Liam Jurrah being held by police -Sen

[underthestars]

Regardless of the discussions relating to cultural relativism - this is not an example of tribal law. This is drunken retribution. Payback involves a process of mediation and an agreed upon punishment. This also happened in arrende land - not walpiri land. the walpiri are guests here and need to respect the customs and laws of the arrende - which they normally do - except when substance abuse clouds their minds, like it clouds anyone minds. This is not okay by arrende standards or walpiri standards, and is simply yet another example of vengeance carried out by those feeling justice is yet to be served. If formal payback had been allowed and agreed upon this matter may have been settled to every parties satisfaction. But as yet it has not.

 

[Blackas87]

''He's denying that he did it, he's saying he didn't attack anyone,'' a club source said last night.
It is understood Jurrah says he went to the defence of a teenage boy during the confrontation at the Little Sisters town camp in Alice Springs but did not use a weapon


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-in-assault-20120309-1uq1g.html#ixzz1ogiEnUfL

 

[Smokeyr67]

''He's denying that he did it, he's saying he didn't attack anyone,'' a club source said last night.
It is understood Jurrah says he went to the defence of a teenage boy during the confrontation at the Little Sisters town camp in Alice Springs but did not use a weapon


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-in-assault-20120309-1uq1g.html#ixzz1ogiEnUfL

So he's going to use innocence as his defence - not as good as the wookie defence but it may work.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Regardless of the discussions relating to cultural relativism - this is not an example of tribal law. This is drunken retribution. Payback involves a process of mediation and an agreed upon punishment. This also happened in arrende land - not walpiri land. the walpiri are guests here and need to respect the customs and laws of the arrende - which they normally do - except when substance abuse clouds their minds, like it clouds anyone minds. This is not okay by arrende standards or walpiri standards, and is simply yet another example of vengeance carried out by those feeling justice is yet to be served. If formal payback had been allowed and agreed upon this matter may have been settled to every parties satisfaction. But as yet it has not.

and what of the ex-player accused of witchcraft and causing cancer - how should that be handled? Should he just suck it up and accept his punishment?

 

[Valve Bounce]

What sort of moronic post is this? Fev is free to play in the AFL, it's just that no-one drafted him when he nominated.

Please note I used the word deserve. I realise that Fev did a helluva lot of stupid things in public, but the thought that Jurrah attacked a guy with a machete makes me opine that he might not deserve to play in the AFL this year, and probably deserves to spend some time in jail.

 

[candiehappy]

Please note I used the word deserve. I realise that Fev did a helluva lot of stupid things in public, but the thought that Jurrah attacked a guy with a machete makes me opine that he might not deserve to play in the AFL this year, and probably deserves to spend some time in jail.

sounds like shoot first and ask questions later

 

[King Elvis]

They all had weapons and firewood.

Least they were well prepared.

 

[Valve Bounce]

sounds like shoot first and ask questions later

Or Whack first and whack again.

 

[underthestars]

and what of the ex-player accused of witchcraft and causing cancer - how should that be handled? Should he just suck it up and accept his punishment?

no, I'm not condoning payback, I'm just responding to those bringing it up in defence of Liam, that they are mistaken.

 

[Dustin Credible]

We are comfortable with what we know and what we experience. We are uncomfortable with the unknown. Priests and Politicians (in broad brush-strokes) prey upon our fears to deliver them our faith.

Open your mind to the fact that there are countless cultures on the face of our planet, each of them with its own complex belief system. You don't have to philosophically agree with their methods... just understand that there are no absolutes when it comes to "right" and "wrong", and the fact that you have grown up knowing nothing except for the Westminster system of government and jurisprudence has little meaning to billions of people co-existing on this planet let alone in this country.

Liam Jurrah is torn in a way that you could only begin to understand if you left here tomorrow with whatever you could fit into a backpack to live with a native tribe in the heart of Central Australia for an indeterminate period with the understanding that you were doing it for the betterment of yourself AND your people. But that still wouldn't come close...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

You argue that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. The logical extension of this, is that you accept the punishment (murder) of innocent people when someone dies of natural causes (as described in this thread) as morally neutral.

Or to remove it from Australia, you find the practice of female genital mutilation, as practiced in parts of Africa, acceptable? Or at least can't condemn it, because that would be to make a value judgement on another culture?

I am someone who believes the world is a richer place for all of the different cultures in it. But if finding violence meted out to innocent people in an arbitrary fashion unacceptable, makes me 'closed' minded then so be it.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Came onto BF expecting a 300+ reply thread on this...very suprised. A machete was involved afterall. Will no doubt rock the Melbourne football club.

This is huge.

There we go.

Anyways, saw on the news one of the women from the community were blaming "the white man's weapons". Are we supposed to believe this still would not have happened anyway?

It's always whitey's fault apparently.

 

[evo]

You argue that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. The logical extension of this, is that you accept the punishment (murder) of innocent people when someone dies of natural causes (as described in this thread) as morally neutral.

far from being logical, that is actually a non sequitur.

A denial of the existence of an absolute morality doesn't mean that all values are morally neutral.

In ethics it is quite reasonable to suggest that moralilty is a fluid concept always open to interpretation. That is why we have courts.

Ask yourself who is the the arbiter of these 'absolute' values you claim exist.

 

[candiehappy]

Or Whack first and whack again.

so where is your first comment different from the behavior you (and i think all posters here) deplore fundamentally different?

 

[Dustin Credible]

far from being logical, that is actually a non sequitur.

A denial of the existence of an absolute morality doesn't mean that all values are morally neutral.

In ethics it is quite reasonable to suggest that moralilty is a fluid concept always open to interpretation. That is why we have courts.

Ask yourself who is the the arbiter of these 'absolute' values you claim exist.

It's moral universalism vs moral relativism vs. moral nihilism

I viewed the original statement as being moral nihilism,

from wikipedia

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.

As such morally neutral

Whereas you have viewed it as being moral relativism. Again from Wikipedia,

Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".

The bolded part for me is one of the biggest dangers of relativism. If the culture believes it is moral then it is moral.

Would you apply the same justification , to say slavery, when the prevailing culture of the time was that it was acceptable. Or do you believe it to have been morally wrong?

Personally I am a moral universalist in outlook.

An example of moral universalism would be the UN declaration of human rights. (i.e. something that can be applied to all people irrespective of race, religion, culture or creed),

It doesn't imply a base in religion, if the 'arbiter', you were referring to was a deistic one.

 

[Tulip]

There we go.

Anyways, saw on the news one of the women from the community were blaming "the white man's weapons". Are we supposed to believe this still would not have happened anyway?

It's always whitey's fault apparently.

Try and get some context, will save you looking like an idiot.

 

[Valve Bounce]

so where is your first comment different from the behavior you (and i think all posters here) deplore fundamentally different?

I suppose if a guy whacks another guy on the head with a machete and puts him in hospital, then I would opine that he should spend some time in jail rather than go play AFL footy.

Do you disagree on this point?

 

[BigBroMike]

Try and get some context, will save you looking like an idiot.

 

[bing181]

Aboriginals insist on retaining these superstitious beliefs/traditions, which the white man's education would help to dispel.

Because we're so superior, and have all the answers.

Another of your patronising, condescending posts.

 

[King Elvis]

White man used to think the earth was flat - when we learnt it wasn't, should we have ignored reality because of our history?

 

[Brown Bottle]

It's moral universalism vs moral relativism vs. moral nihilism

I viewed the original statement as being moral nihilism,

from wikipedia



As such morally neutral

Whereas you have viewed it as being moral relativism. Again from Wikipedia,



The bolded part for me is one of the biggest dangers of relativism. If the culture believes it is moral then it is moral.

Would you apply the same justification , to say slavery, when the prevailing culture of the time was that it was acceptable. Or do you believe it to have been morally wrong?

Personally I am a moral universalist in outlook.

An example of moral universalism would be the UN declaration of human rights. (i.e. something that can be applied to all people irrespective of race, religion, culture or creed),

It doesn't imply a base in religion, if the 'arbiter', you were referring to was a deistic one.

For mine it's a question of moral superiority, which abounds in this thread. I understand it. I just choose not to engage in it.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

' ''We was walking to Little Sister (town camp) and them family run to us with weapons,'' she claimed.

''There was too many, maybe nine of them. They all had weapons and firewood.

''Liam came and hit Basil with a machete and an axe. Liam said 'wait, don't run away, don't be frightened'.

She said her husband had six stitches in his head: ''He's angry for Liam. We're not scared.''

Jurrah flew into Melbourne hours after the court hearing yesterday with his football future under a cloud.

The talented goalkicker was charged with unlawfully causing serious harm and carrying an offensive weapon.

Magistrate John Birch granted Jurrah bail - which was set at $3000 with a further $3000 as surety - on the condition he left the territory and abstained from alcohol.'

I thought bail was $20000 and that the victim required a facial reconstruction, but $3000 and six stitches somewhat diminishes the severity of the crime. The relatives have Liam wielding both the axe and the machete and in the company of 8 armed men. You kind of get the impression that a deep seated hatred of the Jurrah family might influence the version of events.

The victim does not appear incredibly cut up or bruised from the incident. Jurrah claims he is innocent. For all the drama, the details don't seem to be vindicating the volume and intensity of speculation.

Until there is evidence suggesting that the attack was more vicious than it otherwise appears, Jurrah probably deserves to be cut some slack. Going back home to an atmosphere of grog and violence then returning to Melbourne to a sanitised and rigorous life of an AFL footballer must really scramble Jurrah's thoughts, emotions and behaviour.

There are already contradictory stories of events and Jurrah is becoming the victim of a massive swell of public interest. Perhaps now it's best to step back and allow the passage of time to reveal the truth.

 

[Daytripper]

The truth here is pretty simple I would have thought.

A group of young blokes got on the sauce. An argument started, a fight broke out and the violence escalated.

Happens in every metro town, every weekend.

Would any of this have happened if they weren't all pissed?
I seriously doubt it.

And therein is the issue in a nutshell.

 

[Brown Bottle]

There are already contradictory stories of events and Jurrah is becoming the victim of a massive swell of public interest. Perhaps now it's best to step back and allow the passage of time to reveal the truth.

In large part I agree with you. If we're honest (and not many in here will be) "our" course of action from the moment this was first reported should have been to allow the passage of time to reveal the truth. But that's not how things work around here...

 

[Ron The Bear]

Because we're so superior, and have all the answers.

Another of your patronising, condescending posts.

Now now, it wasn't exactly Alan McAlister's "as long as they conduct themselves like white people"...

Do you not think improved education is the logical way forward for Aboriginals? Then again, perhaps they don't want to improve their lot. Perhaps they'd be lost without bemoaning their poor health, employment, standard of living and other things. Anglo-Western culture, which it seems many reject wholesale, is not all bad, yet they have managed to absorb some of its more destructive influences. Few if any people are truly without choice.

I repeat the question which nobody has ever answered: What is it that Aboriginals aspire to?

If raising these points is condescending, so be it. At least you didn't use the 'r' label.

You mean like an all knowing, all forgiving invisible God that waits for all us in Heaven. Is that the type of stuff you're talking about?

A valid parallel in that suspected witches were burnt at the stake a long time ago.

I'm merely asking: Is it in Aboriginals' best interests to perpetuate these beliefs if they lead to destructive behaviour?

I have seen with my own eyes the fall out from curses and so forth. And Im a "worldy/non traditional Aboriginal in many ways" - ie I live between Australia and the US as a singer/musician. Completely feel so distanced at times from my culture, yet when I close my eyes and let myself remember back I recall my pop passing down a used pointing bone that had been sun (Killed a lad a long time ago - not pop but the elders who sanctioned it) My cousins stories of first hand encounters with Devil devil man ... frightening stuff.

To you, your narrow and westernized life experience tells you its BS. But to us that have lived it and experienced if FIRST HAND. I can promise you its as real as Geelongs last 3 premierships. So really, here in lies the problem with reconciliation. Too many non Aboriginals instantly think that their way is the right way and the only real way, and anything else is backward and even not real.

I keep saying it, but when all Australians start really opening their ears, eyes and minds and truly attempt to really empathise... Then we will see the gap get closed. Your experience isnt the only experience.

It's in the mind, like voodoo. If you truly believe you've been cursed or damned, you can become trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not a religious person as such, but having read credible accounts, I believe it is possible to become 'possessed' if you believe in stuff like the Satanic Bible and focus your mind upon it. Whilst I don't necessarily believe in e.g. prayer as a means for effecting material change, I don't totally discount its effects, either. The deeper mysteries of the mind are not well understood.

 

[TAITA]

' ''We was walking to Little Sister (town camp) and them family run to us with weapons,'' she claimed.

''There was too many, maybe nine of them. They all had weapons and firewood.

''Liam came and hit Basil with a machete and an axe. Liam said 'wait, don't run away, don't be frightened'.

She said her husband had six stitches in his head: ''He's angry for Liam. We're not scared.''

Jurrah flew into Melbourne hours after the court hearing yesterday with his football future under a cloud.

The talented goalkicker was charged with unlawfully causing serious harm and carrying an offensive weapon.

Magistrate John Birch granted Jurrah bail - which was set at $3000 with a further $3000 as surety - on the condition he left the territory and abstained from alcohol.'

I thought bail was $20000 and that the victim required a facial reconstruction, but $3000 and six stitches somewhat diminishes the severity of the crime. The relatives have Liam wielding both the axe and the machete and in the company of 8 armed men. You kind of get the impression that a deep seated hatred of the Jurrah family might influence the version of events.

The victim does not appear incredibly cut up or bruised from the incident. Jurrah claims he is innocent. For all the drama, the details don't seem to be vindicating the volume and intensity of speculation.

Until there is evidence suggesting that the attack was more vicious than it otherwise appears, Jurrah probably deserves to be cut some slack. Going back home to an atmosphere of grog and violence then returning to Melbourne to a sanitised and rigorous life of an AFL footballer must really scramble Jurrah's thoughts, emotions and behaviour.

There are already contradictory stories of events and Jurrah is becoming the victim of a massive swell of public interest. Perhaps now it's best to step back and allow the passage of time to reveal the truth.

Essentially you are saying that although the intent was same, the failure to inflict more vicious and mortal injuries should hold sway over public opinion and ultimately, sentencing?