Evelyn sent the following as a comment to yesterday's post on Origin's rejection of the WA government apology to mothers whose children were taken from for adoption during a social climate unsupportive to unmarried mothers. I am grateful for the work Evelyn and others have put into this apology and grateful to know her.
Her reply to my previous post was too good to be lost in comments and so I present it here:
The apology in Western Australia came about because a small group of mothers approached a member of the Western Australian parliament and explained to him how things were for them when they lost their children to adoption.
There is an informal group in Australia called the Apology Alliance, which is a collection of support groups, organisations and individuals who have been working towards a federal apology for some time. They are, of course, supportive of the Western Australian apology.
It is impossible to know how many people in Australia are happy about the apology and how many are not. Those who welcome the apology will benefit from it, those who do not can disregard it.
The first government apology in Australia was the federal apology to the Stolen Generations in February, 2008. This was a momentous event for all Australians and the country virtually came to a standstill, to allow everyone to view the apology live on television. I was not able to be present in parliament for that apology, but I was present for the apology to the Forgotten Australians and the Child Migrants, which took place in Canberra, our capital city, last year. I know from talking to the people who were there how moved they were that their issues were being recognised and that the government had decided to say ‘sorry’ for what had happened to them in the past. Both apologies included a recognition of the damage which had occurred and funding for services to address that damage.
Nothing that is said now can change what happened in the past for any of us, but these apologies have drawn the attention of the nation to the issues involved and they are an acknowledgement on the part of the government that past policies and practices were damaging.
I believe that the forthcoming apology in Western Australia will not only help many people with their individual healing, but will also increase community awareness of the issues that many of us have had to deal with since our children were taken from us to be adopted. I have heard from many, many mothers around the world who are heartened by news of the Western Australian apology. This comment is very typical: "I can't tell you how it soothes a damaged heart to hear that at last there is some recognition of the suffering of mothers, fathers and children involved in adoption. My ambition now is to live long enough to see an apology given in Gt. Britain."
We have been told that other states and territories are now also considering apologising and many of us have drawn the attention of our own state and territory governments to the fact that the apology is taking place in Western Australia. There have also been discussions with the federal government and they are currently considering what would need to happen before a federal apology could be given.
I believe that this apology is a very important step in increasing community understanding of adoption separation issues. The more we can educate people about what has already happened for those who have experienced adoption separation, the more likely it is that current and future policies and practices will be informed by that knowledge. There is so much ignorance in the community, not just in Australia, but around the world, of the long term outcomes of adoption separation and I think that anything we can do to educate and inform people is worthwhile.
I will be travelling to Western Australia next month for the apology, to share the experience with mothers from all around Australia.
Personally, I think it is a big step in the right direction to have a government say, ‘This is what happened. We are sorry that it happened and we’ll make sure it won’t happen again.’ I believe that Australia is setting an example and I hope that other countries will follow our lead.
Showing posts with label origins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label origins. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Origins SPSA, Inc. Rejects Australia's Apology
Claiming to represent all Australian mothers who relinquished, Origins NSW rejects the government's apology.
When I announced the upcoming apology on Facebook, Some commented praising Dian Welfare in this regard. I never knew Dian, but judging from the many "followers" she accumulated, I have no doubt that she was a devoted well-meaning a person and zealous activist who gave her all for what she believed in. However, it is my understanding that Dian and Origins, Inc. have always opposed to the apology as they still do. It this seems somewhat incongruous to applaud her for Australia reaching this milestone that she opposed.
Further, it is my understanding from many within Australia, that Origins, Inc. no more represents all mothers there than CUB or Origins-USA or any other US group represents all US mothers, or BN represents all US adoptees' opinion regarding access legislation. These issues are complicated and people have different feelings, views and opinions as to how far is far enough, how much is enough, what can we logically expect and accept as a victory.
Evelyn Robinson, a reunited mother and author who has lived and worked for adoption reform in Australia for decades, for one, welcomes the apology and will be present when it is made and part of the ceremony. Many consider it a huge victory, others apparently are less than pleased. There is a divide. Neither opinion is totally universal.
This is how it is in a democracy. And this is how it is in movements that are non-homogeneous. We have our adoption experience/loss in common but come to it from varying religious, educational and social backgrounds and different degrees and lengths of "denial" before dealing with our adoption issues, and finally, different reunion outcomes. Some of us are more aware of and lived through or researched more of the history of adoption reform efforts, wile other get their entire views from the one group they joined when 'waking up" and coming out of their cocoons - groups which others accused of being cut-like and serving up kool-aid dogmas. (A micro recreation of disagreements about religious and political beliefs in the bigger world).
All of which shapes and colors the lens through which we view the issues. We thus come to different conclusions, which often create discord.
I share here the view of Origins, Inc. for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions of who is for, supported and responsible for and deserves credit for the apology and who is against it.
See also my previous posts on the adpology here, here, and here.
UPDATE 9/21: PLEASE SEE REPLY BY EVELYN ROBINSON HERE for a view from on the ground in Australia on the issue.
And here is a statement by Lily Arthur, Origins NSW:
Lily Arthur
In response to the forthcoming apology to mothers who have lost children to adoption in Western Australia, Origins would like to make the following observations:
Having admitted that past adoption practices in WA were unlawful, the West Australian government has usurped the notion that those responsible for serious crimes committed under Common Law can be rectified by a few chosen words, instead of facing the justice system, thus absolving the perpetrators of premeditated breaches of various statutory Crimes Acts
This (adoption crimes) would be the only instance where the law would absolve perpetrators of serious crimes to face accountability by the legal system. How a dismissal of crimes such as kidnapping, willful intent, Fraud, false imprisonment, assault, and a litany of other such breaches of law can be casually ignored by apologists who have the audacity to think that this attempt of contrition at will placate the victims of such crimes that have remained denied for decades, not only undermines basic human rights but also erodes the criminal justice system
An “apology” without exposure, redress or accountably for criminal behavior is not only an insult to an established legal system but also opens the opportunity for other types of criminal actively to occur on a grand scale, such as past adoption practices. Crimes can be perpetrated on victims with the knowledge that if you can hide your crimes long enough then you can get away with it.
Such mentality would not appease any other family who has had a child forcibly taken away and hidden from them, and yet mothers affected by the theft of their child for the adoption market are seen as an exception to those protected by Common Law, they are not deemed to have the same avenue to the legal system as any other victim of crime
The forthcoming apology may assist those mothers who felt they may have played some part in the surrender of their child, but will not placate those who know they have been treated unlawfully, and Origins Inc will continue to pursue accountability for those mothers who have been affected by these past unlawful practices either through the criminal justice system or though the Civil Law. (Lily Arthur, Origins, NSW)
When I announced the upcoming apology on Facebook, Some commented praising Dian Welfare in this regard. I never knew Dian, but judging from the many "followers" she accumulated, I have no doubt that she was a devoted well-meaning a person and zealous activist who gave her all for what she believed in. However, it is my understanding that Dian and Origins, Inc. have always opposed to the apology as they still do. It this seems somewhat incongruous to applaud her for Australia reaching this milestone that she opposed.
Further, it is my understanding from many within Australia, that Origins, Inc. no more represents all mothers there than CUB or Origins-USA or any other US group represents all US mothers, or BN represents all US adoptees' opinion regarding access legislation. These issues are complicated and people have different feelings, views and opinions as to how far is far enough, how much is enough, what can we logically expect and accept as a victory.
Evelyn Robinson, a reunited mother and author who has lived and worked for adoption reform in Australia for decades, for one, welcomes the apology and will be present when it is made and part of the ceremony. Many consider it a huge victory, others apparently are less than pleased. There is a divide. Neither opinion is totally universal.
This is how it is in a democracy. And this is how it is in movements that are non-homogeneous. We have our adoption experience/loss in common but come to it from varying religious, educational and social backgrounds and different degrees and lengths of "denial" before dealing with our adoption issues, and finally, different reunion outcomes. Some of us are more aware of and lived through or researched more of the history of adoption reform efforts, wile other get their entire views from the one group they joined when 'waking up" and coming out of their cocoons - groups which others accused of being cut-like and serving up kool-aid dogmas. (A micro recreation of disagreements about religious and political beliefs in the bigger world).
All of which shapes and colors the lens through which we view the issues. We thus come to different conclusions, which often create discord.
I share here the view of Origins, Inc. for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions of who is for, supported and responsible for and deserves credit for the apology and who is against it.
See also my previous posts on the adpology here, here, and here.
UPDATE 9/21: PLEASE SEE REPLY BY EVELYN ROBINSON HERE for a view from on the ground in Australia on the issue.
And here is a statement by Lily Arthur, Origins NSW:
Lily Arthur
In response to the forthcoming apology to mothers who have lost children to adoption in Western Australia, Origins would like to make the following observations:
Having admitted that past adoption practices in WA were unlawful, the West Australian government has usurped the notion that those responsible for serious crimes committed under Common Law can be rectified by a few chosen words, instead of facing the justice system, thus absolving the perpetrators of premeditated breaches of various statutory Crimes Acts
This (adoption crimes) would be the only instance where the law would absolve perpetrators of serious crimes to face accountability by the legal system. How a dismissal of crimes such as kidnapping, willful intent, Fraud, false imprisonment, assault, and a litany of other such breaches of law can be casually ignored by apologists who have the audacity to think that this attempt of contrition at will placate the victims of such crimes that have remained denied for decades, not only undermines basic human rights but also erodes the criminal justice system
An “apology” without exposure, redress or accountably for criminal behavior is not only an insult to an established legal system but also opens the opportunity for other types of criminal actively to occur on a grand scale, such as past adoption practices. Crimes can be perpetrated on victims with the knowledge that if you can hide your crimes long enough then you can get away with it.
Such mentality would not appease any other family who has had a child forcibly taken away and hidden from them, and yet mothers affected by the theft of their child for the adoption market are seen as an exception to those protected by Common Law, they are not deemed to have the same avenue to the legal system as any other victim of crime
The forthcoming apology may assist those mothers who felt they may have played some part in the surrender of their child, but will not placate those who know they have been treated unlawfully, and Origins Inc will continue to pursue accountability for those mothers who have been affected by these past unlawful practices either through the criminal justice system or though the Civil Law. (Lily Arthur, Origins, NSW)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The "crime" of truth seeking
Pulling an oxygen tank in one hand and holding a cane in the other, Jill Ekstrom cried and trembled as she was sentenced to 18 months' probation, a $540 fine and $850 restitution to the Davis County Sheriff's Office. According to other reports, whoever, District Judge Ben Hadfield sentenced her to a year in jail, but suspended the term until the mental health evaluation is completed.
Her crime: Helping to reunite people separated by fraudulent state issued falsified birth certificates!
Ekstrom told reporters she took a plea deal because the case was affecting her family, not because she was guilty. She also said she accepted the plea because because of her health, because her public defender was overworked and the lack of money to hire better legal representation. She said she wrote a letter to the judge asking if she could do community service instead of jail so she could help people and turn her case into a positive experience.
Ekstrom - who called herself a "confidential intermediary" - was caught in a sting when a Davis County sheriff's deputy posed as an adopted child (sic) seeking a birth parent.
What a shame she was not able to stand up as a martyr for the unconscionable destruction of fmailies and the criminalization of certain people - those adopted - completing their genealogy as freely as those non-adopted.
Decades earlier Sandra Muser did just that! She stood fast and served her prison term and wrote "To prison With Love."
And when my friend and co-founder of the origins origins - started in NJ in 1980 - Lucy pare was likewise caught in a strong operation on camera, she said for national TV that she related her work to that of those who smuggled slaves through the underground. She said that, like them, she was practicing CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE and conscientious objection to unjust laws.
I am proud to know such civil rights fighters and sad that in 2008, this is still being prosecuted as a crime.
Her crime: Helping to reunite people separated by fraudulent state issued falsified birth certificates!
Ekstrom told reporters she took a plea deal because the case was affecting her family, not because she was guilty. She also said she accepted the plea because because of her health, because her public defender was overworked and the lack of money to hire better legal representation. She said she wrote a letter to the judge asking if she could do community service instead of jail so she could help people and turn her case into a positive experience.
Ekstrom - who called herself a "confidential intermediary" - was caught in a sting when a Davis County sheriff's deputy posed as an adopted child (sic) seeking a birth parent.
What a shame she was not able to stand up as a martyr for the unconscionable destruction of fmailies and the criminalization of certain people - those adopted - completing their genealogy as freely as those non-adopted.
Decades earlier Sandra Muser did just that! She stood fast and served her prison term and wrote "To prison With Love."
And when my friend and co-founder of the origins origins - started in NJ in 1980 - Lucy pare was likewise caught in a strong operation on camera, she said for national TV that she related her work to that of those who smuggled slaves through the underground. She said that, like them, she was practicing CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE and conscientious objection to unjust laws.
I am proud to know such civil rights fighters and sad that in 2008, this is still being prosecuted as a crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)