The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Tears in the Fabric of 'Recognition' ?

Tears in the Fabric of 'Recognition' ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
What is to be gained by this for both politicians and indigenous people?
I cant see the government giving up any power, and I'm not sure what potential gains indigenous people will get.

Is it just symbolic, or is there more to it?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:33:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

Okay, 2: 1, with the '1' in favour of almost anything which would break up State power and bring about a suitable level of utter chaos: Gramscianism on steroids.

But your mention of 'small states' raises the possibility that Noel Pearson's proposal for an unelected third House of Parliament would have to include the state and NT parliaments - with those unelected 'members' on full salaries. Sweet, for some.

Okay, if recognising some sort of Indigenous sovereignty across Australia, and all of the rest of us paying rent into the distant future, is not a goer, and a Treaty with five hundred 'nations' (first proposed, I recall, forty years ago), seems a bit unworkable, and extra houses of parliament stacked with unelected members (for life ?) seems a bit undemocratic, then what about starting at the other end:

* mention of Indigenous people in the Preamble to the Constitution;:

Should such an addition to the Preamble include reference to the preservation of Indigenous cultures and languages, or be more general ?

If referring to cultures and languages, etc., does this mean in all schools ? If 'languages', should government documents and TV programs etc. be translated into Indigenous languages ? Not all five hundred of course, but just, say fifty ?

And if Indigenous cultures are mandated for schools, should all Indigenous kids be pulled out of classes - yet again - in the name of 'social inclusion' ? i.e. be excluded from, say. maths classes, in the name of 'Indigenous culture' ? [Yes, I've known it to happen.] i.e. exclusion in the name of inclusion: Orwell would be proud.

Or just stick to cleaning up Section 8 (c) ? To drop 'offend' and 'insult', for example ?

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 17 March 2016 8:13:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

<<But your mention of 'small states' raises the possibility that Noel Pearson's proposal for an unelected third House of Parliament would have to include the state and NT parliaments>>

Wait, it's either-or: you can't have a third house of parliament once Australia has already been divided into hundreds/thousands of smaller (indigenous) states.

<<* mention of Indigenous people in the Preamble to the Constitution;:>>

I would not vote for this one since it would make the Australian constitution appear more legitimate.
(again, not because I have anything against the indigenous people of Australia)

<<Or just stick to cleaning up Section 8 (c) ? To drop 'offend' and 'insult', for example ?>>

Why do that? Surely the owner of a place should be able to set the ground-rules there. Looking at this section (18c, I presume, not 8c), I see a problem with the definition of "public" being too inclusive, but as far as those locations that indeed belong to the public go, I see nothing wrong about restricting people's behaviour there so one doesn't offend or insult other members of the public.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2016 11:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will not support it. The fabric was already worn out when big-noting politicians and socialists decided to stitch it up. Another government run by the aboriginal industry and its confidence tricksters? Pig's ribs! We don't want any more of the idiots we are already paying too much for. As for the whole 'indigenous' nonsense, there are no indiginese left: they all died out years ago. If they had been let alone by to live the indigenous way, there would be no trace of them now. Natural law. As it is, we have a few trouble makers (with the help of a few whites and vote - trawling politicians, propping up a group that no longer exists; a few people, many more white than black, looking to take advantage of whitey's stupidity.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:33:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I admire your honesty. But your constant negative opinions of just about everything (e.g the government doesn't represent you, you are not interested in anything that happened before your arrival etc) makes you a miserable old coot, who will never find a place he likes.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

Yeah, I didn't think of that. But there would be very many Indigenous people, or people with some Indigenous ancestry (as I suspect more and more people will describe themselves from now on) who were born in cities (as their parents may have been, and perhaps their grandparents too) and have only the most tenuous links to any particular area, and know even less about even the name of the clan whose land it was/is, i.e. very many people who would not really be interested in 'nations' at all. Of course, they would gammon that they did.

So perhaps more than half of the population with Indigenous ancestry would be as interested in day-to-day politics as any other Australians.

Then there is the problem of 'who represents whom' in a third house of parliament, federal and states'.

As for Section 18 (c), I have no problem with retaining a ban on intentionally 'humiliating, or inciting violence against' any individual or group, but allowing 'offending' and even 'insulting' to stand. Otherwise, where's the fun in being on OLO ?

An old fart like me doesn't have many pleasures :)

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 17 March 2016 3:56:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy