Magistrates' strange prejudices
Today's Herald - Sun 11 Jul 06 - carries the story, "I reported sex abuse", by Kate Uebergang on page 23. (There is no link available on their site yet. I'll add that later.)
Because she knows that if the complaints were made directly to the Ombudsmans' offices, either for Disability or Human Rights, they would be sent back to her. The Ombudsmans' offices are required by state-defined mandate to only respond to complaints after they have been submitted to the operators of care homes!
Although he faces four counts of rape, and has four witnesses testifying about his maltreatment of the elderly and disabled, Mr Alexander is not required to enter a plea because he is only facing a preliminary hearing.
Magistrates' courts will force witnesses to testify repeatedly, first in preliminary hearings then in what may be a series of incremental trials when charges of rape and abuse are lodged against the elderly and disabled.
The magistrate, Peter Reardon, issued no injunction against the care home or Mr Alexander. Mr Alexander may soon be the only employee of the care home involved in this case still working. Given the new IR laws, the four who are testifying may soon be dismissed.
The process indicates the Australian national prejudice against the elderly and disabled in fine detail. That charges were brought at all is a small miracle, given the step-wise, bureaucratic hoops that protect the abusers of the elderly and disabled.
If the abuses, even rapes, had been in a private home, there would have been no charges.
First, the Disability Ombudsman does not deal with complaints unless they involve government or institutions (companies).
Second, the police will often dismiss such charges as a "civil matter", even if they involve theft, assault, and accusations of rape -- especially if a male victim is involved. Even federally protected items such as passports and identity papers are only "civil matters." (The fact that there is no civil charge of theft is ... not noticed?)
Put in plain english: The elderly and disabled are there to be abused and used in any manner; their property can be taken on any pretense.
The management of the care facility know this. So does Mr Alexander.
If the people who were abused were men, there would not have been any charges, simply. The only reason there is even a preliminary hearing is that Mr Alexander is accused of four rapes. I doubt one rape charge would have triggered any action.
Yet the same courts and magistrates will accept unsubstantiated charges of abuse by a partner or father, remove him permanently from his home and possessions, and his children for years, with what is legally defined as a preliminary hearing.
And if the man is disabled, physically and/or mentally, he will be treated with disgust at all levels of the legal system: from Legal Aid to the court clerks and bailiffs, 000 operators, the police, and then in front of the magistrate. I can attest to these facts myself from my own experience.
Paul Donley
PS A similar story was published over the last few days in the press and news media, but drew no particular public interest. The oldest living Australian is being forced out of her care home because of an unresponsive bureaucracy and a landlord dispute. In her naivete, she has made a public plea to the Prime Minister, John Howard. -- It'll be ignored as a "civil matter."
The "cruel" behaviour of a nursing home career accused of sexually assaulting four elderly women was ignored by management despite complaints by colleagues, a court has heard.Mr Alexander is now facing four counts of rape. Three other carer workers at the same facility had complained of his "rough treatment" of patients. -- Why would the boss, Heila Brooks, feel free to rip up a written complaint?
A former carer at the George Vowell Home in Mt Eliza told Melbourne Magistrates' Court yesterday her written complaint about fellow staff member Henry Alexander was ripped up in front of her by the nursing home boss.
Because she knows that if the complaints were made directly to the Ombudsmans' offices, either for Disability or Human Rights, they would be sent back to her. The Ombudsmans' offices are required by state-defined mandate to only respond to complaints after they have been submitted to the operators of care homes!
Although he faces four counts of rape, and has four witnesses testifying about his maltreatment of the elderly and disabled, Mr Alexander is not required to enter a plea because he is only facing a preliminary hearing.
Anne Girvani told the court she saw Mr Alexander sexually assault an elderly woman twice while washing her in bed.
...
Ms Girvani said she did not lodge a written complaint with management because she believed nothing would be done about it.
Magistrates' courts will force witnesses to testify repeatedly, first in preliminary hearings then in what may be a series of incremental trials when charges of rape and abuse are lodged against the elderly and disabled.
The magistrate, Peter Reardon, issued no injunction against the care home or Mr Alexander. Mr Alexander may soon be the only employee of the care home involved in this case still working. Given the new IR laws, the four who are testifying may soon be dismissed.
The process indicates the Australian national prejudice against the elderly and disabled in fine detail. That charges were brought at all is a small miracle, given the step-wise, bureaucratic hoops that protect the abusers of the elderly and disabled.
If the abuses, even rapes, had been in a private home, there would have been no charges.
First, the Disability Ombudsman does not deal with complaints unless they involve government or institutions (companies).
Second, the police will often dismiss such charges as a "civil matter", even if they involve theft, assault, and accusations of rape -- especially if a male victim is involved. Even federally protected items such as passports and identity papers are only "civil matters." (The fact that there is no civil charge of theft is ... not noticed?)
Put in plain english: The elderly and disabled are there to be abused and used in any manner; their property can be taken on any pretense.
The management of the care facility know this. So does Mr Alexander.
If the people who were abused were men, there would not have been any charges, simply. The only reason there is even a preliminary hearing is that Mr Alexander is accused of four rapes. I doubt one rape charge would have triggered any action.
Yet the same courts and magistrates will accept unsubstantiated charges of abuse by a partner or father, remove him permanently from his home and possessions, and his children for years, with what is legally defined as a preliminary hearing.
And if the man is disabled, physically and/or mentally, he will be treated with disgust at all levels of the legal system: from Legal Aid to the court clerks and bailiffs, 000 operators, the police, and then in front of the magistrate. I can attest to these facts myself from my own experience.
Paul Donley
PS A similar story was published over the last few days in the press and news media, but drew no particular public interest. The oldest living Australian is being forced out of her care home because of an unresponsive bureaucracy and a landlord dispute. In her naivete, she has made a public plea to the Prime Minister, John Howard. -- It'll be ignored as a "civil matter."
posted by Unknown at
10:02 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home