British committed genocide against Aboriginal Australians inquiry
British colonisers committed "genocide" against the Aboriginal people in the Australian state of Victoria after arriving in the area in the early 1830s, a commission investigating injustices against the indigenous population has said.
The colonization of Victoria, Australia's second smallest state, located in the southeast of the country, took place between 1834 and 1851.
During that period, its indigenous population suffered "near-complete physical destruction," falling from around 60,000 to 15,000, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Yoorrook Justice Commission.
The crimes by the British in Victoria included "mass killings, disease, sexual violence, exclusion, linguicide [the death of languages], cultural erasure, environmental degradation, child removal, absorption and assimilation," it said.
"This was genocide," the commission ruled after holding more than two months of public hearings and listening to accounts by over 1,300 Aboriginals.
The report suggested some 100 recommendations in order to "redress" harm caused to the Aboriginals by "invasion and occupation," including paying reparations and granting Victoria's First Peoples' Assembly decision-making powers.
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said in a statement that she welcomed the report and that her government would consider its findings.
"Victoria's truth-telling process is a historic opportunity to hear the stories of our past that have been buried - these are stories that all Victorians need to hear," Allan stated.
The head of the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organization (VACCHO), Jill Gallagher, told ABC that "we do not blame anyone alive today for these atrocities," but stressed "it is the responsibility of those of us alive today to accept that truth."
The Yoorrook Justice Commission was established in 2021, becoming the first of its kind in Australia. Similar formal "truth-telling" inquiries are currently taking place in other states.
The Australian Museum said previously there were at least 270 massacres carried out by colonists against Aboriginal Australians between the late 18th and early 20th century "as part of a state-sanctioned and organized attempts to eradicate First Nations people."
READ MORE: Brits fail to fix stranded F-35 stealth fighter in India media
Due to those actions, the indigenous population in Australia declined from an estimated 1-1.5 million to less than 100,000 by the early 1900s, according to the museum.
(RT.com)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Killing Wife During Argument Over Property
Last Updated: The man, believed to have left the house after killing his wife, was discovered nearly 15 hours later hiding inside a storeroom of the same house. The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Nitin Nath Singh, a retired Indian Information Service (IIS) officer accused of murdering his wife, Renu Sinha — a practising advocate at the Delhi High Court — at their Noida residence in September 2023. Renu Sinha was found dead in the bathroom of her bungalow in Sector-30, Noida, on September 10, 2023. Her brother Ajay Kumar, a journalist, filed the complaint after she failed to respond to calls for over a day. Upon reaching the residence with a friend, Kumar found the house locked. Police were called, and after forcing entry, they discovered her body bearing multiple injuries. A post-mortem confirmed death by manual strangulation. Her husband, Nitin Nath Singh, believed to have left the house, was discovered nearly 15 hours later hiding inside a storeroom of the same house. CCTV footage and witness accounts indicated he had never exited the premises. As per media reports, Singh had stocked the room with cigarettes and water and remained inside even as police, sniffer dogs, and a search team combed the house. The prosecution alleged that Singh and his wife were involved in a property dispute. The couple had entered into a Rs 4.5 crore sale agreement for the Noida property and received Rs 55 lakh as advance. However, Renu reportedly opposed the deal later, especially after learning that Singh had accepted Rs 3 crore. The argument over the property sale is believed to have escalated, leading to her murder. Witnesses, including domestic help and police officers, testified about the accused's strained relationship with his wife and son. Renu had earlier filed a 2016 FIR against Singh for domestic violence. The police also cited Singh's dual passports — Indian and British — to flag him as a flight risk. Singh's counsel, however, alleged a conspiracy by the informant brother-in-law Ajay Kumar, claiming he wanted the property transferred to his name. They argued the arrest was manipulated and that Singh had been cooperating with the authorities. The bench of Justice Siddharth, while noting the seriousness of the charges, observed that Singh is a senior citizen, not a hardened criminal, and had already spent over nine months in custody. Cited Article 21 of the Constitution and recent Supreme Court guidelines on jail overcrowding to extend bail. As conditions for bail, court directed Singh to surrender both passports, barred him from leaving India without permission, and warned against tampering with evidence. Court further directed that he must attend all trial hearings without seeking adjournments when witnesses are present. Any violation could lead to cancellation of bail.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Who is Ghislaine Maxwell? From power and parties to a 20-year jail sentence for aiding Jeffrey Epstein
Ghislaine Maxwell was once a fixture at every major party in London and New York. She had powerful friends, a British accent that turned heads in the U.S., and connections to the world's most famous people, from Bill Clinton to Prince Andrew. But in 2021, a jury found her guilty of grooming and trafficking young girls for Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier. She was sentenced to 20 years in jail. At the time, her name made headlines across the world. But even now, many still ask: Who was Ghislaine Maxwell, and how did she end up behind bars while Epstein's so-called 'clients' remain unnamed? Why the case still doesn't feel over The U.S. Justice Department recently confirmed there was no client list and no blackmail material in the Epstein investigation. They also said Epstein died by suicide. This shocked many people who believed his crimes involved other powerful people. Now, the internet is asking a serious question: if there's no list, no blackmail, and no more arrests coming, why is Maxwell in jail at all? 'She's doing time for a system that protected everyone but her,' one user posted on X. Another said, 'So Epstein had no clients and yet Ghislaine is guilty of helping him serve... who exactly?' These posts aren't trying to clear Maxwell's name. People agree that what she did was wrong. But they're pointing out how strange it is that she's the only one paying the price while the rest walk free. Her childhood shaped everything Maxwell's childhood was difficult. Her father, Robert Maxwell, was rich, feared, and emotionally abusive. Though he spoiled her, he also expected loyalty. After he died in 1991, she left the UK and moved to New York, where she met Epstein. The two became close. While some saw her as his assistant or 'best friend,' court files said she helped him run his life and his abuse. Maxwell found victims, scheduled massages, and gave strict rules to staff. Victims said she played a big part in what happened. Her role in the abuse Prosecutors said Maxwell knew what Epstein liked and brought him young girls to groom. They worked as a team. And even though she wasn't rich at first, she later lived in luxury with homes, parties, and influence all around her. In 2020, the FBI found her in a quiet home in New Hampshire. A few months later, it came out that she had secretly married a tech CEO. But in court, none of it helped. She was found guilty and jailed. Now, she's spending her days under watch in a small cell, far from the world she once ruled.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Wimbledon controversy erupts as organisers apologise to furious Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova for 'stolen game'
A technical outage in Wimbledon's line-calling system left Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova visibly enraged following a controversial umpiring decision during her fourth-round clash. Russia's Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova talks to the umpire during her round of 16 match against Britain's Sonay Kartal(REUTERS) The Russian star was locked in a tense battle with local favourite Sonay Kartal on Centre Court. With both players exchanging two breaks apiece, the match looked set for a gripping first-set tie-break. The drama unfolded in the ninth game, with Pavlyuchenkova serving. She had just saved three break points and appeared poised to hold serve when Kartal fired a shot that landed long, visibly beyond the baseline. However, the automated line-call system delayed its response, calling 'Stop. Stop' several seconds late, which created mass confusion. Pavlyuchenkova, standing well behind the baseline, paused, expecting an immediate call. The delayed verdict came just as she was about to take a 5-4 lead. Umpire Nico Helwerth spoke to the line-calling team over the phone as both players waited. Replays clearly showed Kartal's shot was out, but the final decision stunned everyone—'The system was unable to track the last point, so we will replay it,' Helwerth announced. The 34-year-old Russian was furious but tried to stay composed. She battled for another game point but couldn't convert. Kartal eventually broke serve and took the lead. Pavlyuchenkova voiced her frustration during the changeover: 'I don't know if it's in or out. You can't prove it… You took the game away from me. You stole the game from me.' The All England Club later issued an apology, stating: 'We have apologised to the players involved. We continue to have full confidence in the accuracy of the ball-tracking technology. However, there was a human error in this instance, and we've made appropriate changes.' Despite the controversy, Pavlyuchenkova showed immense resilience, eventually winning the opening set 7-6 (7-3). After the match, she revealed that even the chair umpire privately admitted the ball was out. 'It was very confusing. The umpire also saw it out. I expected him to take initiative—that's what he's there for—but he didn't. Maybe it's because she's local, I don't know... but that was a crucial moment,' she said. The incident has reignited debate over the full reliance on technology for line calls. Emma Raducanu expressed scepticism, saying, 'I don't think it's great. Most players would agree there were questionable calls.' In contrast, British No.1 Jack Draper called the system '100% accurate' after his own second-round exit.
