What about starting with the governments who promote nationalism and racism or is the writer in denial? The main role racism plays is to whip up differences and divisions to divide and oppress workers. The only genuine alternative is socialist internationalism which I support.

Unbeknown to those seeking to visit Australia--whether as tourists, for family reasons or for political purposes--the government has a blacklist of countries from which visa applications are almost automatically rejected.
There are 37 countries on the LIST THAT WAS OFFICIALLY GAZETTED by Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Minister Philip Ruddock on 24 June 1997. Most are Asian-Pacific countries, as well as South American, Middle Eastern and Eastern European, plus two southern European--Portugal and Greece, the two poorest states in Western Europe.
The list reads: Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam and Yugoslavia.
Residents of these countries are banned according to various age and sex categories. For Sri Lanka, the list specifies four separate "classes": males aged 25 to 39 inclusive, males 60 years or older, females aged 20 to 39 inclusive and females 50 years or older. For some other countries, the categories are even more sweeping. For the Pacific islands of Tonga and Samoa, for example, both males and females aged 20 years or older are barred. The same applies to Lebanon, the Philippines, Poland and Turkey.
Most of this article I got from here.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/immi-j20.shtml

johncee1945,

Nauru once (c.1965) had the highest per capita income in the world. Living of bird dropping royalties. Its people were strongly advised to invest more and consume less. While they did buy a building in Melbourne, by-and-large this sound advice was ignored. Now look where they are are.

Calma is such a diplomat. See the way he said the RDA made native title legislation possible. What actually happened is that the RDA stopped the Feds from simply legislating away Indigenous property rights after the High Court's belated recognition (Mabo 2) that the First Nations in this country might just have some scrap of entitlement to their homelands in the coloniser's law. (Instead of the slow racist institutional strangulation of the those rights over the past 15 years). Again, get it straight: prior to the enactment of the RDA in 1975 Indigenous People have no right of fair compensation for unlawful dispossession of their lands. Australia is a racist paradise; it's government and institutions, its law and its wealth, are all founded on the most monstrous and racist of acts. We live in history folks, and stew in our own consequences.

Brin, indeed.

Imagine the kind of evidence that would have to put forward back in Wik if the legislation were modified and required pastorialists to give evidence on why their protests against native title were NOT racist.

Mr "Bucketful of extingishment" the Hon Tim Fisher have would be dumb struck with the task of asking his constituents to provide the original documents of land purchase (from which leasing relies) from Aboriginal people.

The burden of proof & veracity of British sovereignty never been truly tested in any courts in this redneck wonderland. In fact on the few occasions it has arose ' the law' has excused itself from any critical self inspection. Gutless bastards

Tom Calma and HREOC support segregation of Australians, separation of families on racial grounds, denial to Australians of rights otherwise held by racial testing.

Tom Calma and HREOC support "racial rights flavour" rather than equality without racism.

RDA perhaps declared Australian Parliament recognized Australian peoples rejection racist discrimination.

Australian Parliament continues ongoing racist policies, determining racially rights or responsibilities.

Claiming lawfulness for families of Australians to be segregated, seperated on racial grounds.

Australians denied valid leases for housing publicly funded purportedly to provide homes on racial grounds.

Many individuals and organizations attempted to use the RDA to address racism, not as successful as Tom suggests.

Complaints of families segregated by racial testing sidelined, subverted, avoiding resolution by Tom Calma's HREOC, and others.

If complaints reach stage where required is either judicial action or a public hearing HREOC takes cowardly way out, choosing to proceed no further.

Creating public illusion complaints resolved, when actually hidden away in HREOC cupboard.

Complaints filed for judicial resolution obstructed by Office of the Commonwealth Attorney General blocking access to legal aid required for legal representation.

Courts then order stay of proceedings, as complainants not qualified lawyers unable to receive a fair hearing when facing Senior Counsel for respondants including the Commonwealth, apparently they are funded by the Commonwealth.

Indigenous land rights has two separate parts; Recognition of rights to own land which majority of Australians support; Then qualification of these rights by ongoing racial testing, which clearly majority of Australians object to.

Tom Calma and HREOC promote racial discrimination as they negotiate for policy changes using principles of racial inequality, of rights and responsibilities which are qualified on basis of racial testing.

Rights from earlier land use, popularly known as "squatters rights" date well back in Australian and English law, indeed as far back as 1066 when William Duke of Normandy conquered England.

Compensation for cancellation of such rights rests within Australian Constitution and dependant upon out High Court.

.

Why doesn't HEROC work on a Bill of Religious Freedom as per the UN Universal declaration instead of mixing racial vilification and religious vilification into the same pot as Victoria has done?

Could it be that some minority religions are not based upon Freedom of choice and would be illegal? Hmmm...