The genocide of Gary Johns

By Ray Jackson

people who have been on my posts for some time will know and, hopefully, understand that i have great trouble in accepting the words, ideas and theories put out by gary johns who was once a very mediocre minister in the keating government from 1993 to 1996 when john howard swept into power.

 

like andrew bolt and others of his ilk, johns’ attempts to replace common sense solutions with their somewhat bitter and twisted social remedies on what to do with those citizens that they see as 'social trash' and how governments should be socially engineering them out of existence. very much as they have attempted to do with the traditional owners of this invaded country.

 

there is, however, no discrimination in johns’ article as he has now declared that all on welfare payments should be socially sterilised to save the lifters from the welfare-ridden leaners. there is, he states, a good economic reason for his offering to those on welfare payments that are not exactly stipulated but seem to be aimed at those receiving the baby bonus, single parent payments and any other like assistance towards, shock! horror!, unmarried mothers.

 

the dangerous argument of what they view as a just and moral cause is very much on show here as johns examples two aboriginal families as evidence for the adoption of his sterilisation plan. firstly to save the government untold billions of rorted welfare by lusty young, and sometimes younger, girls/ women deliberately having babies to rort the system and live their lives in decadent luxury. i am absolutely appalled, however, by the number of babies having babies who are just not at a point of maturity to be able to care for their offspring in a satisfactory manner.

 

yes, i agree with the problem that is a human social problem and not an economic one. but i most certainly disagree with the proposal put by gary johns as a solution. better we as a society look to the processes that our governments have created as they have splashed the welfare largesse around in order to stay in office. since the governments of andrew fisher in 1903 and 1912 when his government introduced old age and invalid pensions and in his later government an actual baby bonus, that was legally restricted from aborigines, we have been building up to a point of no return.

 

but it was the government of ben chifley who in 1946 introduced many, many welfare payments like a maternity allowance, widows pensions, child endowment, unemployment benefits, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital payments and student and family allowances. this was welfare on steroids but it was accepted by all at the time and in future years as a government responsibility similar to the funding of roads, health and education. but we were headed at some future time for a crash as our populations grew and it was finally accepted by federal governments that such payments must go also to aborigines.

 

federal governments tinkered with the many welfare payments until we come to what is seen as the welfare crisis of the current period. over those intervening years there have been attacks on 'dole bludgers', 'unmarried mothers' and other sections of the poorer end of society. there had been massive technological change and stupid actions by governments that wiped out our manufacturing and unskilled employment base. the death of the car industry is but the latest example. meanwhile our population moved inexorably on.

 

constant changes were being made to hold these costs in but to no avail. yes there is a welfare crisis but attacking those on welfare payments with a sterilisation plan is most certainly not the way to go. in this, the 21st century, the nexus between the loss of available work and the ever-rising need to assist those less fortunate is going to explode. the johns solution, however, is not the way to go. ever!

 

we live in a country creating much wealth over the years since the 1788 invasion but there is the bias of governments to favour the well off and industry against the poor. billions of dollars are given to industry as industrial welfare whilst the middle and working /welfare poor are gouged and vilified to make up the shortfall. our current governments have gifted billions to the mining industry that is then sent overseas by the multinationals. they have the diesel subsidy which is nothing but an all-out rort. gold mining, if my memory is correct, pays no taxes on their production, why not?

 

super profits are being made by the banking and insurance industry so why do we not put a financial levy on that industry of taxing 1/10th of 1 cent on all financial transactions. that would raise billions annually. we have sold off all our profitable government-owned assets that is now costing us dearly. then there are the rorts of those companies not paying their fair share of taxes. the superannuation rorts for the rich. dare we mention the foul abbott maternity leave plan? i am a firm believer that all welfare - individual and corporate - must be clinically means tested to seriously weed out the real undeserving of such assistance.

 

yes, there are problems within the system and, perhaps, in johns’ eyes there is no longer much need for an army of the working poor, (even though pockets of them still exist hence the top-up welfare payments to keep them alive) but in my opinion more time and money needs to be spent on creating employment and educating our young mothers that their sense of worth must come from real participation in our society and not in having children at too young an age. perhaps some form of social tinkering is required but not the awfulness and genocide advocated by johns. australia is not china and our 24 or 25 million people has yet, to my mind, some way to go before we need a two-child policy.

 

but not being satisfied as labelling himself, by default, as a psychopathic sociopath even for johns he sinks to a new low.

 

one of his aboriginal families that he highlights and gives relish to is the family in cairns, queensland where that monstrous action was taken whereby 8 children were killed by a mother at the end of her wits. we have yet to learn the details of the why but somehow our two societies failed this woman and her family and that is what should be focussed on and not the details of her private life. the funerals for the children will occur shortly but johns utters not one word of sympathy as to the tragic events. he blames the loose morals of the mother, as his so-called christian understanding views them. his disgusting point that this poor overwhelmed woman had a number of children just to rort the system i find to be offensive. maybe she is just a good practising catholic, mr. johns!

 

the second example is of a grandmother living in a two bedroom house in redfern caring for her grandchildren due to the incapacity of her daughters to be able to care for them adequately. this situation is found to be offensive to him and i have some sympathy with that view as in my opinion they should have been quickly moved to a bigger house. this, sadly due to social addictions, is quite common throughout all levels of society as he recognises but johns gives no further details of this example.

 

this is common in aboriginal communities around australia and our mobs are strongly resisting the removal of our children from our families and our communities. in the first tranche of the stolen generations, made legal from 1890 to 1972 and for which krudd 'apologised', it was conservatively agreed that circa 10 000 children were taken. i believe this agreed figure to be wrong but for the sake of this post let us accept that figure. andrew bolt strongly disagrees and claims none were 'stolen' but the aboriginal mothers, families and communities somehow 'gifted' their children to the horrendous system of the institutions set up to receive this gifted bounty.

 

reports now reveal that over the last decade, if not more, some 15 000 aboriginal children have been taken by the current system to allow them to, at least in nsw, adopt them out to non-aboriginal families. i have no knowledge if these antisocial and racist practices are enacted against the torres strait islander communities. it is my understanding that these genocidal practices are squarely aimed at the aboriginal communities only. we are back to the days of the troopers clearing the lands albeit at a less murderous level. there is much that could be said here but i refer you to the 'grandmothers against removals' face book site and internet sites as well for further information. there is to be a national rally outside of plt. house in canberra on 13 february.

 

the answers to and for our troubled society is to seriously and compassionately analyse our problems and come up with results that are fair and empathetic to all interests. our current government must move from their blame-the-victims approach as time and evidence has clearly shown that as a social tool it just does not work.

 

all same the insane mutterings of one gary johns.

 

the events in martin place recently by a man having a mental breakdown rather than being a government-appointed terrorist raises concerns of just how safe we really are. monis was able to enter martin place with a weapon, a sawn-off shotgun, and hold people hostage. despite all the terrorism laws, aware and alarmed nsw police, federal police, asio and others and still somehow monis fell through their nets. so much for our protection! the loss of life was a tragic example of why our gun laws need to be reviewed and tightened and a full investigation into the mental health services of nsw as a matter of urgency. we do not want a repeat of this episode.

 

relative to the johns project i have a very serious question to those bodies responsible for our health and safety. what is the mental distance from thoughts on genocide to thoughts on homicide. i strongly suggest and recommend that mr. johns be monitored from now on.

 

fkj

 

ray jackson

president

indigenous social justice association

 

prix des droits de l'homme de la republique francaise 2013

(french human rights medal 2013)

 

1303/200 pitt street, waterloo. 2017

isja01@internode.on.net

61 2 9318 0947

0450 651 063

 

we live and work on the stolen lands of the gadigal people

 

No contraception, no dole, says former Minister

 

Mark Furler

30th Dec 2014 9:25 AM

PEOPLE on welfare should be required to have contraception to prevent parents of 'poor means, poor skills or bad character' having children, a former Labor Minister says.

Gary Johns, writing in The Australian, opens his opinion piece with the provocative statement: "If a person's sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit."

"This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents.

"Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant."

"Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.

"These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.

"Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit."

Mr Johns, a Minister in the former Keating government, said there were some people who should not have children at all, particularly if it was at the taxpayers' expense.

As commissioner Tim Carmody wrote in the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry report in 2013, ''some families will never rise to the challenge or have the capacity or commitment needed to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world''.

He cited two cases, both indigenous, though he said many non-indigenous cases abound.

The first, in Cairns, involved a single mother with nine children from five fathers.

The second case, in Redfern, involved contested parenting between the NSW Department of Family and Community Services and a grandmother for her daughter's, and an absent father's, six children.

"Until June, the grandmother was caring for her six grandchildren and two of her daughters at different times, in a small two bedroom house in Redfern."

The commentary has attracted a strong reaction on Twitter, with Mr Johns being accused of being racist.

But as some have pointed out, it is not the first time Mr Johns has tackled the Aboriginal issue head-on.

In 2007, he wrote a strongly worded piece for The Institute for Public Affairs, calling for a return to the Mal Brough-style of intervention in the Northern Territory.

"The pretext for the intervention, the Little Children are Sacred report, found that sexual abuse is rampant in virtually every Aboriginal community in the Territory,'' Mr Johns wrote.

"Its recommendations struggled to avoid offending the prevailing consensus-the dream of a separate Aboriginal society.

"The dream has condemned Aborigines in remote communities to a short and meaningless existence.

"As a colleague of mine observed, 'in Aboriginal policy, the Left have blood on their hands'.

"The report blames the destruction of social mores on alcohol and pornography. It is less forceful on the real cause of the misery, the mistaken view that Aborigines do not have to pay the price of admission to the modern world.

"The price involves taking personal responsibility, attending school for at least ten years, and working. Each of these has been missing."

"The challenge for the future is to ensure that these factors are reintroduced.

"The report made plain the common finding of the 40-or-so reports before it: sexual promiscuity (and drug abuse) among sub-teenage Aboriginal children is rife.

"The reason that there have not been commensurate adult arrests for child sexual abuse is that much of the abuse is performed by young boys and girls upon their peers or the very young.

"The story reveals the collapse of morality. The number of teenage pregnancies ensures that the cycle of immaturity and inappropriate behaviour repeats itself rapidly.

"Banning pornography and grog is sensible, but only as a breather and as a signal that grog and under-age sex are diversions from a decent life."

 

1.. diggerjones1 - Cairncross2 hours ago2 replies

a..

Gotta laugh imagine the huge outrage if a liberal mp said that. So looking forward to hearing tellys are lack of from our leftist friends. Btw I think he has a good point

 

.

 

b.. hang_em_high - Mackay North2 hours ago

 

No sex tonight dear

 

i haven't been paid yet LOL

 

or we don't need a condom tonight love I have me pay packet LMAO

 

 

 

c.. bensy35 - Harristown2 hours ago4 replies

 

I wish this man would just shut his trap.

 

He sounds like he's an ex-Liberal member trying to stir the community up.

 

 

 

patpat - Blacks Beach2 hours ago

 

no mate he's from your side....

 

 

 

Bullnt - Mackayan hour ago

 

He does have a good point though, even though he is a decades old Labor man through and through. I just wonder how many other Labor party members share that opinion? Something really has to be done to rein in welfare costs. I recall seeing a doco on tv three or four years ago where a family basically spruiked how they rorted welfare. Quarter caste mum had as many kids as she could to several fathers, claim that she couldn't care for them, govt gave them over to her mother who then receives a foster carer's payment for each "aboriginal" child (worth more than white kids, all tested and a few deemed to have disabilities = more money), then said mother lives in the same house, paying full rent to mum (so both are getting rent assistance), mum diagnosed with a condition so gran then receives carers pension and mum receives disability pension. Between them, they were reaping more than $3000 a week from the public purse! These types of loopholes need to be closed. Obviously there are those who are genuine, but I fear there are many more who aren't. The best way to break the cycle is to stop the breeding.... and when you consider our homegrown terror threat and a certain demographics' reliance upon welfare, it makes even more sense.

 

Bewildered64 - Taraan hour ago

 

Why I don't see there is anything wrong with what he said. As an adult & person who has had children, we didn't have anymore than we could afford & certainly didn't expect someone else to pay for them. And we know the more kids you have the more money on the dole you get handed.

 

Not fair on the taxpayers! More money could be spent on health, roads & education.

 

 

Vagabond - Hervey Bay Dcan hour ago

 

Bensy,

 

I am glad Johns opened his mouth, basically what he has said is correct.

Government is there to help, not to become the sole parent of some one else's children.

 

 

d.. hondamoto - Tanawha2 hours ago

 

I bet not one comment from the leftist party. Leaves me out as I'm too old to bother with sex.

 

 

 

e.. bushtv - Bungadoo2 hours ago

 

Some people are just breeding for the free handouts, if you have anymore than say four children then the financial responsibility is yours not the tax payers.

 

 

 

f.. Icomment - North Rockhampton2 hours ago1 reply

 

A few months ago, a UK Thinktank proposed that child benefits should be restricted to four children per household.

 

I believe we are already overpopulated and should cut welfare after two children.

 

 

 

DILLIGAFF - Bundambaan hour ago

 

Over population is a myth, and there are many scientists who can prove it.

If you have an hour to spare this documentary is well worth the watch.

 

"Hans Rosling is a Swedish medical doctor, academic, statistician and public speaker. He is Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute and co-founder and chairman of the Gapminder Foundation, which developed the Trendalyzer software system."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM

 

 

 

g.. muthanaytcha - Bauple Forest2 hours ago

 

So many people having children without the ability or stability to parent,

it's a big problem that needs to be addressed we can't just keep creating

human beings that we cant provide for.

 

 

 

h.. Nick-G - Harristownan hour ago

 

Tongue in cheek I must admit that in some cases this article has some merit .

There is an element within our population that possess a sense of entitlement to free handouts and exploit or milk it for all it's worth without the slightest guilt or consideration as to how that support is being provided and who's paying for it.

We see and read about the system being routed almost every day by the unscrupulous that has now depleted reserves to the point of unsustainability by governments.

My heart goes out to those trying desperately to secure work and all those caught in circumstances beyond their control leaving them with no other option but to claim benefits and as a taxpayer I say I have no issues in helping support you.

But to those able bodied who have absolutely no intention of working, or those deliberately getting pregnant just to get increases to benefits I say damn you for your selfishness and total lack of consideration for your fellow Australians that are now suffering because of funding cuts etc to make welfare payments affordable to those in real need.

 

 

 

i.. stumped - Maroochydorean hour ago

 

This explains his "former" status. His views are too extreme for virtually any political party. The DLP may be the closest, but they wouldn't vote for the use of contraceptives in any situation.

Every party has people that embarrass them with their views once they leave office. At least when he states his current opinions he doesn't do so as the former Leader of the Liberal Party like John Hewson or a former Liberal PM like Malcolm Fraser.

 

 

 

j.. DILLIGAFF - Bundambaan hour ago

 

If this was law in the past he would not have been born.

 

 

 

k.. Malapoa - Bli Blian hour ago

 

"If a person's sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit." What a sensible concept. Let's also cut the baby bonus. Why do we pay people to have kids, if you can't afford them don't have them or wait till you can. Whilst this article mentions Aboriginals and Islanders, it is well known that single parenting with multiple fathers is not restricted to only to these groups of Australians. Our country needs to stop the handout mentality or we won't be "The Lucky Country" anymore!

 

 

 

l.. RebelWithoutAClue - Cedar Pocketan hour ago1 reply

 

Ha Ha!

 

No welfare for 'good catholics'!

 

Works for me!!

 

 

 

muthanaytcha - Bauple Forest41 minutes ago

 

Yes a good place to start indeed.

 

 

 

m.. tweed - Bilambil Heightsan hour ago

 

I think he is just trying to provoke Abbott's Tea party extreme right catholic nutter faction, which would more than likely ban all contraception if they could.

 

 

 

n.. newsblog2 - Coolum Beachan hour ago

 

At last! A lefty talking some sense!! ... is it the Christmas spirit or maybe he was being misquoted in the paper?????? If Abbot suggested that there'd be hell to pay!

 

More sensible thoughts like this guy and I might be changing my voting habits!

 

- He can hardly be misquoted - he wrote the piece - Moderator

 

 

 

o.. gypsy_girl_72 - Caloundra Westan hour ago

 

It is an interesting point. There is might I say one big flaw to such a plan.the only 100% safe contraception is abstinence and how is someone going to force that upon another,the mind boggles,lol. Maybe forced sterilization hmm that will be next on the cards maybe. may not be such a bad idea in such cases as described in the article above. Why should someone be allowed to continue to bring lives into this world they can not care for and will not care for. If those babies were going up for adoption to childless families it would be a better solution but how does one determine if someone is going to be an unfit parent before the child is even born. Maybe if they are on drugs or an alcoholic and reusing to get help,but then you will have some who will turn their lives around and some who won't,how man chances do you give someone to get it right. Maybe also if one is already not caring for children in their care it can be determined thy are not fit to have more. It is a very interesting topic to say the least. I am undecided on my opinion about it as it is not as black and white as it is made to seem

 

 

 

p.. Pescadero - Coolum Beach44 minutes ago

 

The miserable shaking a finger at the miserable.

Yaaaawn. ...

 

 

 

q.. davesdad - Kearneys Spring32 minutes ago

 

It all seems perfectly reasonable - until you contemplate what a relatively small step it is from this to ethnic/religious/class cleansing.

 

And we presume to tell other societies how they should treat their people; get real.

 

 

 

r.. johnx74 - Taigum30 minutes ago

 

 

Who cares who is saying it.

 

Who care which side of politics it comes from.

 

Its fascist !

 

 

 

"Georgina Gartland"

Good on Terese Edwards NCSMC

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/30/welfare-recipients...

 

 

Laurie Forde

 

 The Rightwing of the Labor Party certainly throws up some filth, but

 none filthier than Gary Johns.

 

 Laurie

 

 

 

 Gary Johns, writing in The Australian

 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-d...,

 opens his opinion piece with the provocative statement: "If a person's  sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit."

 

 "This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling

 parents.

 

 "Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will

 affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea

 that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a

 child is repugnant."

 

 "Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination

 of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that

 some survive to care for parents in old age.

 

 "These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all

 sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.

 

 "Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children.

 Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose

 to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a

 benefit."

 

 Mr Johns, a Minister in the former Keating government, said there were

 some people who should not have children at all, particularly if it was at

 the taxpayers' expense.

 

 As commissioner Tim Carmody wrote in the Queensland Child Protection

 Commission of Inquiry report in 2013, ''some families will never rise to

 the challenge or have the capacity or commitment needed to take

 responsibility for the children they bring into the world''.

 

 He cited two cases, both indigenous, though he said many non-indigenous

 cases abound.

 

 The first, in Cairns, involved a single mother with nine children from

 five fathers.

 

 The second case, in Redfern, involved contested parenting between the NSW

 Department of Family and Community Services and a grandmother for her

 daughter's, and an absent father's, six children.

 

 "Until June, the grandmother was caring for her six grandchildren and two

 of her daughters at different times, in a small two bedroom house in

 Redfern."

 

 The commentary has attracted a strong reaction on Twitter, with Mr Johns

 being accused of being racist.

 

 But as some have pointed out, it is not the first time Mr Johns has

 tackled the Aboriginal issue head-on.

 

 In 2007, he wrote a strongly worded piece for The Institute for Public

 Affairs, <http://ipa.org.au/library/59_3_Johns.pdf calling for a return

 to the Mal Brough-style of intervention in the Northern Territory.

 

 "The pretext for the intervention, the Little Children are Sacred report,

 found that sexual abuse is rampant in virtually every Aboriginal

 community in the Territory,'' Mr Johns wrote.

 

 "Its recommendations struggled to avoid offending the prevailing

 consensus-the dream of a separate Aboriginal society.

 

 "The dream has condemned Aborigines in remote communities to a short and

 meaningless existence.

 

 "As a colleague of mine observed, 'in Aboriginal policy, the Left have

 blood on their hands'.

 

 "The report blames the destruction of social mores on alcohol and

 pornography. It is less forceful on the real cause of the misery, the

 mistaken view that Aborigines do not have to pay the price of admission to

 the modern world.

 

 "The price involves taking personal responsibility, attending school for

 at least ten years, and working. Each of these has been missing."

 

 "The challenge for the future is to ensure that these factors are

 reintroduced.

 

 "The report made plain the common finding of the 40-or-so reports before

 it: sexual promiscuity (and drug abuse)

 among sub-teenage Aboriginal children is rife.

 

 "The reason that there have not been commensurate adult arrests for child

 sexual abuse is that much of the abuse is

 performed by young boys and girls upon their peers or the very young.

 

 "The story reveals the collapse of morality. The number of teenage

 pregnancies ensures that the cycle of immaturity

 and inappropriate behaviour repeats itself rapidly.

 

 "Banning pornography and grog is sensible, but only as a breather

 and as a signal that grog and under-age sex are diversions from a decent

 life."