILDREN FORCIBLY TRANSPORTED TO AUSTRALIA.
It is too late now Kevin Rudd has apologised
Now that Kevin Ridd has already apologized it will appear that Gordon Brown apologizing is nothing more than a grapple at voters. It would make his apology seem insincere even if he did mean it to begin with. Instead, Gordon Brown needs to forget grand open gestures on a public scale and instead apologise in his own private contemplation time and leave the rest of us to contemplate what colour pen we should tick the Conservative box on our ballot paper when the next election comes around.
Vote on the overall debate: Gordon Brown not Kevin Rudd should be apologising to those children forcibly transported to Australia.
What do you think? Vote on this debate below.
LLBlynch
|16:30, 18 November 09
|Karma Score: 2628
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
sshome
|16:00, 23 November 09
|Karma Score: 3
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
ArthurBlair
|19:00, 25 November 09
|Karma Score: 59
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
LLBlynch
|16:30, 18 November 09
|Karma Score: 2628
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
LLBlynch
|16:37, 18 November 09
|Karma Score: 2628
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
LLBlynch
|16:41, 18 November 09
|Karma Score: 2628
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply