New Zealand Govt: More Lies and Contradictions
Posted by te2ataria on November 16, 2009
sent by a reader
They Said the British Kids Were Treated Better Over Here Than in Oz!
Between 1948 and 1954 at least 549 British “child migrants” were sent to New Zealand, local news media said.
Boys from Dr Barnado’s homes for children have their first ship’s rations aboard the Largo Bay en route from Britain to Australia [dated 1923.] Photograph: Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis. Source: The Guardian. Image may be subject to copyright.
“The hundreds of children brought to New Zealand under British child migration schemes had a different fate than those sent to Australia, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says.” A report said.
“Unlike Australia, the majority of children who came here under the British migrant scheme were deliberately placed into foster care rather than into state institutions. A number of safeguards were introduced to care for the new arrivals,” she said.
But she stopped short of owning up that the same type of abuses occurred in this country, too.
In fact “the link between past and current abuse has been known for some time, and yet still our leaders wonder at the prevalence of child abuse in this country,” a commenter said.
“The New Zealand government also addressed a citizenship issue that occurred for child migrants by allowing them to apply for New Zealand citizenship at no cost.” [How awfully generous!]
Bennett’s statement came only after Kevin Rudd had finally apologized to the migrant children from Britain and Malta:
“We are sorry,” Rudd lamented. “Sorry that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused. Sorry for the physical suffering, the emotional starvation and the cold absence of love, of tenderness, of care. Sorry for the tragedy – the absolute tragedy – of childhoods lost.”
Rudd also apologized to the “forgotten Australians” the more than ½ million children who were placed in foster homes and orphanages between 1930 and 1970, and who were emotionally, physically and sexually abused while in state care.
The Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, apologized to the country’s Aboriginal population in a long-awaited speech in February 2008 at the Australian Parliament, acknowledging the “profound suffering, grief and loss” inflicted on them by decades of abuse and mistreatment. Photo: Frame grab from The Guardian Video. Image may be subject to copyright.
In February 2008 Rudd apologized to tens of thousands of Aboriginal and mixed-race children (mostly of Aboriginal mothers and European fathers), who were taken to foster homes, orphanages, or church missions between 1910 to 1970. “The ultimate purpose, it has been claimed, was the extinction of Aborigines as a distinct race.”
“For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry,” Rudd said. “To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
“And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.”
The British PM Gordon Brown will offer a formal apology to the British migrant children next year. [What’s the rush, Mr Brown. Isn’t it less embarrassing if you waited long enough until everyone of them has died?]
British Government records indicate that at least 150,000 children [the true figure could be much higher] aged as young as three were forcibly removed from their parents and sent to commonwealth countries, mainly to Australia and Canada, under the so-called Child Migrant Program, between 1920 and 1967 in search of a “better life.”
“A 2001 Australian report said that between 6000 and 30,000 children from Britain and Malta, often taken from unmarried mothers or impoverished families, were sent alone to Australia as migrants during the 20th Century.” A report said.
Although the authorities claim they were acting in the children’s best interests [sic,] it’s widely believed that the migration program was intended to prevent the impoverished children from being a burden on Britain, “while supplying the receiving countries with potential workers. A 1998 British parliamentary inquiry noted that “a further motive was racist: the importation of ‘good white stock’ was seen as a desirable policy objective in the developing British Colonies.”
“A health department document drawn up for migrants’ families describes how a number of organisations, including Barnardo’s, the Salvation Army, the Children’s Society and some Catholic groups, were involved in sending children abroad.” The Guardian newspaper said.
Related Links and Photos: