Subject to interpretation

17/12/09; The Australian, Letters; No Internet Text

Leaving aside the issue of allegtions being exactly that and not roof of an event, Keith Windschuttle continues to ignore the fact that the documents he finds and the issues he raises are subject to interpretation (“Rabbit-Proof Fence grossly inaccurate: Windschuttle,” 14/12). Having sexual relations with a minor was a crime then just as it is now. The fact that the authorities considered it more appropriate to remove the victims of the crime and further victimise them by separating them from their families and community suggests that the course of action was motivated by something other than concern for the girls’ welfare. As we cannot now query those involved, we will never know for certain if racism affected the decision- making process, but at a minimum the decision lacked compassion for the girls and their families. It’s time for Windshuttle to acknowledge that what he describes as truth is merely the reading he chooses to ascribe to an event. Tina Dolgopol, Associate Professorof Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA