Englisch

Facharbeit

Australia′s Stolen Generation ­

Causes and Consequences

Jonas-Benjamin Walther

Bad Zwischenahn

2002

Gymnasium

Bad Zwischenahn/Edewecht

2001/2002

---

Englisch

Jonas-Benjamin Walther

Australia′s Stolen Generation -

Causes and Consequences

Fachlehrer: Herr Munderloh

Ausgabetermin: 30.01.2002

Abgabetermin: 14.03.2002

Bewertung:

Unterschrift des Verfassers Unterschrift des Fachlehrers

2

---

The Redfern Statement

"We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the

diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers.

We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And we

failed to imagine these things were done to us."

Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia in 1992

3

---

C O N T E N T S

1. Foreword 5

2. Introduction 5

3. Historical Background 6

3.1 James Cook and his way of treating the Native Australians 6

3.2 The Treatment of the Indigenous People of North America 6

4. The Treatment of the Aboriginals in the Australian society 7

4.1 Racism 7

4.2 General Consequences of the Racism 8

4.3 Reasons for the Children′s Removal 9

4.4 Consequences of the Removal 10

4.5 Fate Report of a Stolen Child 11

5. National Reactions and Situations 12

5.1 The Redfern Statement 12

5.2 Official Government Statement 12

5.3 The Progress of the Reconciliation 13

5.4 The Bringing Them Home Report 13

5.5 The Future of the Aborigines under the John Howard Government 14

5.6 The Sorry Book 14

6. International Reactions and Conventions 15

6.1 The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9th of
December 1948) 15

6.2 The Human Rights Committee 16

6.3 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 16

6.4 Reactions of other Countries 17

6.4.1 The Federal Republic of Germany 17

6.4.2 The European Union 17

6.4.3 The United States of America 18

7. Conclusion 18

8. Annotation 20

9. Appendix 21

9.1 Bibliography 21

9.2 Tables 25

9.2.1 Sexual assaults reported by Inquiry witnesses 25

9.2.2 After-effects of forcible removal 25

9.3 Original Sources 25

9.3.1 Fate report of a Stolen Child 25

9.3.2 The ′Terms of Reference′ of the ′Bringing them Home′ report 26

9.3.3 The places visited by the ′Bringing them Home report′ writers 27

9.3.4 The address of the Bundespresseamt 27

4

---

1. Foreword

I spent 11 wonderful months as an exchange student in the country at which behaviour

I will look very critical in the following research paper. First of all, I am going to describe my

relationship with Australia so the reader will get a better understanding of my point of view.

One of the most shocking experiences I made by preparing this research paper was to realise

that the racism in Australia is still alive. I had lived in this country for nearly a year and I did

not realise at all, to what extent discrimination of Aboriginals goes.

During the preparation time of the Olympic Games in Sydney (New South Wales) there was a

big discussion going on about the issue of

The Stolen Generation

. Stimulated by the arrival of

the international media, politicians were fighting in public about paragraphs concerning the

Stolen Generation

issue on the back of the Aboriginal people. This discussion had special

effects on me, as a foreign observer. At this point, I interpreted speeches of some supporters

of civil rights as too fussy and simply disturbing. Now that I know about the background of

this topic concerning some matters, I changed my mind completely.

After a stay of 11 months in Melbourne (Victoria), the time came for me to return to

Germany. Many people were asking me whether I would be excited about going home. In

these moments, I had to ask myself were my home was. At that time, the answer confused me

because I felt my home was there. Certainly, I knew that Germany would turn again into my

new/old home but at that very time, I felt quite strangely about this fact.

All over, all I really feel privileged that I had the great opportunity to look over the borders of

my own environment and to see another country and its way. This also is the reason why I

will not mince matters.

2. Introduction

Australia has an unique status in the world. It is the

oasis

in the middle of several

Asian third world countries. This status is hard to carry because on the one side, Australia has

to respect the human rights and on the other side, it has to control the immigration. It is a very

large country but there are only very few spots at which humans are able to live and to

survive. This puts Australia into its special position.

A century ago, Australia started to form its own government. The Australian out of nine

different states and territories became one nation. This nation had to learn to get on well with

the Aborigines, which turned out to be a great problem for the whites. The young newly

formed government decided to assimilate the mixed blooded children into their new and free

5

---

nation, not knowing that this would be the beginning of the

Stolen Generation

and would

divide the country into half for a long time.

Back to the present: Through two world wars, the worldwide economic crisis and the cold

war, the young nation grew up and became an adult nation. Now Australia realises what

happened to it but its nation is unsure about how to cope with the problem.

3. Historical Background

3.1 James Cook and his way of treating the Native Australians

In 1642, the Dutch sailor Tasman discovered the Van-Diemens-Land, which today is

called Tasmania.

On the morning of the 19th of April 1770, Zachariah Hicks, the first officer of the Royal Navy

Whitby Cat

1 Endeavour, was the first European who saw the coast of Australia. The secret

order James Cook got of the British admiralty was to discover the legendary

Terra Australia

Incognita

. On the 28th of April, the Endeavour dropped their anchors at Botany Bay and for

the first time in history, a European crew got in touch with

Down Under

. James Cook was a

very careful man and so he planned to make great effort to get on well with the native

Australians. However, when Isaac Smith, who was a cousin of Cook′s wife, made the first

step on the new land, he was welcomed by a group of warriors, who were throwing stones and

Boomerangs at him. Cook did not know what it was so he called it a

Throwing stick

2.

In these few days two completely different cultures clashed together. Both sides did not

hesitate to use weapons to defeat themselves and their traditions. Cook shot in the air for a

few times to increase the radius of the Aborigines who were standing around him and his

group. It seemed to work. From this time on, Cook could not get in touch with the Aborigines

anymore. There were a few more contacts between the crew and the Aborigines at some other

spots of the east coast. However, every effort to communicate with this newly discovered

culture was dominated by misunderstandings.

3.2 The Treatment of the Indigenous People of North America

Arriving in North America around 1400, the whites mainly planned to increase their wealth.

This certainly led to a lot of conflicts with the actual indigenous population of America. An

additional factor of aggression was the fact that the whites were convinced they were

members of the most superior culture. Many conflicts were caused by this arrogance, starting

1 A special kind of ship, which carried coal in the London dockland

2 Aughton, Peter.

Dem Wind ausgeliefert.

6

---

with casual trading and ending with the distribution of land. In the 16th century, the church

proclaimed that it was not even certain that Indians were human beings. In many cases, the

whites accused Indian tribes to be barbarically. The only valid measures to compare the

Indians with the Europeans were European values.

The main difference between the American indigenous politics and the Australian one was

that in the U.S.A. there were treaties that arranged the living of both cultures. Often this did

not lead to complete contentment on both sides. At least this gave the Indians a legal base for

negotiations.

4. The Treatment of the Aboriginals in the Australian society

4.1 Racism

Many Aboriginal tribes lost their land when the Europeans started to colonize the

country at the beginning of the 19th century. Especially during the time of the gold rush

(1851-1852), the Whites took the valuable land of the tribes and ignored their land rights.

In 1937, the

Commonwealth and all States

passed the

Policy of Assimilation

, which guided

the governments until the 1950s:

The destiny of the natives of Aboriginal origin but not of the

full blood lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and [...] all

effort should be directed to that end. Efforts by all state authorities should be directed

towards the education of children of mixed blood at white standards, and their subsequent

employment under the same conditions as whites with a view to taking their place in the white

community.

3

.

In the 1960s, the policy was replaced by the

Policy of Integration

, which said

Aboriginal people could continue their cultural beliefs and live alongside others of different

cultures

.4.

In 1990, the government started the reconciliation process and founded the

Council for

Aboriginal Reconciliation,

which purpose it is to solve the

Mandatory Sentencing

problem

and the

Native Title

problem.

In 1993, the National Court of Australia passed the

Native Title Act

in which they declared

that the Aborigines had the right to negotiate.

In 1995 and 1996, the Northern Territory and Western Australia passed the

Mandatory

Sentencing

, which is designed to arrest people for property crimes up to twelve months. Poor

social groups mostly commit these crimes. This leads to the assumption that its real use is to

3 New South Wales Department of Education.

Social Justice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective

[online]

4 New South Wales Department of Education.

Social Justice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective

[online].

7

---

criminalise the Aborigines. It is easier to discriminate an evil Aborigine than a good one. This

behaviour of the government reminds one of general war tactic: Dehumanising the enemy for

decreasing the inhibition threshold of the warriors.

Then in 1998, the newly elected government under John Howard, which still is in power

nowadays, passed the

Native Title Amendment Acts

. These acts deprive the Aborigines of the

right to negotiate and are the inversion of the

National Title Acts

of 1993. The UN is still very

worried about these developments and asked Australia as the first democratic Western

country to eliminate the racial discrimination:

While the original 1993 Native Title Act was

delicately balanced act between the rights of the indigenous and non-indigenous title holders,

the amended act appears to create legal certainly for the Governments and third parties at the

expense of indigenous title

.5.

Does not this tactic of the Australian government show the real ′rights′ of the Aborigines? In

my opinion the Whites are the real criminals6. They illegally took the land of the Aborigines

who afterwards realised it and claim their rights today. The government works very hard

dehumanising the Aborigines, thereby making them less believable and trustable.

4.2 General Consequences of the Racism

In 2001, the population of Australia consisted of approximately 19 million people.

Among them live about 427 000 Aborigines, which is 2 percent of all Australians.

Compared to the Whites, the social situation of the Aborigines is in a very bad state. 15.5

Aboriginal babies out of 1000 die at birth, which are 10 more than of the Whites. The life

expectancy of the Aborigines is 20 years less than the White′s one. Diabetes, tuberculosis and

suicide are the reasons for the high death rate among the Aboriginal population. 21 percent of

the males and 9 percent of the women abuse alcohol. In 2000, the general unemployment-rate

was 7 percent, whereas 23 percent of the Aborigines were unemployed. One reason for the

high unemployment rate is the bad education of the Aborigines: Only 32 percent of the

Aboriginal children finish school. Most Aborigines are employed by the communities or the

government within

Community Development Employment Projects, CDEP.

They earn about

A$ 10,000 per year, which is A$ 2,500 under the official poverty line.

5 Hett, Julia.

Rassismus in Australien - GfbV-Stellungnahme zur Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus

[online].

6 Please refer to the Redfern Statement (5.1)

8

---

4.3 Reasons for the Children′s Removal

From the beginning of white settlement great parts of the Australian society were

convinced that a black child would not be able to survive in the high developed white society

at all. Only to the mixed blooded children were given the

chance

to assimilate into white

society. Many Australians thought that the problem′s solution lay in the removal of mixed

blooded children from home. The first law which regularised this was the

Policy of

Assimilation.

As described above, the government wanted to give those mixed blooded children the chance

to assimilate into the white and therefore European culture, religion and society. From their

point of view, the problem was that the families of these children had a

bad

influence on

them. Thus the decision was made to raise these children among Europeans. The aim was that

the children would forget their origin. In their opinion, they imagined the best possible result

could have been comparable to a low class white. This was a rather naive way of thinking. As

far back as in the 1900s, Sigmund Freud discovered that the first months of life are the most

important and most fixing ones for a child′s physical and mental development.

All in all, one could ask itself why the Government did not make any effort to study the

Aborigines and their way of life. For example, Aborigines live together in big families. In

case of illness or death of the mother there are always the grandparents and other family

members who will care for the child. The Whites did not know about these traditions or,

which is more likely, they did not respect them.

Since

before

1939 the Australian administrative bodies were given unrestricted power over

all families with Aboriginal members

7, the national Government passed the G

eneral Child

Welfare Act

in that year. Although that law

required the proof [...] the children were

neglected, uncontrollable or had to live in misery

[,

which includes the living by Aboriginal

traditions]

more and more children were removed from their

[origin]

families.

8.

Analysing so called

Welfare

it does not seem very generously anymore. In theory at least the

court process in the

Child Welfare Act

provided some safeguards against the unfounded

separation of children from their families. But in reality, this was not a big help for neither

child nor parents, because the courts often were located far from the Aboriginal communities.

The parents were not able to seek legal assistance. This and the following example show

inefficiency of the law:

In that time we had nobody. No-one to talk for us or anything... We

had to just go there... and... if we wanted to say something then, in court, it was too late. They

7 Kleinwächter, Sarah.

Living between two worlds ­ the Aborigines′ stolen children

[online].

8 Kleinwächter, Sarah.

Living between two worlds ­ the Aborigines′ stolen children

[online].

9

---

said it was already finished. And then, bang, they′re gone. That was it (quoted by Wootten

1983 on page 15).

9

The following example underlines the arbitrariness of the

General Child Welfare Act

:

The interpretation of

neglected

and

uncontrollable

, which was mentioned in the Child

Welfare

Act

, was done very widely. The word

neglect

included poverty and destitution and was a

constant feature of most Aboriginal families. Children who refused to go to school were

labelled

uncontrollable

. Often the reasons why the children ran away from home were that

they were sexual abused or even pregnant. Nobody cared about their conspicuous behaviour

and besides that -nobody would have believed them. In such cases the parents in which were

forced

to consent to the removal of their children the Board did not have to show that a child

was neglected or uncontrollable

10.

These assimilation practices, which were displayed on examples of the Northern Territory and

the Australian Capital Territory, carried on until 1975.

4.4 Consequences of the Removal

Most of the following text is based on the

Bringing them Home

report11, which was

published in 1997.

Every child of the Stolen Generation was in danger to turn into a victim of sexual abuse. Girls

were in a higher danger to get raped then boys. 7.7% of the boys and 17.0% of the girls

reported that they were victims of sexual abuse12. Both genders often were victims of these

crimes. Normally the children did not report those cases. The reason can mainly be found in

the dependence the children had of their

homes

. The foster families were their only constant

base they had, their only home. This is the reason why they were anxious of telling somebody

what was done to them. In their opinion, the

sneaking

would have led to the destruction of

their home. Usually the perpetrator put its victim under a huge pressure. Since in nine out of

ten cases of sexual abuse the perpetrator came out of the child′s very close social setting, the

child was in a dilemma: Every option of revealing itself to its environment would have meant

a great suffer for the young unsupported victim.

Because the children often were taken away at a very low age, they did not have any contact

to their parents who would have taught them essential abilities such as trusting the own

feelings. The raped child often did not know how to interpret this incident. Sure, it did not feel

9 Commonwealth of Australia.

Bringing Them Home Report

. Book 1, Page 34

10 Commonwealth of Australia.

Bringing Them Home Report

. Book 1, Page 34

11 For more information about this report please refer to National Reactions and Situations (5.4) for further

details

12 Please refer to the Appendix (9.2.1) for further details

10

---

good about being raped, but how could it have known that this was wrong. For example, a lot

of young children do not feel happy about going to school or taking a shower but as they are

taught these things are necessary. Unlike, nobody taught them that sexual abuses are wrong

and they were not given the chance to ask. If nobody teaches you the norms of society, how

can you rely on them? These children did not learn how valuable their feelings are. Often they

took themselves as a matter of cause as human beings of a second class.

Since a major aim of the children′s removal was the destruction of cultural links, the children

were living between two different worlds. On the one side there was their origin they did not

know anything about. On the other side there was the white society, which did not include

them. In most cases these children went through an identity crisis. As an adult, they very

quickly learned that they were not members of this society. There were still too many

differences, starting with the colour of their skin and ending with the traumatic experiences

during their childhood. This characterises the Aborigines until today: They don′t know where

they belong to. The first one does not accept them and the other one is nearly erased by the

first one, trying to assimilate the Aborigines into the white man′s society, which does not want

them. [Do you get it? ... I don′t either.] A lot of Aboriginal tribes forgot their traditions and

they are slowly recovering from the experiences with the European culture.

Therefore, you can say that the cultural base the Aborigines originally had was dumped by the

Whites. If a White now criticises an Aborigine to be a

drunken bum

[and this is quite often

true], this white person should ask itself whose fault it is that this colourful and peaceful race

lost its identity and forgot the sense of life.

It was forbidden for us to talk in our own language [...] we weren′t allowed to talk about

anything that belonged to our tribal life.13

4.5 Fate Report of a Stolen Child

John was removed from his home as a baby in 1940. Until he was 10, he lived at

Bomaderry Children′s Home, an ecclesiastical managed orphanage. He describes the place as

a not really terrible home but very impersonal. The Sisters of the Bomaderry Children′s Home

were nice to the children, but they did not clear them up about their origin and background.

All the children thought the Sisters were their parents. The only thing they told all these

young Aborigines was that they were Whites. This was part of the assimilation. As a result of

this, the children were not allowed to speak to coloured people.

13 Commonwealth of Australia.

Bringing Them Home Report

. Book 1, Page 152

11

---

At the age of 10, all children went on a train trip. None of the children knew what their

destination would be. When they arrived at Kinchela Boys′ Home, the first thing they had to

do was to burn their backpacks with their little bibles inside. This was a great loss for the

children, because those bibles were the only thing they had possessed. Every child got a

number which was printed on all their clothes. The Boy′s Home seemed to have their names

deleted. Everybody′s identity was minimised to a number. This was a terrible loss for the

children, because a name always is an important base one′s character. They lost the last part of

their identity in a time of puberty. Their identity was taken off them with methods, which very

strongly remind of the Holocaust. All this happened under the headline of assimilation.

At the same time, the Holocaust was brutal reality in Europe and was criticised by the

Australian government!14

5. National Reactions and Situations

5.1 The Redfern Statement

The so called

Redfern Statement

is a speech which was held on the International

Human Rights Day (10th of December 1992) at the Sydney suburb of Redfern by Paul Keating

(Australian Prime Minster, 1992) to launch the

United Nations International Year for the

World′s Indigenous People

.

This statement became very famous, because it was the first official confession done by an

Australian Prime Minister. The second reason for its fame is the location the speech was

given: Redfern is the Aboriginal ghetto of Sydney, only two train stations away from the

Olympic village.

Many Aboriginal spectators started crying when they heard this true and honest admission of

guild in Redfern. The general hope was that from this time on the reconciliation process

would develop easier. It seemed the government′s attitude towards the Aborigines had

changed when the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

(ATSIC) was founded.

The purpose of this commission is to represent the interests of the indigenous people of

Australia.

5.2 Official Government Statement

According to the Official Government Statement from 1997, the government believes

very strongly in the urgent need of

assisting family reunion

15. The facts of the

Stolen

14 For the original report of John, please refer to 9.2.2

15 Commonwealth of Australia.

Australia Now - Separated Indigenous Children

[online].

12

---

Generation

are well-known to the government and its consequences are obvious. But still the

government tries to palliate the facts: In the official government statement

The Stolen

Generation

is called

The Separated Indigenous Children

.

5.3 The Progress of the Reconciliation

Since the 1970s, there were several tries to couch a formal treaty or agreement. The

content was designed to regularize the rights of the Aborigines and provide a solid legal base

for further negotiations.

The first serious approach was made in 1991 by the Australian Parliament. It

unanimously

enacted the ′Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act′16.

The council′s task was to develop

documents of reconciliation

. The previous federal government and the current (1996-2003)

one have rejected the plans of an agreement with the explanation that the general population

would not be supported enough.

The next step was made on 26 August 1999; the Australian Parliament officially called the

reconciliation process an

[...] important national inquiry for all Australians17

. On 27-28 May

2000, the

Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

presented its report on the reconciliation

process. This will be a measure for further steps of the reconciliation.

5.4 The Bringing Them Home Report

In 1994, there was the

Going Home Conference

in Darwin (Northern Territory). Every

state and every territory was represented by one delegate. The members of the conference

shared experiences and tried to find solutions for the

Stolen Generation

problem. The aim was

to

meet the needs of those children and their families who survived18

.

In May 1995, the Government declared the

Separation of Aborigines

a national inquiry. The

reason for this first official step was the concern that the public′s lack of knowledge would

cumber recognition of the needs of the sacrifices and would hinder the government in helping

those victims.

On 11 May 1995, the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch MP, launched the

Bringing Them

Home Report

project. The inquiry started hearing victims on the 4th of December 1995 and

16 Office of indigenous Policy ­ Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Reconciliation

[online].

17 Office of indigenous Policy ­ Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Reconciliation

[online].

18 Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission / Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social

Justice.

Bringing them Home: The ′Stolen Children′ report

[online].

13

---

finished the hearing on 3 October 1996. During this time, inquiry teams visited various places

in every Australian state and territory19.

Many public evidences were taken from different organisations and individuals. Most of the

time these evidences were recorded but there are also some oral ones. All in all, the team

collected 777 submissions of individuals, the church and the government.

The

Bringing them Home

report is one main source of this research paper and provides the

reader with personal experiences about the

Stolen Generation

.

5.5 The Future of the Aborigines under the John Howard Government

In general, it can be said that the Aborigines have to be aware of the fact that they face

a murkily future.

Both major parties, the conservative coalition of John Howard and the labour opposition of

Kim Beazley, think that the Aboriginal welfare is a serious policy. Further, both parties say

that reconciliation is a priority. However, they differ over the way of achieving this goal: The

governing party of John Howard does not believe that an apology would make any difference

to the issue. The opposition leader, Kim Beazley, says that his party would make a formal

apology to the Aborigines for past injustices. This would be one expectancy of the

Aborigines. They would not care whose parliament would apologize.

All in all, one cannot expect too much, accounting that the conservative coalition was able to

increase their votes up to 46% during the elections in November 2001.

Every Aborigine wished himself only to hear this small word:

Sorry.

5.6 The Sorry Book

It started on 26 January 1988 (Australia Day), when four books started to go around

the country. The books had blank pages. Every willing Australian had the opportunity to show

his deeply regret towards the suffering of the Indigenous population of Australia as a result of

European settlement. Within a few months the number of books increased up to around

thousand with about 1 million signatures. These books, containing the

people′s apology

, got

famous and soon they were called

the Sorry Book.

On 26 May 1998, the government organised the National Sorry Day. On this day, Sorry

Books were lying out in community houses, town halls and other public places. In Sydney,

hundreds of those books were presented to representative of the

Stolen Generation

.

19 For a list of all visited places, please refer to 9.3.3

14

---

6. International Reactions and Conventions

6.1 The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide (9th of December 1948)

On 9 December 1948, 41 signatories and 133 parties20 corroborated the UN

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Australia was one

of these countries and signed the treaty on the 11th of December 1948. At this time, shortly

after the end of World War II, the German Holocaust was still very present in the minds of the

world′s civilisation.

The whole treaty has got 19 articles. The second article of this treaty is of special interest the

Stolen Generation

incident:

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent

to destroy, in the whole or in part, a national, ethnical, radical or religious group, such as:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of the life calculated to bring about its

physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

21

The article no. 2 defines the expression

Genocide

very clearly. In part, (e) is written that the

forcible transfer of children out of one group into another is called

Genocide

. This exactly is

what the Australian government officially did from 1910 until 1979 (the details vary from

1970 until 1979).

Two years ago, the UN was trying to make a study on the racism in Australia:

The Australian

government simply denied its agreement to it

22. This shows the actual power of the Australian

government although it signed the convention mentioned before. According to this convention

(article 6), Australia should have been charged with genocide by an international tribunal.

Neither the European Union or the U.S.A. nor the United Nations reacted seriously on these

facts.

20 United Nations.

Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General- TREATY I-IV--1

[online].

21 United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [online].

22 Racota, Despina.

Werden die Aborigines um Entschuldigung gebeten?

[online].

15

---

6.2 The Human Rights Committee

The UN

Human Rights Committee

tried for a few times to investigate the circumstances23 of

the

Stolen Generation

Removal. Among other things, they asked for details concerning the

present situation of the indigenous children (by now adults) who were taken away between

1910 and the 1970s24. The representative of the Australian government

could give no precise

figures for the number of children involved, since the practice had taken place all over

Australia [...].

25. This shows the disability and shyness the Australian government has to

investigate this matter.

6.3 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The UN

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

is the second one after the

UN

Human Rights Committee (6.2)

, which worries about the situation of the Aborigines in

Australia. In their summary record of the 1394th meeting26, it is said in Point 5 that

The

Commission [of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity of the UN] had made 54

recommendations concerning the responsibility of the Commonwealth, states and territory

governments [of the Stolen Children Incident].

27

The Commission had requested all

Australian parliaments to apologise for the forcible removal of ingenious children in the

past.

28

Until the creation of this record summary,29 no Australian parliament had formally apologised

to the ingenious population. They had argued that the Aboriginal children only had been taken

away in cases of families being split up. Arguing like this leads to the consumption that the

Australian parliaments completely ignored that Aborigines live in a greater family circuit,

including uncles, aunts and grandparents.

It does not seem possible for the UN committees to talk to representatives of the Australian

government about the

Stolen Generation

problem, because Australia does not face the facts of

this issue.

23 Brinkmeier, Friederike.

From MenschenRechtsZentrum der Universität Potsdam, To Jonas-Benjamin Walther

[letter].

24 United Nations ­ Office of the High commissioner for Human Rights.

List of Issues: Australia

[online]. Point

6.

25 United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary Record of the 1856th meeting:
Australia

[online]. Point 25.

26 United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary record of the 1394th meeting:

Australia [online]. Point 5

27 United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary record of the 1394th meeting:

Australia [online]. Point 5

28 United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary record of the 1394th meeting:

Australia [online]. Point 5

29 S United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary record of the 1394th
meeting:

Australia [online].

16

---

6.4 Reactions of other Countries

6.4.1 The Federal Republic of Germany

The reaction of Germany to Australia′s Stolen Generation issue as well as to its

Human Rights situation can be delineated very quickly:

There is no reaction.

30. This was told

me by Hans Wiesmann who is the chief of the

Fachreferat Australian

at the

Bundespresseamt

in Berlin31. A bit shocked through this answer I asked wether that would mean that the

German Government behaves neutral towards the Australian Government. I learned that my

country officially does not know about anything. The Federal Republic of Germany seems to

simply ignore the facts, which is not a better behaviour than the Australian government shows

towards the Aborigines.

The word

Australia

is mentioned only once in the Human Rights report of the Federal

Republic of Germany. This happens in the connection with discussion about the

discrimination of homosexual people.

6.4.2 The European Union

The European Union (EU) publishes human rights reports about nearly every country.

In the opinion of the EU, Australia is not without problems, which is discussed in the

Case

Study: Australia

32. This report says that although Australia received excellent reports of

several world organisations that watch over human rights, it has to face the several human

rights disregards. The most obvious and serious human rights abuses

seem to the pervasive

deaths of Aborigines in custody32.

The writer of this report, Saitta, believes that the main reason for the discrimination of

Aborigines and other ethnical groups lies in the big variety of races, religious groups and the

relationship to the Commonwealth.

He also compares the situation in Australia with the one in Russia. Although there are many

differences between these two countries, the few similarities can show, why human rights are

handled similar in both countries. Australia and Russia both are within a commonwealth and

30 Wiesmann, Hans ­ Bundespresseamt.

Reactions of the federal government on the ′stolen generation incident′

[phone call].

31 Please refer to 9.3.4 for the address of the Bundespresseamt Berlin

32 Saitta, Maurizio, EU Information and Communication expert ­ European Expertise Service.

Best practices in
human rights strategies ­ a case study: Australia

[online].

17

---

both have a multiethnic and multicultural compositions within one dominant group [...]

32.

Both countries are spanned over big territories. This fact makes it hard to rule the country.

All over all, you can say that the European Union is aware of the human rights problems in

Australia, but does not draw consequences out of it. I am not sure wether the European Union

is already that powerful, to act as an autonomous country or rather as an organisation.

6.4.3 The United States of America

Every year, the United States of America (U.S.A.) publish very detailed human rights

reports of many countries. The latest versions are the

Country Reports on human Rights

Practices - 200133

.

In general, the report concerning Australia says that the Australian government respects the

human rights of its citizens. The only reported abuse of the human rights is the death of 92

people in custody in 2001. This is a very significant number additional to that most of these

people were Aborigines. Thirty-one deaths were attributed to suicide. Further, the police

behaves very dominant especially towards the Aborigines. Six people died because of high-

speed car chases with the police and another six people were shot by the police.

The report does not mention the

native title act

or the

stolen generation

at all. The U.S.A.

does not draw consequences out of these human rights abuses just as all other countries.

7. Conclusion

The things, which make Australia one of the most colourful and most open nations, are

also its biggest problems. The Aborigines, the national and international conflicts and the

huge variety of races formed Australia the country so many people love and want to

experience today. It will take a long time to compensate all the heavy emotions involved in

the Aboriginal and the White′s. As long as the Australian nation and its spirit do not give up,

there will be the process of reconciliation.

As an example, I think of our own country, Germany. It took and still takes a lot of effort to

digest the World War II. In times all people effected by the Nazis will be gone, there will be a

new generation, untouched by the Holocaust but not unaffected by it. Through discussions

with Australians, I got to know the opinion that alternative of dealing with the Nazi history of

Germany: People were making jokes of the Nazis and Hitler, not cruel ones. For me, just to

33 U.S. Department of State ­ Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

Australia ­ Country Report on
Human Rights Practices

[online].

18

---

mention the Nazi regime in a joke was enough. I was stunned by it and asked myself how

people could talk like this. But they can because the Holocaust is far away from them. It took

place in the past. Time has moved on. Today′s Australians do not connect us Germans with

Hitler anymore.

The Australian nation is going through a similar process, which will have an end at some

point in the future. Probably at that time, there will be new conflicts, but they do not matter

right now.

The Aborigines are the heartbeat of the Australian Spirit.

19

---

8. Annotation

While I read the collected material I researched to give this paper about Australia′s

Stolen Generation

a fundamental base, I realised to what extent this topic also effects the

people outside of Australia. This was the motivation why I decided to concentrate on the

reasons and consequences of this topic. Caused through the importance of those factors for us

as members of a very important economic country we should be interested in influencing

these consequences.

This paper is also designed to show the reader that Germany is not a country which respects

the human rights in every regard. In my opinion, the verb

to respect

includes, that in the case

of someone else not

respecting

something, you let him feel the consequences of this

disrespect.

20

---

9. Appendix

9.1 Bibliography

1. Amnesty International Deutschland.

Jahresbericht 1999 Australien

[online]. 16 June

1999.

http://www2.amnesty.de/C1256A380047FD78/0/4F1D3FE14E370920C1256AA0004

2D021?Open (l.c. 12.02.2002)

2. Anonymous.

Australians for Native Title ­ Sorry Day, 26 May 1998

[online].

http://www.nativetitle.aust.com/sorrybook/sorryday.html (l.c. 07.03.2002)

3. Anonymous.

Australians for Native Title ­ What Does The Sorry Book Say?

[online].

http://www.nativetitle.aust.com/sorrybook/what.html (l.c. 07.03.2002)

4. Anonymous.

Australians for Native Title

[online].

http://www.nativetitle.aust.com/index.html (l.c. 07.03.2002)

5. Aughton, Peter.

Dem Wind ausgeliefert.

2nd edition. Munich and Zurich: Diana

Verlag AG, 2001

6. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission / Aboriginal & Torres

Strait Islander Social Justice.

Bringing them home: The `Stolen Children′ report

[online].

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/stolen_children/index.html (l.c. 06.02.2002)

7. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

HREOC Website:

Moving Forward Conference

[online]. Update 12 February 2002.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/movingforward/ (l.c. 13.02.2002)

8. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Human Rights and

Equal Opportunity Commission Website: Social Justice

[online]. April 2000, update: 2

December 2001.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/index.html (l.c. 13.02.2002)

9. Australian Immigration Department.

Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Affairs

[online].

http://www.immi.gov.au/oatsia/index.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

10. Auswärtiges Amt.

Ausgabe aller Vertretungen eines Landes

[online].

http://www.auswaertiges-

amt.de/www/de/laenderinfos/vertretungen/ausl_vertretung?land_id=13 (l.c.

13.02.2002)

11. Blickle, Nadja.

The present situation of Aborigines in Australia

[online]. 2000.

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/archiv/englisch/engl-o-present.shtml (l.c. 06.02.2002)

12. Brinkmeier, Friederike.

From: MenschenRechtsZentrum der Univerität Potsdam, To:

Jonas-Benjamin Walther

[letter]. 19 February 2002.

21

---

13. Commonwealth of Australia.

Australia Now - Separated Indigenous Children

[online].

2000, update 27 September 2001.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/separated_children.html (l.c. 08.02.2002)

14. Commonwealth of Australia.

Redfern Park Statement

[online]. Speech held by Paul

Keating, Prime Minister of Australia in 1992.

http://www.omen.net.au/~staffy/redfern.html (l.c. 12.02.2002)

15. Commonwealth of Australia.

Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families

.

Bringing them
Home Report

. 1997.

16. Decoust, Michèle.

Ein verdrängtes Kapitel australischer Geschichte

[online]. March

2000.

http://www.geographie.uni-stuttgart.de/~mma/presse/aborigines.html (l.c. 18.02.2002)

17. Fenner, Patricia.

Down Under ­ Images of Australia.

Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag 1989

18. Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker.

Dossier Sydney 2000 - Update 14.08.2000

[online].

11 August 2000, update: 14 August 2000.

http://www.gfbv.de/voelker/pazifik/olympia/update_5.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

19. Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker.

Olympiade 2000 in Australien. Ureinwohner Opfer

von Rassismus. Sep. 2000

[online]. September 2000.

http://www.ines.org/apm-gfbv/3dossier/australdt.html (l.c. 18.02.2002)

20. Hohmann, Sybille.

Stolen Generation ­ das Verbrechen des Kindesraubes and den

Aborigines in Australien

[online]. 1998.

http://www.gfbv.de/voelker/pazifik/olympia/stolen1.htm (l.c. 25.01.2002)

21. Kleinwächter, Sarah.

Living between two worlds ­ the Aborigines′ stolen children

[online]. March 2001.

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/rd/archiv/englisch/engl-text155.shtml (l.c. 25.01.2002)

22. Klewitz Dr., Bernd.

Australian Encounters.

Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag, 2002

23. Kramer, Jörg.

"Seid stolz auf euch!"

[online]. Der Spiegel. Ed. 38/2000. 18 September

2000.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,93726,00.html (l.c. 05.03.2002)

24. Krohn, Boris.

Ein Leben zwischen Resignation und kultureller Renaissance

[online].

Die Welt ed. 15 September 2000.

http://www.welt.de/daten/2000/09/15/0915au191070.htx (l.c. 12.02.2002)

25. Mercer, Phil.

Winning Australia′s aboriginal vote

[online]. BBC News. 25 October

2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1619000/1619506.stm (l.c.

6 March 2002)

22

---

26. New South Wales Department of Education ­ Charles Stuart University.

Social

Juustice & Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective

[online]. August 2001.

http://www.gfbv.de/uno/durban/durban_1.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

27. New South Wales Department of Education ­ Charles Stuart University.

Social Justice

& Human Rights Issue: A Global Perspective

[online].

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ab_studies/rights/global/social_justice_global/sjwelcome.policies

.front.htm (l.c. 03.03.2002)

28. Office of indigenous Policy ­ Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Reconciliation

[online].

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/atsia/facts/reconciliation.pdf (l.c. 18.02.2002)

29. Public Affairs, Australian Embassy Berlin [presse@australian-embassy.de].

Re:

Auskünfte für eine Facharbeit über `The Stolen Children′

[Email]. 8 February 2002.

30. Racota, Despina.

Werden die Aborigines um Entschuldigung gebeten?

[online]. 12

February/March 1999.

http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/apsa/pn/pn12/australien.html (l.c. 20.02.2002)

31. Romeo, Antonella.

Die geraubte Generation

[online]. Die Zeit ed. 23/2000. 2000.

http://www.zeit.de/2000/23/200023_australien_neu.html (l.c. 12.02.2002)

32. Saitta, Maurizio, EU Information and Communication expert ­ European Expertise

Service.

Best practices in human rights strategies ­ a case study: Australia

[online].

13 February 2002.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ees/projects/docs/RUS36_annex_i_comp

endium_final_version.doc (l.c. 09.03.2002)

33. Sondermann, Ariadne/Rathgeber, Theodor.

Australien vor den Wahlen vom 3. Oktober

1998

[online]. 28 September 1998.

http://www.gfbv.de/dokus/memoabor.htm (l.c. 13.02.2002)

34. Stahl, Branko.

Appell Australien

[online].

http://www.amnesty.de/de/3610/aust1198.htm (l.c. 18.02.2002)

35. Supp, Eckhart.

Australiens Aborigines, Ende der Traumzeit

. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag

Herbert Grundmann, 1985

36. U.S. Department of State ­ Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

Australia ­ Country Report on Human Rights Practices

[online]. 2001.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8249.htm

37. United Nations - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary

Record of the 1059th meeting: Australia

[online]

.

18 August 1994. CERD/C/SR.1058

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1059.En?Opendocument (l.c.

13.02.2002)

38. United Nations - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary

record of the 1058th meeting: Australia

[online]. 5 August 1996. CERD/C/SR.1058.

23

---

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1058.En?Opendocument (l.c.

12.02.2002)

39. United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Convention on

the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

[online].

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm (l.c. 19.02.2002)

40. United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary

record of the 1395th meeting: Australia, Tonga, Zimbabwe

[online]. 3 April 2000.

CERD/C/SR.1395.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1395.En?Opendocument (l.c.

12.02.2002)

41. United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary

record of the 1394th meeting: Australia

[online]. 9 February 2001. CERD/C/SR.1394.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1394.En?Opendocument (l.c.

12.02.2002)

42. United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Concluding

observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia

[online]. 24 July 2000.

A/55/40.paras.498-528.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/A.55.40,paras.498-

528.En?Opendocument (l.c. 12.02.2002)

43. United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Summary

record of the 1856th meeting: Australia

[online]. 28 July 2000. CERD/C/SR.1856.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/cerd.c.sr.1856.En?Opendocument (l.c.

12.02.2002)

44. United Nations ­ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

List of Issues:

Australia

[online]

.

25 April 2000. CCPR/C/69/L/AUS.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/ccpr.c.69.l.aus.En?Opendocument (l.c.

12.02.2002)

45. United Nations

. [21 Jul 2000] HR/CT/580 : HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE STARTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN
AUSTRALIA

[online]. 21 July 2000.

http://srch1.un.org/plweb-

cgi/fastweb?state_id=1015515649&view=unsearch&numhitsfound=1&query=HR%2

FCT%2F580&&docid=1310&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVAN

CE&operator=adj&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1 (l.c. 13.02.2002)

46. United Nations.

Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General- TREATY

I-IV--1

[online]. 9 October 2001.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty1gen.htm (l.c. 18.02.2002)

47. Universität Potsdam.

MenschenRechtsZentrum der Univerität Potsdam

[online].

http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/mrz/rechts.htm (l.c. 07.03.2002)

48. Völkermord Verhütung International / Prevent Genocide International.

Völkermord,

Konvention über die Verhütung und Bestrafung des - - Völkermord Verhütung

24

---

International

[online]. Update: 2 April 2001.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/de/recht/konvention/text.htm (l.c. 18.02.2002)

49. Wiesmann, Hans ­ Bundespresseamt.

Reactions of the federal government concerning

the ′stolen generation incident′

[Phone call]. 22 February 2002 at 13:53. Phone

number: 01888/272-4145

9.2 Tables

9.2.1 Sexual assaults reported by Inquiry witnesses

Placement Males

Females

Reported

Not

reported

Reported Not

reported

Institution

10 (8.5%)

108 (91.5%)

19 (11.7%)

144 (88.3%)

Foster family

5 (10%)

45 (90%)

21 (29.6%)

50 (70.4%)

Adoptive family

1 (4.8%)

20 (95.2%)

6 (27.3%)

16 (72.7%)

Work

0 ( - )

19 (100%)

4 (10.5%)

34 (89.5%)

Total

16 (7.7%)

192 (92.3%)

50 (17.0%)

244 (83.0%)

9.2.2 After-effects of forcible removal

Effects Yes No

No

answer

Total

Physical-ill-health 113

(21.4%)

177 (36.6%)

193 (40.0%)

483 (100%)

Mental problems

68 (14.1%)

234 (48.4%)

181 (37.5%)

483 (100%)

Substance abuse

79 (16.4%)

216 (44.7%)

188 (38.9%)

483 (100%)

Imprisonment 122

(25.3%)

193

(40.0%)

168 (34.7%)

483 (100%)

9.3 Original Sources

9.3.1 Fate report of a Stolen Child

"We didn′t have a clue where we came from. We thought the Sisters were our parents.

They didn′t tell anybody ­ any of the kids ­ where they came from. Babies were coming in

nearly every day. Some of the kids cam in at two, three, four days old ­ not months ­ but

days. They were just placed in the home and it was run by Christian women and all the kids

thought it was one big family. We didn′t know what it meant by ′parents′ cause we didn′t have

parents and we thought those women were our mothers.

It was definitely not told that I was Aboriginal. What the Sisters told us was that we had to be

white. It was drummed into our heads that we were white. It didn′t matter what shade you

were. We thought we were white. They said you can′t talk to any of them coloured people

because you are white.

I can′t remember anyone from the welfare coming there. If they did I can′t remember... We

hardly saw any visitors whatsoever. None of the other kids had visits from their parents. No

visits from family. The worst part is, we didn′t know we had a family.

When you got to a certain age ­ like I got to 10 years old... they just told us we were going on

a train trip... We all lined up with our little ports [school cases] with a bible inside. That′s all

that was in the ports, see. We really treasured that ­ we thought it was a good thing that we

25

---

had something... the old man from La Perouse took us from Sydney ­ well actually from

Bomaderry to Kinchela Boys′ Home. That′s when our problems really started ­ you know!

This is where we learned that we weren′t white. First of all they took you in through these

iron gates and took our little ports [suitcases] off us. Stick it in the fire with your little bible

inside. They took us around to a room and shaved our hair off ... They gave you your clothes

and stamped a number on them ... They never called you by your name; they called you by

your number. That number was stamped on everything.

If we answered an attendant back we were `sent up the line′. Now I don′t know if you can

imagine, 79 boys punching the hell out of you ­ just knuckling you. Even your brother, your

cousin.

They had to ­ if they didn′t do it, they were sent up to the line. When the boys who had

broken ribs or broken noses ­ they′d have to pick you and carry you right through to the last

bloke. Now that didn′t happen once ­ that happened every day.

Before I went to Kinchela, they used the cat-o′-nine-tails on the boys instead of being sent up

the line. This was in the 30s and early 40s. [This time should remind all German of the

Holocaust and now compare it with this story!]

Kinchela was a place where they thought you were animals. You know it was like a place

where they go around and kick us like a dog... It was just like a prison. Truthfully, there were

boys having sex with boys... But these other dirty mongrels didn′t care. We had a manager

who was sent to prison because he was doing it to a lot of the boys, sexual abuse. Nothing was

done. There was a pommie bloke [Englishman] that was doing it. These attendants ­ if the

boys told them, they wouldn′t even listen. It just happened... I don′t like talking about it.

We never went into town... the school was in the home... all we did was work, work, work.

Every six months you were dressed up. Oh mate! You were done up beautiful ­ white shirt.

The welfare used to come up from Bridge St, the main bloke, the superintendent to check the

home out ­ every six months.

We were prisoners from when we were born... the girls who went to Cootamundra and the

boys who went to Kinchela ­ we were all prisoners. Even today they have our file number so

we′re still prisoners you know. And we′ll always be prisoners while our files are in archives.

(Confidential evidence 436, New South Wales)"34

9.3.2 The ′Terms of Reference′ of the ′Bringing them Home′ report35

· The first was to examine the past and continuing effects of separation of individuals,

families and communities. The inquiry relied upon Indigenous and non-Indigenous

individuals, government and non-government organisations to participate by making

submissions or giving evidence to the Inquiry.

· The second was to identify what should be done in response, which could entail

recommendations to chance laws, policies and practices, to re-unite families and

otherwise deal with losses caused by separation.

· The third was to find justification for, and nature of, and compensation for those

affected by separation.

· The last looked at current laws, policies and practices affecting the placement and care

of Indigenous children. This included looking into the welfare and juvenile justice

systems, and advising on any changes in the light of the principles.

34 Bringing them Home report, Book 1, Pages 126-127

35 Quelle 24

26

---

9.3.3 The places visited by the ′Bringing them Home report′ writers

New South Wales ­ Redfern, Campbelltown, Nowra, Sydney, Grafton, Dubbo, Broken Hill

and Wilcannia

Australian Capital Territory

­ Canberra

Victoria

­ Melbourne, Lake Tyres, Bairnsdale, Morwell, Ballarat, Geelong, Framlingtown,

Portland, Mildura, Swan Hill, Echuca

Queensland

­ Brisbane, Rockhampton, Palm Island, Townsville, Caims and Thursday Island

South Australia

­ Adelaide, Coober Pedy, Glossop, Murray Bridge, Port Lincoln, Ceduna,

Raukkan, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Berri

Western Australia

­ Perth, Halls Creek, Broome, Bunderry and Katunning

Northern Territory

­ Darwin and Alice Springs

Tasmania

­ Hobart, Flinders Island, Cape Barren Island, Wybalenna, Launceston, Burnie

9.3.4 The address of the ′Bundespresseamt′

Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung

Dorotheestr. 84

10117 Berlin

Telefon: 01888/272-0

27

---

10. Proclamation

Selbstständigkeitserklärung

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Facharbeit selbständig angefertigt, keine anderen

als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel benutzt habe und die Stellen der Facharbeit, die im Wortlaut

oder im wesentlichen Inhalt aus anderen Werken entnommen wurden, mit genauer

Quellenangabe kenntlich gemacht habe.

____________________________________

(Unterschrift)

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich damit einverstanden bin, wenn die von mir

verfasste Facharbeit der schulinternen Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht wird.

____________________________________

(Unterschrift)

28

---