Media Release 22/04/24
HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY IS ON LIFE SUPPORT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Human Rights Advocate & Forensic Social Worker, Matilda Bawden, warns against the introduction of the Social Worker Registration Scheme (SWRS), in light of the AASW’s distinct lack of interest in championing human rights abuses in the State of South Australia.
Ms. Bawden warns, “A SWRS will only be to the Social Work profession that which the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) is to the medical profession and we have now seen good, innocent and highly skilled medical practitioners and health service providers driven out of their professions; leaving sick and injured South Australians to suffer in long queues at medical practices and hospitals across the State while desperate patients are left to flounder or die in a broken and dysfunctional “health” system.”
“Social Workers, by profession, are the last line of defence against tyrannical governments and there is nothing to stop a SWRS from being captured by bad actors within the profession, academia and the State’s bureaucracy”, Ms. Bawden said. “It will inevitably become just another unelected body of elites whose role will be to protect certain public officials whilst bullying, threatening and harassing any political dissenters out of the profession”.
“In 2008, the AASW had no interest whatsoever in even making a submission to the Select Committee Inquiry into Families SA and had to be specifically invited, urged and encouraged by the Hon Ann Bressington MLC to submit so much as a one-pager, but that was to no avail. The AASW was MIA!” Ms. Bawden said.
“Yes, it is true that anyone can call themselves a Social Worker and do untold damage; just as those paid-up AASW members who remained silent throughout the last four years of human rights abuses, whilst tyrannical edicts saw ordinary people: incarcerated; denied health care; forced out of homes, jobs and businesses; and, even sent into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the AASW was nowhere to be seen or heard on the ethical principles of “Informed Consent”, “Least Restrictive Alternative”, “Conscientious Objection” or “Do No Harm”. Moreover, it had no interest in the “lived experience” of vaccine injured patients or their families, nor did it even raise a voice when one of their own was gagged by the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission (HCSCC), despite legal exemption from any such prohibition or persecution”, Ms. Bawden said.
“None of the long-held ethical values which underpinned our professional practices since people with disabilities were deinstitutionalised in the late 1980’s, were championed by the AASW, so one can have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the AASW won’t silently play a role in cementing a new dystopian set of ethical values which will permeate throughout government, NGO’s and the corporate sectors” Ms. Bawden said.
Experience now shows that under a regulatory board, Social Workers will be prohibited from: expressing political opinions; championing the cause of Whistleblowers; speaking out against government policies and practices; or, raising an alarm about any area of human existence where there is oppression or injustice, as our world moves rapidly towards reinstitutionalising the disabled and returning to the paternalistic, Medical Model of “State care” which we abandoned decades ago.
“Future Social Workers will not be allowed to speak out against vaccine injuries, excess deaths, forced psychiatric assessments or even discuss elder abuse by over-medication in nursing homes”, Ms. Bawden said.
“If you have: witnessed human rights abuses in residential institutions; have concerns about bad practices within the Department of Child Protection (DCP); dealt with Police corruption; or, locked horns with any number of units within the Attorney General’s or Health Departments; (including the Office of Public Advocate (OPA), South Australian Civil & Administrative Appeals Tribunal (SACAT) or Adult Safeguards Unit (ASU)) over Guardianship matters, you will be fair game to be deregistered, ostracised and publicly humiliated. Take that to the bank”, Ms. Bawden said.
“As we see with many who are still being persecuted by AHPRA, these elites will scour the social media profiles of members to create a “dirty file” and try-on SLAPP suits (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) against any target that might take up the wrong human rights causes. If you have ever: made a post about women’s rights over transgenderism; spoken about the benefits of home schooling; complained about a housing crisis amidst an open immigration policy; expressed opposition to Climate Change policies over the cost of living crisis; criticized government policies on guardianship matters; or, promoted the importance of natural medicines – even as an unpaid, private citizen – your registration will be stripped off you just as has happened to wellness coach Barbara O’Neill, Dr Melissa McCann, Dr Aseem Malhotra, nurse Cathy Byrne and countless thousands of others. As we see in each of these cases, initiating “complaints” won’t come from actual patients or clients. They will be contrived by the regulator through “own motions” and nameless, faceless social media trolls or activists like self-proclaimed serial litigant, Gary Burns.”
Social Workers are imminently about to be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and don’t be surprised if that doesn’t happen starting from the top, down. We should all be afraid when humanity is taken out of our profession and we are told how to practice at the coalface by remorseless, compromised, conflicted, corrupted and even cruel bureaucrats, yet even these tyrants will eventually be replaced by robotic AI policy-makers; devoid of any compassion, humanity or common-sense, but which will themselves “set the benchmarks for professional education and practice in social work”.
Ms. Bawden is especially critical of the profession’s silence on child protection concerns. “Many good parents are having their kids removed by DCP on absolutely nothing, with no Court Orders, no transparency and no accountability, so it seems absurd to believe that suddenly the registration of Social Workers will magically bring good people out of the closet to champion those and other human rights causes”.
“When has the AASW ever made any positive contribution on any real-life, real-time cases of human rights abuses in this State, whether in the mental health services, aged care facilities, nursing homes, prisons or child protection system? The AASW was silent throughout four torturous years of innocent civilians being persecuted and did nothing to protest the worst human rights abuses in South Australia’s history. So, who now gets to be on this Registration Board and by what experience? Those funded or trained by big-pharma? Grifters aligned to members of a major political party & whose campaigns are mutually funded by a corporation, or those anointed by some other political or corporate handlers?” Ms. Bawden asked.
“Just as we practiced Deep Sleep Therapy on unwitting South Australians in the 1970’s, the State is now ripe for the introduction of a CCP-style Organ Harvesting program and other atrocities which will also inevitably follow. The SWRS is possibly the last and final step towards realising that totalitarian reality, and I dare say I will soon be saying, “I told you so…”,” Ms. Bawden said.
Matilda Bawden is available for comment anytime at matildabawden@gmail.com
At face value it all looks terrible.
The bright side goes to the fact that all humanly-devised systems must ultimately fail.
After doing a number of cases involving the interference of a ‘social worker’, I advised clients to NEVER allow a social worker on your property. They work for the government, that’s their bottom line.
This interview was conducted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 John B and Freda Briggs– Many Gumshoe contributors have referenced Freda Briggs story.
Just a little from the interview that relates to HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY IS ON LIFE SUPPORT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
“In the first of our interviews JohnB posed the following questions to Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs.
Freda is Emeritus Professor, Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences, Education Arts and Social Sciences Divisional Office, Magill Campus.
Freda is sought after for media comment due to her expertise in many areas of child development with a particular emphasis on child abuse, child protection, the medical aspects of child protection research as well as early childhood care, protection and safety. She has been the recipient of the many awards including the Inaugural Australian Humanitarian Award, the ANZAC Fellowship Award, the Jean Denton Memorial Fellowship and the Creswick Fellowship Award for her work with disadvantaged children, the Inagural Senior Australian of the Year 2000 award and is patron of both Bravehearts and ASCA. Freda is Professor Emeritus in Child Development at the University of South Australia and is a consultant on the protection of Children to numerous government agencies in Australia and is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the protection of children and young people. She was professor of Child Development in the University from 1991 to 2002, after serving as foundation Dean of the de Lissa Institute of Early Childhood and Family Studies at one of the university’s predecessor colleges. Freda has long been in demand as an adviser to governments and consultant to child protection agencies. At a national level, she has been an ambassador for the Recognition of Women for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet since 2001, and served on that department’s Working Party on the protection of children with disabilities. She serves as a member of the National Child Sexual Assault Reform Committee, and since 2000 has been Consultant to the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services on the child protection curriculum for schools.”
“This interview was conducted on Thursday, July 13, 2006
JohnB: How long have you been involved in the study of sexual abuse?
Freda Briggs: I was involved in child sexual abuse as a member of a multi professional child protection team representing the Metropolitan Police, London (the real “Bill”) in the 1950’s. I prosecuted cases in the Magistrates Court and organised the youth court for the entire S. Metropolitan London area. In those days it met only on Friday mornings and, despite the vast area covered, there were days when the session was cancelled for want of juvenile crime. Now, there are several courts daily hearing sex crimes by juveniles. I then worked in residential social work with the same children prior to training for teaching as a mature-age student. With that unusual background I was placed in the toughest schools where I realised that abused children could be identified by knowledgeable teachers. I continued studying and became a lecturer in child development in 1970. Although there was only one text book available, I was allowed to introduce the subject of child abuse. In 1980 I was Dean of the Institute of Early Childhood and Family Studies (later UniSA) where I established the world’s first multi-professional elective on child protection (The second was at Staten Island, NY which I helped to plan. I then began to realise that there had been no child abuse research in Australia but there was also no research funding available. So I set out to fill some of the gaps using enthusiastic volunteers. I was then invited to conduct research for New Zealand Police and Ministry of Education and you will find that most of my work has been conducted overseas for funding reasons.
JohnB: Is this politically a difficult area?
Freda Briggs: It is a very difficult area because “it isn’t a nice subject”..not a vote-winner and, of course child victims dont vote.
Few parents of abused children are aware of the political aspects and few contact their members of parliament.
Attorneys General are responsible for the legislation and legal systems. They are usually lawyers influences by lawyers who like the system as it is because it is so easy to confuse, trick, distress and discredit child witnesses. (See Caroline Taylor’s book : “Court Licensed Abuse” published by Ballarat Press. Because state premiers emphasise the toughening up of sentences, police checks etc., few people realise that only about 2% of reported child sex offenders are actually prosecuted and punished (1.8% in Adelaide). You obviously cant rely on police checks to weed out sex offenders with such a system. As long ago as 1995 the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect lobbied our Attorney General for a different style of court for these cases, ie a non-adversarial court using an investigatory rather than an adversarial system, ie where all information can be investigated. They suggested the need for judiciary and lawyers with specialist training in child development, child abuse, grooming methods used by offenders, the effects of abuse on children and their families etc.—-
—The Attorney General did not even respond. When I brought this up while addressing a parliamentary lunch, politicians said, “That’s because the AG is a lawyer and he is surrounded by lawyers who don’t think like parents and human beings”. A few weeks later I addressed the Attorney General’s Forum and repeated the comments. The reply was, “Its the Liberal Conservatives in the state parliament who don’t like change”.
The simple reason why “the system” is dysfunctional in so many ways and has been essentially forever is that it is pyramid shaped and designed to cater to the top. Everyone knows that, whether it favours the interests of the King or the RC church or some oligarch or pampered inheritance person or simply some psychopath running an office. It’s just like a baboon tribe, or chickens, how can anyone defeat injustice with imperfect or broken equipment which is our human nature, we like a squabble, a winner and a loser.
Anyway here’s Trump running off at the mouth after being told not to:
https://nationalfile.com/trumps-being-trump-ignores-gag-order-again/
And here’s the 1st amendment the law is trying to fudge around:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
“No law abridging free speech”, how simple is that, but they seek to pervert that, and install their pyramid system over the top of it.