Skip to main content
Topic: General Discussions (Read 1515651 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2565
Your move.

https://www.unaa.org.au/2020/06/13/was-there-slavery-in-australia-yes-it-shouldnt-even-be-up-for-debate/

Slavery is the ownership of a person as property.  That has never happened in Australia.

People have been exploited, ill-treated and denied their liberty in Australia - and that still goes on today - but never owned or bought and sold.
righto, i expect that the article I linked is invalid then?

Quote
What is slavery?

Australia was not a “slave state” like the American South. However, slavery is a broader concept. As Article 1 of the United Nations Slavery Convention says:

    Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.

These powers might include non-payment of wages, physical or sexual abuse, controls over freedom of movement, or selling a person like a piece of property. In the words of slavery historian Orlando Patterson, slavery is a form of “social death”.

Slavery has been illegal in the (former) British Empire since the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade of 1807, and certainly since 1833.

Slavery practices emerged in Australia in the 19th century and in some places endured until the 1950s.
Early coverage of slavery in Australia

As early as the 1860s, anti-slavery campaigners began to invoke “charges of chattel bondage and slavery” to describe north Australian conditions for Aboriginal labour.

In 1891 a “Slave Map of Modern Australia” was printed in the British Anti-Slavery Reporter, a journal that documented slavery around the world and campaigned against it.

Reprinted from English journalist Arthur Vogan’s account of frontier relations in Queensland, it showed large areas where:

    … the traffic in Aboriginal labour, both children and adults, had descended into slavery conditions.

So this is also wrong then:

https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/history-of-indigenous-work-sheds-light-on-australian-slavery
Quote
Dr Huggins' articles focus on her own career, as well as the experiences of her mother, Rita Huggins.

"In answer to the recent denial that there was slavery in Australia -- my mother and her 13 siblings were slaves who worked in domestic service and stockwork," Dr Huggins said.

According to the editors, the volume was "pioneering" in this focus on Indigenous women and girls in the workforce. 

So do you want me to state I was wrong, or you are right based on a definition of someone owning a person as property, rather than the person being sold with the property as part of the chattels?

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2566
@Thryleon‍ technically it's wrong because the claims made are based on a non-standard definition of slavery. In his debate he has defined slavery in the broadest possible terms to capture even criminal offences, it may even be capturing voluntary subservience which would be distinct from subjugation.

I have to work for a living, social media would describe me as a slave to the man, but I'm not bound to anyone, I wasn't bought and paid for, I don't have my name listed on a certificate of ownership, I'm paid a wage, whether it's a pittance or fortune is irrelevant, and I can walk away if I'm prepared to abandon my lifestyle.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2567
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2568
We were good owners not like the yanks.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2569
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.

You could probably argue that there is "slavery" and there is "slavery-like", but I would have to agree.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2570
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.

So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise.  Is that it?

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2571
Too often figures get quoted that are for the latest all singing and dancing passive heat design(airtight), double glazed, insulated floor, wall and ceiling dwelling, but that is not even 1% of the Australian market. In my area there are only two completed homes like that out of about 10,000, with a couple more planned, and they cost about 3x a typical build, not really viable is it? At the normal rate of replacement, it will take approximately 50 years to convert 80% of the dwellings. Ironically, in one of those homes, after all the trouble getting the design, approvals and build right, the people love having the windows open which effectively defeats the concept!

You start making a valid point then throw this nonsense out there which is BS.

Australia doesn't build 'airtight' houses. We build a lot better quality houses than we used to, with far less gaps than previously, but far from air tight.

All new houses being built today are a minimum of 7-star. That is the standard and you can't get a house stamped without that requirement ticked off.
You can get 8-star with a bit of extra coin. How you reach those star levels doesn't matter. Each 'good' thing you do gets you a portion of a star, you add them all up.
The most popular things to do nowadays is with double glazed, insulated wall and ceiling (and floor if you choose) with passive heating/cooling considerations (eaves, north facing etc).
That is standard....and go to any new estate and thats all you see.
There is also water tanks, suburb wide recycled water, solar panels, etc etc.

I'll tell you what, those same houses cost less than a build if you go with your local small builder too.

Further to all that is the goverment schemes to help fund the replcements of older inefficient heating/cooling systems as well. All in a bid to make houses more energy efficient.


Re: General Discussions

Reply #2572
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.

So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise.  Is that it?

To paraphrase Billy Shakespear
"What’s in a name? That which we call a slave, by any other word would taste as bitter."

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2573
It's actually pretty easy to follow.  Thry is right.

LP:
Agreed, social media confuses systemic slavery like the USA or UK, with criminal enslavement like prostitution / people smuggling. By the way I think the legal system terms what many on social media call slavery as subjugation.

No, that isn't social media.  It is a definition.  Easy to look up - the link I posted (Australian Gov. What is Modern Slavery) had this in it:

Modern slavery can take many forms. These include:

human trafficking
slavery
slavery-like practices:
forced labour
forced marriage
servitude
debt bondage
deceptive recruiting.
Modern slavery also includes the worst forms of child labour.

It happens in every country, including Australia.


If you want more, read the Modern Slavery Act 2018 - dunno if it's definition of slavery would be right...

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2574
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.

So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise.  Is that it?

It's not semantics, it's fact.  Australians have never owned other people,

Some of the old ladies I worked with early in my career were trained as domestic servants on the missions and were employed on pastoral stations - employed being the operative word.  They were paid - not very much - and some of them were treated very badly - but they were paid and could leave if they wanted to. 

I'm not arguing that Indigenous Australians and Melanesian indentured labourers weren't treated badly, far from it, but they weren't owned, bought and sold or considered to be property.

Modern slavery may take in slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking, as I mentioned previously.   However, Australia is still bound by the 1926 International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery and its definition of slavery.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2575
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.

So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise.  Is that it?

It's not semantics, it's fact.  Australians have never owned other people,

Does the government count as 'Australians'?
They are in charge of prisons.
Are people in prison free?
Are people in prison forced into labour with repercussions if they do not?

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2576


It's not semantics, it's fact.  Australians have never owned other people,

Does the government count as 'Australians'?
They are in charge of prisons.
Are people in prison free?
Are people in prison forced into labour with repercussions if they do not?

Prisoners are incarcerated under our judicial system and they're not owned by the government.  Prisoners are paid between $30 and $70 for a 30 hour week.  Advocates maintain that's "slave labour" but with their board, lodging, education and training costing around $3,000 a week, it's not a bad deal.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2577


Does the government count as 'Australians'?
They are in charge of prisons.
Are people in prison free?
Are people in prison forced into labour with repercussions if they do not?

Prisoners are incarcerated under our judicial system and they're not owned by the government.  Prisoners are paid between $30 and $70 for a 30 hour week.  Advocates maintain that's "slave labour" but with their board, lodging, education and training costing around $3,000 a week, it's not a bad deal.

Even if they are put there illegally in a lot of cases?

Thats not a bad deal??

Next thing youll tell me is that was all instituted by the superior race.