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 > There Is No Place For Race In Our Constitution

There Is No Place For Race In Our Constitution

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All
It is likely that we are going to have a 'Voice' referendum to vote on in the near future, if an activist government minister gets his way.

All Austrian citizens are supposed to be equal, but blacktivists and the Left are still snarling about ‘recognition’ for a minute section of the community, most of whom live the same way as the rest of us. These blacktivisits and lefties want a ‘special body’ enshrined in our Constitution.

The wreckers of society have been joined by virtue-signalling law firms, banks, superannuation funds and accounting firms. What makes these totally irrelevant outfits think that they have to stick their noses in is anybody’s guess.

The nonsense of ‘recognition’ is part of the just-defeated ‘middle-of-the-road’ Labor party’s divisive policies. The ‘bit-better-than-Labor’ Coalition, is equally keen to divide the country along racial lines.

Remember ATSIC?

Show-Indigenous Affairs minister, Ken Wyatt ,has come up with a proposed laws to establish to establish yet another commision run by elected so-called elders.

Again. Remember ATSIC!

Messrs. Morgan Beggs and Daniel ,of the Institute of Public Affairs, remind readers of the Spectator of the obvious “mission creep” resulting from such a body, which could never be confined to issues solely affecting indigenous Australians. All major policies - health, education and infrastructure - apply to ALL Australians. The body could, and probably would, try to shame a weak government into agreeing with its advice if any legislation for ALL Australians went against indigenous ‘voice’.

Begg and Wild quote Sir Robert Menzies, who said: “The power to advise is the power to coerce.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:55:47 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
Not sure how this got under Technical Support. I clicked on new and current affairs.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 11 July 2019 4:31:05 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
Bottom of the barrel seems to suit
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 11 July 2019 5:07:32 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
Program after program has been established to improve Aborigines’ lot, costing many billions of dollars over the years. Some were partly or wholly run by Aboriginals for Aboriginals. Some achieved some benefits, but most failed completely. The result to date? Apart from assimilated Aborigines who live their lives much the same as most non-Aboriginals, the lot of the rest has steadfastly failed to improve.

It is not our responsibility to atone for British settlement. Nobody can turn back the clock. People identify with an aboriginal background have no rights to special privileges because their ancestors were here before white Australians.

We all need to get over it. We need to stop the nonsense of smoking ceremonies and welcome-to-country paid performances that mean nothing to 97% of the population in the 21st Century.

Enough of the victimhood!

If this minority of Australians wishes to keep aspects of their culture alive, let them do it at their own expense, just as other minorities do.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 11 July 2019 5:40:50 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
Dear Belly,

Yep.

But I'm not sure why events in Austria should concern us. Perhaps they have a different constitution over there since our constitution explicitly says 'The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.'

So perhaps the Austrians might not know that much about our constitution but any decent Australian should at least have some clue.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 11 July 2019 6:03:52 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
Better late than never!

>"The power to advise is the power to coerce"
I don't know what the context of that Menzies quote was, but on the face of it I think he got it wrong – 'tis not the power to advise that's the power to coerce; it's the power to prevent the advice of others from being heard.

And it's well known that there's a widespread sense among our Aboriginal population that they're not getting heard. Hence the Uluru statement.

People are indeed supposed to be equal - but when equality is used as an excuse for failure to address disadvantage, it's safe to conclude some people are defining it wrongly!

I'm glad the government have finally rejected the preposterous notion that the Voice would amount to a third chamber of parliament, despite having no legislative power. Having said that, I think it should be given one very specific legislative ability: the power of veto on the government's use of the constitution's race powers.

I also think there should be a sunset clause. It should expire after two hundred and thirtysomething years (the amount of time from the First Fleet until its inception).
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 11 July 2019 11:41:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken Wyatt just told them a couple of days ago ! Hats off to him !
Posted by individual, Friday, 12 July 2019 7:27:20 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
In the spirit of multiculturalism, all minorities have the right to practise their cultures, but at their own expense and in their own time. Watered-down descendants of original (maybe) inhabitants are now probably the smallest minority in the country. There should be no special consideration for them. Most people with aboriginal heritage live the same way as the rest of us. Like all minorities, they have moved on. The few trouble makers who have not are malcontents; the white renegades who support them are just using the fools as another weapon of division.

Having Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs is as as archaic as the Protectors of the past.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 12 July 2019 9:36:41 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
It's interesting that the SlowMo government is jumping on the division-by-race bandwagon so soon after blacktivists were cheering Labor for telling them that they would put the 'Voice' legislation to the people at the next election.

Just like Malcolm Turnbull, SlowMo is implementing Labor policy! He will show Labor that he can suck up to minorities better than Labor, by gum! Labor can relax in opposition, while Morrison does their dirty work for them. He'll show them how to embrace identity politics, race division and white guilt .

A special for NAIDOC week.

The jaws of Shorten and the extreme Left must be aching from smirking, and poor old, bewildered Albo will be wondering why he bothered. Morrison's admiration for the Chinese president, and the 'one party system' is emerging.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 12 July 2019 10:24:00 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
the country is divided enough by race politics. We don't need this garbage especially when you look at the divisive nature of the aboriginals who have benefited most in this nation. Instead effort needs to be made to integrate, stop abuse and contribute to society.
Posted by runner, Friday, 12 July 2019 1:48:29 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
C'mon STEELEREDUX, TTBN's use of the word 'Austria' was merely a typo nothing more. Gee ol' man, you're getting very 'picky' in your old age. I understand when we start losing many of the arguments on The Forum, we can all become a little 'ornery' I suppose.

I've always had high regard for our indigenous people, mainly after I did some relieving Sergeant duties in the bush for six months or so when my opposite number(s) took LSL. Initially, I had a preconceived notion about them, purely due to my lack of knowledge and ignorance being a city cop. However, my attitude changed substantially when I realised just how much I had to learn about these proud people. And 'learn' I did!

That aside -

The more so-called recognition; tangible benefits; 'official; self-determination; money, and Government sanctioned 'voice' we give them - The more harm we'll do them, their proud spirit, and their way of life.

The pure blacks that live in humpies in dry creek beds amid the flies, snakes and other 'bities,' want more from us than anything else - **RESPECT** (absolutely vital) — followed by medicine, some foodstuffs, education, jobs (for some) and help, with the inordinately high levels of suicide among their teenager kids. And yes, to be left alone by the coppers, so they may lead their lives in the way and manner they prefer.

It's the mixed-bloods some with only the smallest iota of indigenous blood that can be sourced as the trouble makers — supplying booze, drugs, porno material, to them, as well as raising an uproar with the authorities and governments, claiming fervently they do it on their behalf. The hell they do!
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 12 July 2019 1:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last thing the Blackfellers need is Uni indoctrinated do-gooders from the suburbs.
I have lived & worked alongside indigenous for nearly 40 years & never once have I been told that they find the term offensive. This nonsense was brought in by the do-gooders who do nothing but bad !
Posted by individual, Friday, 12 July 2019 4:42:05 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
Dear o sung wu,

And here I was thinking that far from being ornery I had exercised restraint along with at least a dollop of humour, especially given the title is 'There Is No Place For Race In Our Constitution' whereas the thing specifically says it can make laws regarding race.

So I flagged the Austrian comment only to reinforce the point I was making, that the author is clueless.

Anyway aren't you taking this a little bit too seriously? You have employed the odd sly jibe in your time, often to good effect, in fact that is one of things which serve to raise your offerings here above the dross. Keep at it old chap I say.

So, here is a question for you. Let's put a figure on the amount of money which goes into combating disadvantage within our indigenous communities. No one is saying it isn't substantial but many in the know describe how only one dollar in five actually makes it on to the ground. So let's call it 15 billion dollars per annum.

What would you say to having 10 billion of this paid as compensation for use of indigenous land. It would then be distributed to Aboriginal organisations for them to care and sustain their communities. Now it is rent rather than welfare and controlled by the 'landlord' rather than crumbs given to the beggar.

I'm looking forward to exploring this with you so if you could give it some thought rather than replying with a kneejerk reaction that may well serve the discussion positively.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 12 July 2019 5:26:52 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
ttbn,

"These blacktivisits and lefties want a ‘special body’ enshrined in our Constitution."

Fear not, ttbn, this is actually good news. Unlike many other policies the elites are able to push through against the will of the people (eg 150000-200000 immigrants pa), this one will actually have to go to the people.

As with Brexit, while the EU was foisted on the nation over the heads of the populace, the people got to vote and voted against the way their 'betters' demanded. The elite was so out of touch with the people that they just assumed they'd win the vote. They're still trying to recover from that shock and overturn the will of the people.

Here also, the people will get a vote. Unfortunately for the elite, the constitution requires that any change must be approved by a majority of people in a majority of states.

Now, when the proposal was to just have a bit of puffery in the introduction to the constitution saying that there were people here for a long time before whites arrived, then it stood a chance to get the required vote since it was just virtue-signalling window dressing.

But that wasn't good enough for the carpet-baggers, and leaders of the aboriginal industry. They want real power and real money to enhance their position and allow them to dole out increasing largess. They just can't help themselves.

And the more they demand, the more power they want to grab, the more insane their screams for 'equality' (remember "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"), then the less likely it is that they'll get anything.

A referendum is a yes/no question. 'Yes' I want to give away all this power and money, or 'no' I'd prefer things to remain the way they are.

The changes this dills want will never get approved. And the more crazy their claims, the less likely that becomes.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 12 July 2019 5:52:51 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 there STEELEREDUX...

I do agree with you. Much of the millions spent on Indigenous welfare and advancement doesn't get to where it's needed. I'm fortunate enough to have a Psychiatrist (Doctor) as a friend (yeah I know, you probably think he should treat me!) and until the last 18 mths., he spent three months of the year being flown around to some of the most depressed settlements in WA & NT treating those who needed him the most. This was yet another C'Wealth initiative, albeit meaning well, again costing millions in light A/C hire, pilots and not counting the Psychiatrist salary.

He told me, many of the most troubled young people he saw suffered from the deepest of depressive illnesses. Including but not limited to, acute psychosis, bipolar and other serious mental illnesses, often caused by petrol sniffing and other dangerous ingestion of drugs incl. Metholayted Spirits. Ordinarily, they should be hospitalized ASAP. Realistically though, he couldn't budge them from their settlements let alone admit them to a specialist hospital who dealt with severe Psychiatric illnesses. His prognosis, before he settled back into private practice, was most depressing.

I have but a mere skerrick of knowledge, compared to the good Doctor!

He continually stressed they believe they've no hope, no prospects, no chance of formal education, notwithstanding it's made available to most of them, but they decline to leave their settlements. They live in utter squalor and despair. Abused during their childhood, the 'white' Brothers ('cast' blacks) selling them alcohol and drugs, taking what little money they might have from Social Security. And yep, the coppers are always on their tails.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 12 July 2019 6:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 1967 referendum was successful because the large majority of citizens generously and rightfully believed that more should have been done for aborigines at that time. There was no implication that there should be two systems of law in Australia. It was concerned with removing any differentiation between Australians on the ground of RACE.

Fifty two years later, it would be surprising if voters wanted to approve of new differentiation BASED ON RACE.

Even Malcolm Turnbull, in rejecting the ‘voice proposal, said:

“Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civil rights, all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers or our national parliament. A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle”.

If it starts, it will never end. One contributor to the Uluru Statement wrote: "Indigenous constitutional recognition should be understood not as the achievement of a final postcolonial settlement but as AN ONGOING PROCESS OF CONTESTING AND RENEGOTIATING INDIGENOUS AND SETTLER PEOPLE’S BASIC POLITICAL LEADERSHIP” (My emphasises)

After 230 years, where are the ‘indigenous’ and the ‘settlers’?
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 12 July 2019 6:31:14 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
There is no place for race in our Constitution?

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not
ensured fairness and equality for Indigenous
Australians. It confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate.

White Australians have always been the predominant
law-makers in our Parliament, and they don't enact
laws that racially discriminate against themselves.

Their ancestors have never been denied equality on the
basis of "race" under Australian law, so their empathy for
discrimination against Indigenous Australians is lacking.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They are asking for Constitutional recognition through a
First Nations voice in the Constitution. They ask only to be
heard in decisions made about them. A practical reform.
Not a veto, but a voice.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart offers a way to
recognise and empower the First Nations of Australia to
take responsibility for their affairs, while upholding
the Constitution, respecting Crown sovereignty and
unifying the country.

The Uluru Statement takes on board objections to a
racial non-discrimination clause, and calls instead for a
First Nations voice in laws and policies made about
them as a way of preventing repetition of past
discriminatory policies.

The proposal has a long history. Indigenous advocates have
argued for decades for fairer representation in their
affairs.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would guarantee
Indigenous people a say, without transferring power to the
High Court or undermining Parliamentary supremacy.

It presents a way of improving Indigenous policy through early
Indigenous engagement, rather than subsequent litigation.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would not divide
us by "race." There are already race clauses in the
Constitution that divide Australians. Ensuring First Nations
have a voice in their affairs would create a fairer
relationship. It would help prevent discrimination. It
would unify, not divide. It is a way to address inequality
without empowering the High Court.

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 12 July 2019 7:08:10 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
mhaze

Yes. It’s not like the voluntary ‘survey’ for same sex marriage. Not sure I like the Brexit comparison, though. The UK governments has done its level best to ignore that democratic vote. However, I would like to believe that the average Australian will know when enough is enough with these people. Irrespective of the result, it’s going to cost us big time. The Morrison government has already set aside $7.3 million to “progress a First Nations (another concoction) Voice to Parliament”. There is also a ‘contingency reserve funding item of $160 million as a provision for the Indigenous Recognition Referendum in 2020-21.

Very expensive people, those identifying with an aboriginal history.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 12 July 2019 7:13:37 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
cont'd ...

Would a First Nations voice in the Constitution divide
our nation by "race" and undermine the principle of
equality? Or would it create a more complete
Commonwealth addressing injustices of the past and
bringing the three parts of our nation - our ancient
Indigenous heritage, our British institutional
inheritance, and the multicultural character of our
society into deeper accord?

Recognition of Indigenous rights is a reality the
world over, and it has nothing to do with race.
In some countries the Indigenous people are white.
The Sami in Scandinavia have blonde hair and blue
eyes.

The "equality" objectors posit that ordinary democratic
processes are enough for the First Nations to have
their say - even when Parliament makes decisions about
their unique rights.

However, objectors ignore the fact that historically the
Constitution has excluded Indigenous Australians from
our democracy. Before 1967 Indigenous Australians were
excluded from being counted in the census for the
purposes of voting. The Constitution also empowered laws
and policies that denied Indigenous voting rights,
property rights, equal wages, and asserted
unequal protectionist controls.

We can't continue to preach equality, but keep enacting
and demonstrating discriminatory double standards.
They ask only to be heard.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 12 July 2019 7:23:49 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
Dear mhaze,

You opine; “Unlike many other policies the elites are able to push through against the will of the people (eg 150000-200000 immigrants pa)”

I know very few of my 'progressive' friends and acquaintances think these kind of levels of immigration are desirable at all.

These are being driven purely by big business and governments who are too scared to take the foot off the pedal because they know it is the only thing which is keeping us from a recession.

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for acknowledging the point about money not hitting the ground. I'm wondering though if you had considered the further point I raised?

“What would you say to having 10 billion of this paid as compensation for use of indigenous land. It would then be distributed to Aboriginal organisations for them to care and sustain their communities. Now it is rent rather than welfare and controlled by the 'landlord' rather than crumbs given to the beggar.”

Are you up for it?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 12 July 2019 7:28:35 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 (again) STEELEREDUX...

In principle, I would support the proposition one hundred percent. My main problem, I don't have much faith in many of those groups or organizations entrusted to 'fairly' distribute the money amongst the neediest of these 'Beggers' as you so quaintly describe them?

Someone always has to take their cut, a fee for services rendered, or some tariff, for merely doing their job. From my own practical experience, many of these proud black men, distrust virtually anything, the white man's government does for them. Give a black man a Dollar, by the time all the helpers take their cut, the black man ends up owing; $1.50.

I believe there are very few genuinely altruistic people, in regular interaction with our indigenous people. I hope I'm wrong. I know those who ferment liquor and mfg. Illicit drugs, do a roaring business among the humpies, in dry creek beds, that passes for some of our indigenous folk's, usual place of abode?

More money is not the answer. The money that's already been allocated, in recent Budgets, should be spent, much more wisely I believe. Extend the use of the 'Food Cards' have it closely audited, not for any misuse by the recipient, but those who would seek to take advantage of the beneficiary
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 12 July 2019 9:10:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu, my feelings about the black fella's is well known on this forum. I have always explained why, and so it is that we keep hearing about equality and that WE don't do enough for them or we don't give enough money.
Now ALL the criticisms us white fella's have had to endure, enough is enough.
If everyone is being honest, this is one country and if we are supposed to be equal, then why the hell are we throwing billions of dollars at the blacks?
I charge the govt and the morons of this country with bias, favoritism, prejudice, and racism.
If you want equality, then start by withholding all the benefits that the blacks get, over the rest of the population.
All this money they allegedly get goes into the back pockets of the scumbags who manage or oversea it's distribution.
The current system is being rorted so bad that if it were truly investigated, firstly the public would not believe the findings and secondly there would be a lot of people going to jail, but that won't happen because they can't afford to let even one of them to be found guilty of anything, because you know how scum betrays scum, and it will expose whole departments and groups of people.
I simply refuse to allow one group of people preferential treatment over another.
We have all the services in this country, from medical to welfare, so the blacks should not get special treatment over the rest of us.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 13 July 2019 1:20:59 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
SR wrote..."I know very few of my 'progressive' friends and acquaintances think these kind of levels of immigration are desirable at all."

But I was talking about the elite pushing through these policies. And, trust me, SR you aren't in the elite.

"These are being driven purely by big business and governments"
There you go. But not just big government and big business but also big media, cloistered academia. All those protected from the effects of massive immigration seem to be in favour of it.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 13 July 2019 10:11:43 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
The fact is that most people identifying as descendants of the original occupants (if they still see any point in doing so) are doing just fine. The fact that certain people, black and white, are agitating for special treatment for a tiny minority is an indication that they think that the ones not doing so well are totally incapable of looking after themselves; after two centuries of opportunities they are still duds. That's real racism for you. Certain people are incapable of doing anything for themselves because of their race. Charming. These blacktivists and white virtue signallers are actually saying the people they CLAIM to represent are a bunch of useless basket cases who, after two centuries still can't cut the mustard.

Maybe they are right. But, if they are that useless because of their race; if they are not like most of the others of the same race, then nothing is going to work for them, just as it has not worked in the past.

But the Morrison government is going to demonstrate the version of lunacy that is doing the same useless things over and over, with the addition of a pinch of apartheid and an undemocratic 'voice' for a few slick, suburban black fellas. Plus, a lot more of taxpayer funds. Why are the only people interested in politics complete plonkers?
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 13 July 2019 10:20:24 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
The Uluru Statement from the Heart seeks to resolve
the fundamental moral problem that has tormented our
country since 1788.

Indigenous
peoples were not represented in the constitutional
compact that made the Commonwealth. It was not answered
in 1967: the referendum empowered parliament to make
laws for Indigenous people, but it did not empower
Indigenous people with a fair say in respect of those
laws. It was not resolved in 1999: the proposed
symbolic preamble would have changed nothing, and it
failed at referendum.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They ask for constitutional recognition through a First
Nations voice in the Constitution. Not a racial
non-discriminatory clause, which was opposed by politicians.
Not uncertain symbolism in the Constitution.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about them.
A practical reform. Not a veto, but merely a voice.

We've all heard the objections - the rejections of the
call for Indigenous Australians to have a guaranteed say
in laws and policies made about their affairs because
"all Australians are equal." That our nation's founding
document should "unify us - not divide us." However it
already divides us.

One of the problems is that our Constitution
has not ensured fairness and equality for Indigenous
Australians. Our Constitution confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate. The Race Power
was inserted, according to the Constitutional convention
debates, to control and exclude the "inferior" and
"coloured" peoples.

The Uluru Statement offers a way to recognise and empower
the First Nations of Australia to take responsibility for
their affairs, while holding the Constitution, respecting
Crown sovereignty and unifying the country.

Constitutional recognition is not about the out-dated,
pseudo-scientific concept of "race." It is about
recognising the rightful place of the First Nations of
Australia - the Wik, the Yolngu, the Yorta Yorta and the
Anangu. It is about acknowleding that there are peoples
in Australia whose pre-colonial heritage gives rise to
distinct rights and interests in their descendants
and that those people should have a say when parliament
makes changes affecting their distinct rights and interests.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 13 July 2019 11:46:42 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
Foxy, you're so full of it.
'They only want to be heard'.
Where have you been all these years?
Are you wearing earmuffs?
All we've heard, ad nauseum, are the blacks and how they are being persecuted, hard done by and treated like second class citizens.
Rubbish, bulldust, crap, lies all of it.
Only a liar and deceiver would believe or push such a line, when EVERYBODY knows that the blacks have been receiving special treatment for as long as memory serves, at the expense and behest of the rest of us.
Foxy stop writing these long winded stories trying to garner sympathy for an undeserving group who scoff at us behind our backs yet claim unfounded rights to our face.
You are not the type of person to be commenting on these matters as it is people like yourself that would give away the family's financial security to help others, leaving YOUR family in the poo.
Then you would have only succeeded in putting your family in dire straights, because of your narrow minded and naive views.
So stop pushing the lie about 'just want to be heard'.
We are sick of the bleeding hearts and their jelly brained followers.
You've heard it said here many times, well, ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
Those of us with an open mind and a fair amount of maturity and pragmatism and objectivity can see what you refuse to see because of insane do-goody attitude and mindset.
In some circles/circumstances people of your ilk are considered dangerous, and we can now see why.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 13 July 2019 11:59:26 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
ALTRAV,
Cheers for putting it out there so straight & forward.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 13 July 2019 1:25:01 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
Yes, ALTRAV. Well put
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 13 July 2019 2:18:53 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
The Left has never been about helping the poor and the marginalised to become self-sufficient and successful, but about making the people a wholly owned subsidiary of the government.

This applies to everyone they think that they can use - black or white.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 13 July 2019 2:24:27 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
Tony Abbott told parliament in 2013:

"Australia is a blessed country. Our climate,
our land, our people, our institutions rightly
make us the envy of the earth; except for one
thing - we have never fully made peace with the
First Australians. This is the stain on our soul
that Prime Minister Keating so movingly evoked at
Redfern 21 years ago... we need to atone for the
emissions and for the hardness of heart of our
forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as
a united people."

Paul Keating in his 1992 Redfern speech said the wrongs
of the past were able to occur because our forebears failed
to ask, "How would I feel if this were done to me?"
We failed to recognise common humanity. We lacked empathy..

The colonists should have done unto the Indigenous "others"
as they would have had them do unto themselves, had the
situation been reversed. Of course, we cannot turn back
time. All we can do is work towards a better future.

The Uluru Statement has given us a practical way to do this.

The objectors lack empathy for their Indigenous Australian
countrymen. Their stance is unpatriotic. Their false
equality objection is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Most Australians have more generous hearts. We want to rise
to this moral challenge.
We want to learn from history and create a fairer future.

As the Australian's legal affairs editor, Chris Merritt,
wrote:

" Here's the harsh reality: Our forebears took this
country from the original inhabitants. We are not about to give
it back. So the least we can do is oblige ourselves to
listen when Indigenous people ask to be heard."

The Uluru Statement presents a way for the powerful
Australian majority, as represented by our democratic
parliament, to ensure that it treats the vulnerable
Indigenous minority as we would like to have been
treated, has history and circumstances been reversed.

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 13 July 2019 2:24:51 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
cont'd ...

Australians have it before us to guarantee mutual
respect, kindness and comity in the relationship
between the First Nations and the Australian government.

It's not asking much to hear Indigenous views when parliament
makes decisions about them. It is a modest and moral
request.

It is not beyond this great nation to make it happen.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 13 July 2019 2:27:35 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
Gentlemen,

As the old adage states:

"Before you assume
Know the facts
Before you judge
Understand why ...
Before you speak
Think."

Intelligent people speak because they have something to
say. The ignorant because they have to say something.
And the highest form of ignorance is when someone
rejects something they don't know anything about.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 13 July 2019 2:39:49 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
Love your work Altrav .
Regards
Narelle
Posted by Narelle47, Saturday, 13 July 2019 2:58:03 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
Narelle, thanks for that.
Foxy, I love reading your rubbish.
So many times you have left yourself wide open to be knocked down a peg or two, but we all know you refuse to heel to right or truth, so it is, just a quick word on your last posting.
It so happens, you fall into all of the three categories you have mentioned.
'before you assume', in your case 'preach', know the facts.
'before you judge', in your case 'preach', understand why?
'before you speak, in your case 'preach', think.
Yes I can see you were describing yourself.
Your assumptions 'are' based on facts, YOUR facts.
Your judgements 'are' based on understanding, YOUR understanding. (of the facts)
Your 'speeches' indicate the fact that you don't 'think', because ALL your postings, apart from your regular rants, are in fact other people's comments and thoughts.
It's true name is 'plagiarism'.
So it is that you don't think.
By your own admission, you are always quoting others.
Have you EVER conjured up an original thought of your own?
No I didn't think so.
I don't know why we bother to comment, I think we should ALL stop commenting and let you have this forum all to yourself, as apparently, according to you, you and your comments are the only thing we need to know.
I would say you have the floor, go ahead, but you have never stopped 'having the floor', so as you were.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 13 July 2019 6:15:20 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
continued...........

I'll even go so far as to say, 'I'll bet that the last four lines of your last posting are again quoted from someone else'.
Really?
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 13 July 2019 6:21:03 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
Many of us all learned about the Great pyramid of Giza or
the Colosseum in Ancient Rome, about ancient
civilisations that came before us but little was taught
about the breadth of history on our own doorstep. In fact
our own ancient sites seem to not only be unknown but are
actively destroyed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-21/brooke-boney-road-back-home-cultural-preservation-in-australia/9269956

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/dig-finds-evidence-of-aboriginal-habitation-up-to-80000-years-ago

Artifacts in Kakadu National Park have been dated
between 65,000 and 80,000 years old,
extending likely occupation of the area
by thousands of years.

Exciting times we live in.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 13 July 2019 6:58:08 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
We are not about to give
it back. So the least we can do is oblige ourselves to
listen when Indigenous people ask to be heard."

The ultimate hypocrisy !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 13 July 2019 10:36:11 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
Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for the measured reply. They seem in scant supply in this thread.

You wrote;

"In principle, I would support the proposition one hundred percent. My main problem, I don't have much faith in many of those groups or organizations entrusted to 'fairly' distribute the money amongst the neediest of these 'Beggers' as you so quaintly describe them?"

Well I think they would have to work pretty bloody hard to do any worse than the situation diver dan quotes in another thread;

"The government's Home Ownership on Indigenous Land program spend A$10 million on administration to provide A$2.7 million for just 15 loans. The program's target were 460 loans."

I would much rather see the money spent be in the form of rent or lease of land which was never ceded nor freely given than as welfare.

it is not going to right all the wrongs but it acknowledges the land was taken by force and will give proper dignity to the original owners.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the post. Yes the movement toward a treaty is indeed gathering pace an is the just thing to do. Having a voice in parliament for our indigenous Australians is part of that journey and is also the just thing to do.

Victoria looks like it will be the first cab off the rank and it will be very interesting to see how it takes shape.

Better times ahead me thinks. It is a credit to all those involved.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 13 July 2019 11:23:09 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
Dear Steele,

Thank You for your comments.

The historic consensus achieved at Uluru shows Indigenous
Australians have guts, ambition, determination and smarts.
They have done the hard work to form a unified position.
They have asked for a voice in their affairs.

It is a modest and moral request. And as stated previously it
is not beyond this great nation to make it happen.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:17:37 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
Foxy, reality check.
The blacks are Australians, if they want to form a group for social reasons they can, just like ALL the other races and creeds here.
But also, like the other races and creeds, they MUST NOT have preferential treatment over the rest or the majority of the people.
The blacks have done NOTHING to make them a stand out/stand alone people.
In case you missed it, they are Australian, so unless they have done something of a humanitarian or other socially praised nature, they can just piss off and sit back and suck it up, like the rest of us.
Special treatment, indeed!
Want to be heard, we're sick of 'hearing' them.
Another wake up call Foxy, most of Australia, really doesn't want to hear another demand from the blacks, and whether you like it or not, we just don't care.
Remember, the little boy who cried 'WOLF', once too often?
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:44:11 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
One of the few sensible things Turnbull did was to knock this decisive, undemocratic and racist nonsense on the head. Now that his half-witted successor is actually promoting it, we will have to rely on the commonsense of the Australian people, few of whom are like the nasty Left ratbags infesting OLO.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 14 July 2019 9:40:32 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
Are there any Indigenous TV stations ? NITV, etc. ?

Are there any Indigenous radio stations ? Imparja,etc. ?

Are there any Indigenous newspapers ? The national Indigenou Times, etc. ?

Are there any Indigenous organisations ? Five thousand is a figure I've heard.

Are there any Indigenous members of parliaments around Australia ? There have been forty so far, in most parliaments, as well as ministers in State, Territory and Federal governments, including a Chief Minister, a current Treasurer, and a current Minister for Indigenous People.

Can Indigenous people drop by their MP's office and express their opinion ?

Are there peak bodies in health, housing, education, etc. ?

Are there Land Councils around the country ?

Is there an Assembly of First Nations ?

Is there a Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council ?

Clearly, if these don't represent 'Voice', then there is a desperate need for one to be legislated as soon as possible, and one which won't implicitly act as a veto on proposed legislation.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 July 2019 9:48:56 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
Why didn't you put that up right at the beginning, Joe? It would have saved a lot of pointless earbashing and swathes of rubbish copied from the ABC.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 14 July 2019 10:01:36 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
Ttbn,

It seemed necessary to tease out the issues involved and how to balance the difficult problem, of how to bring out Indigenous opinion on everything which might be relevant on the one hand, but in such ways as that won't hamstring government responsibilities on the other.

After all, there is an inherent contradiction that a body would have the right to - as many might see it - interfere in every issue which it may deem to be relevant, and yet have no responsibility to propose solutions to the problems that it may raise.

Maybe a legislated body might be an effective, working precursor to what many are demanding, i.e. a body enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, we all have the memories of the corrupt and incompetent ATSIC, so such a new-and-improved body would have to demonstrate that it has got past those sorts of fatal flaws.

That might take a few years, while it tests its powers and proves its worth. If it degenerates back into an ATSIC-style patronage and reward system for its members and their relations and cronies, and any sensible government scraps it, then any 'voice' may have to rely on the sorts of sources I listed above.

As well, there needs to be a clear distinction between issues which are ultimately the responsibilities of communities and families, and those which are the responsibilities of governments.

Not only that: Ken Wyatt spoke on Wednesday of local and regional (and presumably State/Territory) representative bodies, so presumably the specific responsibilities of those bodies have to be clearly differentiated.

There's a hell of a lot of work to do yet. None of this will be served up on a plate.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 July 2019 10:59:03 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
The Uluru Statement suggests that a voice in laws
and policies will foster responsibility, empowering First
Nations to take charge and improve the policies
addressing their disadvantage.

There are two aspects to Indigenous disadvantage and
disempowerment.

One aspect is personal and communal responsibility.
All individuals must take responsibility for their
circumstances and behaviour. They must send their kids
to school, abide by the law and contribute to a safe
and productive society. There is no disputing the
importance of personal responsibility to addressing
disadvantage - Indigenous or otherwise.

The other aspect to Indigenous disadvantage is structural.

No person or community can truly take responsibility unless
they have power. If government calls the shots through
top-down policy, uninformed by local views and preferences,
then people are disempowered. There is a structural and
constitutional dimension to persistent Indigenous
disadvantage. Untile we address this dimension, the gap will
not close.

Australia has come to expect abysmal Closing the Gap reports.
The current system is not working. It does not produce good
results. The systemic and structural failure of policy-making
is perpetuating disadvantage.

If we all agree that the system is not working, we then
should want it reformed.

Of course the solution is responsibility. But responsibility
requires two things: that people are willing to take
charge of their problems, and that governance structures
ALLOW them and empower them to take charge.

The Uluru Statement speaks to structural disempowerment
because it is a document about constitutional reform.
The Constitution distributes power. It can empower
First Nations to take responsibility, or it can
disempower them, as it has in the past. A First Nations
voice in the Constitution would enable Indigenous people
to take greater responsibility for and leadership of
their affairs.

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 11:28:49 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
cont'd ...

To ensure change, the system must be reformed to encourage
and, indeed, mandate responsibility.

Policies to address family violence, truancy, suicide and
alcohol abuse in Indigenous communities would be improved
with INPUT from the people they are intended to benefit.

The success of the "Native Title Act"would be greater if
government could better hear Indigenous peoples' ideas to
remove red tape and make their land more economically
productive.

Some people point out that there are already Indigenous
MPs in parliament - as though this is a substitute for
empowering First Nations with a voice in their affairs.

Those MPs, like any MPs, must represent their constituencies,
their electorates and their political parties - in all their
ethnic diversity. Those MPs are not representative of the
First Nations of Australia; they are representative of all
Australians who voted for them - just like a Greek Australian
or an Indian-Australian or a white Australian MP.

The difference is that parliament makes specific laws and
policies about Indigenous people. There is no native title
act for Indian-Australians and others because their ancestors
were not dispossessed of land in Australia. Nor has there
ever been an Indian-Australian intervention.

The First Nations of Australia have a right to take
responsibility. They should be empowered
with a constitutional voice in their affairs,
so they can always participate in decisions
made about them. And we who champion responsibility
should support such a reform.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 11:44:49 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
As Loudmouth has demonstrated, clearly the blacks have already had and keep on having, a 'voice', thereby putting to doubt or in question this insane and irrelevant push for some kind of special representation or treatment, even further than they already enjoy.
So NO, we should not give in to this totally unjustified demand.
And as for the comment of 'the land being taken by force'.
If that is part of the attitude that 'just wants to be heard', then they most certainly can SHOVE IT!
This land had NO OWNERS when the poms came along, remember the blacks were migrants from another place another time, so this land was up for the taking.
And irrespective of anything else, or whether we want to say the poms invaded or not, shots were fired, hostilities were involved.
Even if there were not, the poms became the next and current owners of this land, how they did it is irrelevant.
This is the way it has always been.
An aggressor takes over by force usually, it's only that there was not a lot of force at the time, but make no mistake, we owe NO ONE anything.
This farcical of a fabricated fantasy is one created by the white man purely for financial gain and they are not going to give it up any time soon, so wake up you gullible jelly brains and smell the thing called 'The Great Con'.
So then, no more special treatment, either they are Aussies or they are not.
They themselves keep saying they were the 'first Australians', so then where is the problem, they themselves have made it clear they are Aussies.
You can't have it both ways so which one is it?
I'll say it again and settle this once and for all; 'NO SPECIAL TREATMENT'.
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 14 July 2019 11:52:18 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
Thanks Joe for the voice of reason. I was wrong about it stopping the earbashing from attention seeking trolls, though. She was back into it straight after your post. Although I have stopped reading anything she says, having to scroll past her never ending sermons on every subject known to man is a pain on the way to reading sensible people's posts. Even ALTRAV can't shut up her regurgitation of second hand propaganda from the ABC and other organs of the left. Most of us recognise that nagging and harping isn't going to change other people's minds if they have already decided what they think, which most of us have. Not her! On and on, with references to sites where she gets her garbage, which few people would bother to read. I'm all for people expressing their opinions, but I can get what the ABC thinks direct from the ABC, and much better presented than some tragic does it here
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:05:47 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
Foxy,

You rightly say,

"The First Nations of Australia have a right to take responsibility. "

I would respectfully suggest that they have the obligation to take responsibility, like any other citizens and communities and families and individuals have for their affairs. I'm very uneasy about the impression, perhaps inaccurate, that governments should bring back more sophisticated forms of paternalism and take - or keep taking - those responsibilities from Indigenous people, as if they are incapable of handling them.

So far, it seems, the multitude of channels for voices don't seem to be adequate, if I read this extra demand for a 'Voice' correctly. I just don't understand that. Indigenous people are as capable and intelligent as anybody else, so I can't, for the life of me, understand why they can't use all of those current channels to express their desires and aspirations - and primarily amongst themselves. So many issues affecting Indigenous people and communities and families are, frankly, internal issues, for which they themselves - in the spirit of genuine self-determination - must find solutions, not governments, not any outsiders.

I anticipate being corrected, but I hope not by Dr Google :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:16:29 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
ALTRAV,

Your comment about 'white men' rings true. The very people who signal their virtue by rabbiting on about self determination for people who are mostly already 'self determining' are up to their armpits in the racket,trying to do the determining for them. For those people, it's nothing to do with doing good for people they condescendingly deem as incapable of making it in modern Australia: it's all about divide and rule. Communism.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:17:02 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
Foxy, NO!
We should not empower the blacks, unless we empower everyone else.
Oh wait a minute we do, it's called parliament.
You can flap on all you like about being dispossessed, but tell me which of these wannabee blacks of today have been dispossessed, or better still want to go and live in the 'bush' like their ancestors did?
NONE!
Stop pushing this arrogant virtue signalling mantra of yours.
We, the rest of Australia, including the migrants, don't agree with you or the idea of giving any one particular group of people, special privileges or treatment over the rest of us.
We already have to suffer through these annoying and erroneous attacks promoting a moot point and mythical society as though they have some reverence or right of ownership to a land simply because they happen to be standing on it when the real owners come to claim it.
Remember, the original people were passing through from up North?.
All that you write is a fantasy and most of Australia would tell you to your face, but for not wanting to waste the time and; IF THEY COULD BE BOTHERED.
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:20:06 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
ttbn,

This is a discussion forum. Therefore you have
to be prepared for opinions that don't agree
with yours. However you are not obliged to
read any opinions that seem to distress you,
But you certainly are not entitled to stop
people from airing their views. Freedom of
speech and all that... But of course this does
not seem to apply to you judging from you comments.
You only approve of posts that agree with your
viewpoint - other wise how can you explain such
a strong feeling towards someone you don't even
know. And you wonder why the term "toxic" is
an apt description of your postings. If you want
my opinion to change about you. You can always
improve your behaviour.

BTW: Who really reads ALTRAV's posts?
Anyone of any intelligence? No. forget I aksed.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:22:31 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
Foxy wrotte..."They [aboriginals ]ask only to be heard in decisions made about them. A practical reform. Not a veto, but merely a voice."

Oh I get it. They just want to be able to vote. Well I say its about time they got the vote.....oh wait!

" Here's the harsh reality: Our forebears took this country from the original inhabitants. We are not about to give it back."

Well I for one think we should give it back to the original inhabitants. Does anyone know where we can find a 200 year old native? Because they're gunna be rich.

"And the highest form of ignorance is when someone rejects something they don't know anything about."

That's OK Foxy, we'll agree to overlook your faults
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:46:46 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
Foxy,

This is a discussion forum. Therefore you have to be prepared for opinions that don't agree with yours. However you are not obliged to read any opinions that seem to distress you. But you certainly are not entitled to stop people from airing their views. None of us are.

Do you have any actual opinions of your own, not just those regurgitated from Google ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 July 2019 12:50:26 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
I must be as think as a brick? For the life of me, I don't understand what the problem might be by permitting our indigenous people to have a voice or opinion on issues that are being determined on their behalf, in Parliament? Indigenous advisor's or counsellor's, to the Minister in the relevant Portfolio would be one measure if they don't already exist?

I'm not suggesting for a moment, that a Third House be established, as it would create even more dislocation for the elected Government in power. If anything I'd remove the Senate, as they've done in NZ. Anyway, that's off-topic.

I guess we all should acknowledge, the traditional means of having a voice in our parliament is to seek election to one of the seats. Over the years, there've been several well known Aboriginal politicians, some were very good, while others have carried on like a wrecking ball.
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 14 July 2019 1:40:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi O Sung Wu,

They already do exist: the Prime Minister has an Indigenous Advisory Committee reporting directly to him. There is an elected Assembly of First Nations.

There are Indigenous TV stations, radio stations, journals and newspapers, Indigenous members of parliaments all around the country, including the Treasurer of WA, Ken Wyatt's cousin?nephew. And an Indigenous Minister for Indigenous People.

There are many thousands of Indigenous organisations. There are national peak bodies in many fields of concern. There are outstanding spokespeople.

If they all spoke together, it would be deafening.

So how come they are so quiet ? Or is there some sort of claim that they are not listened to ? Yes, Indigenous communities are afflicted with many very difficult problems, which, in the long run, only they can resolve: the Indigenous community claims to want less government involvement or intrusion in their lives. So what's the real agenda ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 July 2019 2:25:44 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
mhaze,

Don't find fault with what you don't understand.
Correct your own first.
Still I guess it's a cultural thing for some. They find
fault like there's a reward for it.

Joe,

My sources are not limited to just the one search engine.
They include books and articles, peer reviewed, including
abstracts, original written works, diaries, interviews, surveys,
original research/fieldwork and research published in
academic journals, and much, much more. It's an
occupational habit. But, Thanks for asking.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 3:41:00 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
o sung wu,

You are most certainly NOT 'as thick as a brick', and your concern about people having a say is commendable. But, all Australian citizens do get a say via our democratic system of voting and the obligations of the people we vote for. We don't always get the politicians we want; we don't always get what we want even from the politicians we want. But, winning and losing is the same for everybody; citizens are all equal before the law, no matter what we look like, where we came from, or how long we've been citizens.

As I've said previously, all minorities are at liberty to maintain their culture as long as they obey Australian law and don't force it onto other people. There is no hierarchy of minorities - certainly none based on race. And, as Joe points out, indigenously connected citizens have a truck load of cultural activities, organisations, communication organs etc., as well as the other privileges and responsibilities all Australians have. The hoo ha about Recognition and a special voice for - 3 or 4% ? - of the population - is all about social engineering and very slippery and dangerous mischief.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 14 July 2019 4:36:53 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
Dear O Sung Wu,

You are a ray of light on this forum.

We have to remember the patriotism in the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander soldiers who fought in
defence of Australia's Constitution and the Crown's
sovereignty, long before they were recognised as
citizens. They came home to a nation that excluded them
and were denied the medals and soldier entitlements
provided to their white counterparts.

Two of Noel Pearson's great-uncles served in France and
came home to discrimination and no recognition for their
patriotism.

Australia's constitutional arrangements empowered such
policies. The Constitution still enables parliament to
take necessary Indigenous-specific measures. These
measures are often not as effective as they could be, and
the gap between us widens.

Is it really asking too much for Indigenous peoples to have
a voice in the constitutional compact, such that their
imput may improve such measures?

Such a mechanism would encourage dialogue, sharing, and
"mutual respect and comity"between the parties. Inclusion of
the First Nations would strengthen our national unity.

Division arises from exclusion, not inclusion. Through
participation, inclusion is fostered.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 4:56:10 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
Foxy,

"The Constitution still enables parliament to take necessary Indigenous-specific measures."

And the plethora of articulate bodies and individuals, including MPs, will surely ensure "that their input may improve such measures."

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 14 July 2019 5:50:08 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
Joe,
When Parliament makes laws and policies about the
First Nations of the Northern Territory, as they
did with the Northern Territory Intervention, the
First Nations of the Northern Territory should have
a fair say. Whether you agree or disagree that the
Intervention was necessary, there is consensus that
it was poorly implemented, without proper consultation,
and not as effective as it could have been. The
Intervention failed to achieve its aims.

Had local First Nations been empowered to take responsibility
in its formation, the Intervention would not have been
discriminatory. It would have been better accepted by
communities and more effective.

Government cannot solve people's problems.

The First Nations of Australia have a right to take
responsibility. They should be empowered with a
constitutional voice in their affairs, so they can always
participate in decisions made about them. As a
champion of responsibility, you should support such a
reform.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 14 July 2019 6:29:54 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 there FOXY, TTBN, & LOUDMOUTH...

Hi Joe...

Thank you for acquainting me with some of the organisations representing our indigenous people. I must admit, I hadn't realised just how many there were. I wonder though, do all these various bodies discharge their functions & duties faithfully? Particularly those responsible for the distribution of benefits, both equitable and honestly? I've noticed on past occasions Joe, when Aboriginal people were part of the Topic, you seemed to know, a hell of a lot more about them than I do? I certainly could've used your knowledge, the first time I was sent to the bush. (Wilcannia) was my first job. Thank goodness, most of my crew there were very experienced.

G'evening to you TTBN...

I believe what you say is absolutely correct. Do you think perhaps they may have 'too much' representation, more so than any other cultural group, thereby causing substantial confusion among many of those who reside in isolated communities?

If so, I wonder if most of them believe their requests, outlining their many needs, are getting through to Government. And not being 'muddied' in the process by too many (paid) lobbyists? Or do you think a few self-interested individuals, who make extraordinary claims of having some remote connection to the Aboriginal community, only wish to get their noses far into the generous pot of goodies, strictly reserved for indigenous people? Or has it all been unfortunately lost in translation, accidentally or mischievously? It's trendy and often financially rewarding, to claim to have some Aboriginal blood?

Hi there FOXY...

Many thanks for your kind words. I couldn't agree more. Many of our indigenous black men acquited themselves bravely in times of war, and all theatres of war. My boxing coach for over three years (Vince BUNDA, an Aboriginal, M'Weight), was in the Military with me; I was 17, and you might say he taught me much — not only ring craft, but about life in general and being and acting maturely and responsibly with girls. An outstanding figure to model one's character upon.
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 14 July 2019 9:35:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu, I put this question to you, because I have had too many questionable answers in the past, but I will get the correct answer one day, I will find the correct question and ask the correct people, then, and only then, can I feel secure with the truth.
The question is;
How many of those 'claiming' to be Aborigines, are of true blood, where their mother and father are of true blood, or have NO European blood in their ancestry?
My reason for asking is that I and other aboriginal elders have commented that the wannabees stop calling themselves aborigine just to collect the benefits.
The underlying basis of the question is in line with this topic and why there is current or level of resentment and racism towards the blacks,in this country.
Other races are also represented in this context but for different yet similar reasons as the blacks.
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 14 July 2019 11:23:09 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
Dear O Sung Wu,

Australia is a nation of three parts: its ancient
pre-colonial heritage, its inherited British
institutions and its multicultural achievement.

The Uluru Statement affords a unique opportunity
to embrace the most Australian part of ourselves,
and to do so in a way that upholds our successful
constitutional system.

This would be a belated recognition of the most
ancient part of our nation.

Formal inclusion of the First Nations would be a
deeply patriotic move, not a divisive one.

Indigenous peoples were the constituency left out of our
nation's unity pact. They weren't at the negotiating
table with the Founding Fathers, so they weren't
included in the compact. The Constitution recognised
neither their voice nor their rights.

Belatedly correcting this unfair omission by guaranteeing
the First Nations a voice in their affairs would be
a pragmatic inclusion, in keeping with our constiutional
culture and reality. A fair say in their own affairs.

As I've stated numerous times the Constitution still
enables parliament to take necessary Indigenous specific
measures. These measures are often not as effective as they
could be, and the gap between us widens.

Is it really asking too much for the Indigenous peoples
to have a voice in the constitutional compact, such that
their imput may improve such measures?

I guess the choice will be for the Australian voters to
make - if a Referendum will be held. We shall see what
kind of country and society we want to have.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 July 2019 11:00:41 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
Foxy, what you propose will not engender inclusivety, but exclusivity. You dare to hold one race above all others and yet you say we are multicultural.
We are no longer a country of singular values, yet we vote and move amongst each other as if we are.
If the blacks get what you propose, it will further widen an already wide rift and resentment for the blacks.
By your continual badgering and banging on about the poor hard done by blacks, you are only making things worse for them and thankfully so too the chance of them ever getting a special seat, for special treatment in govt.
Your are thinking of another place, this is not the UN.
Remember, we ALL have special needs!
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 11:53:30 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
ALTRAV,

I can see that we are going to have to agree to disagree
on this one. We are poles apart in our thinking.
Soon we will all decide if and how Indigenous Australians
will be recognised in the Constitution.

It will be up to the voters to decide.

Un abbraccio.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 July 2019 1:00:40 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 there ALTRAV...

An interesting question, however, I cannot back up my opinions, with any substantiated facts or figures - I'll leave that to the various theoreticians to do that.

Empirically speaking, some individuals I've had to deal with, both as a Detective & in uniform, claiming Aboriginal heritage, I believed to be deceitful. I can't claim any expertise of indigenous folk. But I do contend I know a legitimate 'black fella' (a term they frequently employ themselves) when I've met with one.

While it's true, some have certain features, and complections that would pass as Europeans. But this tends to be more atypical than the rule. After a while, one does tend to recognise those who can legitimately claim to be of indigenous heritage. Police GO's & GI's stipulate how we must deal with individuals claiming to be Aboriginal. And the burden of proof lays with Police & the Crown to prove otherwise? Especially those in cellular confinement. Too many rules to share with you in this limited Site - but they are afforded some additional protections, above and beyond what others can expect?

Upon an arrest, police are required to employ a set of rules, called the 'Judges Rules,' which in my time were nine (9) in number. One you'll recognise; {'...you are not required to say anything, however, anything you do say, will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence against you in a Court of Law...'}. The Americans call it the 'Miranda.' Both are for the (legal) protection(s) of the accused person. Another 'Rule' - {The person arrested must be informed of the real reason for their arrest}.

Those of Aboriginal blood, are not only entitled to the protections enshrined in the nine (9) 'Judges Rules,' that apply to you & me; but a further ten (10) rules called the 'Anunga' (sic) Rules, that arose out of a High Court judgment, some Sixty years or so ago. I hope this goes in some small way in helping you with your inquiry ALTRAV?
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 15 July 2019 3:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear o sung wu,

It is an interesting topic. What makes someone Aboriginal.

Perhaps looking at what makes someone a Jew in the eyes of the State of Israel. To enjoy the embrace of the "Law of Return" which gives someone living overseas the right to become an Israeli citizen one needs only one grandparent to have identified as Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

This incidentally was the same test applied in Nazi Germany to decide if you were off to the ovens.

Now of course there are many blue-eyed blonde people living in and being accepted as Jews within Israel.

If you don't see a problem with the approach taken by Israel then what would prevent you extending the same criteria to a person's aboriginality?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 15 July 2019 3:32:04 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
Steely, Oh I see a problem alright.
Firstly, like the reasoning of the NZ govt, the matter of who you are is not the same as what religion you are.
The KIWI model says that if your parents are Kiwi, then it matters not where you are born, you are always Kiwi.
Now I agree with this but it must be seen as two things, one is a govt thing.
The other is a genetic thing and so, to that end if you're born in Australia, then you are Aussie.
But because your parents are both pure blood Kiwi, I'm sorry but genetically you are Kiwi.
So even though your passport will say you're Aussie, the NZ govt says you're not.
This is an on-going issue.
Now if we are talking about Jews, if I understand correctly, to be Jewish, is a religion, you can be born anywhere.
I'm not sure but I imagine the fact that Jews have so many special dispensations around the world, that their case is unique.
Steely again you choose one of the extraordinary examples or cases.
The example which best describes the correct answer is; because an aborigine is someone who has descended from a blood line going back for thousands of years, they can only be called an aborigine.
When two aborigines mate, their offspring will be, by definition and blood, an aborigine.
This is the terms of reference for any race, an unbroken lineage or bloodline.
On the other hand, and what is more prevalent today, is that because of the 'contamination' of the blacks bloodline by the insertion of Europeans on the Aussie landscape, we began seeing mixed blood offsprings.
These children, again by definition were not aborigine.
They simply were not because they were of mixed parentage, and so what they were was Australian.
Like anyone of mixed blood they could refer to themselves as an Aussie Abo or an Abo Aussie, but NOT aboriginal.
To put a more light hearted spin on it they were not aboriginal because they were no an 'original abo'? (pun intended).
continue.............
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 4:29:59 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
continue...........

Then we come across the case where, for example, a Frenchman and an Aussie have a kid, this would be classified as an Aussie, genetically, because one parent was Aussie and he was born in Australia.
If both parents happen to be, say French and the child is born in Australia, well his passport would say he was Aussie but in fact he is French, because he is a pure blood Frenchman.
I have heard wannabee black's suggest they 'feel' aboriginal, or they relate to the land as an an aboriginal.
Well good for them, but they are not aborigine and they are not genetically correct.
I see it as a test of several factors both parents X and X then offspring X.
One parent X the other Y the offspring born in Y then two out of three the offspring is Y.
And so on.
I hope this is clear enough for most.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 4:39:42 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
Legally an "Aboriginal Australian" is recognised as
a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or a Torres
Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community
in which he (or she) lives.

Today about 3% of Australia's population has Aboriginal
heritage. And, Aboriginal Australians are still struggling
to retain their ancient culture and fight for recognition
and restitution from the Australian government.

The Victorian government is currently working towards
a first-of-its-kind treaty with its Aboriginal population
that would recognise Aboriginal Australians sovereignty.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 July 2019 5:17:17 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
What would we do without Dr. Google ?

When I was working in Indigenous Student Support at one university here in SA (albeit an insignificant uni in an insignificant state with very few Indigenous people), back in the days when very few Indigenous students were finishing Year 12 (VERY different now), one would get the occasional person who, one suspected, was not Indigenous. When asked, just as a matter of curiosity, who they might have been related to, they got dodgy (some people are lousy actors) and claimed to be from far away, usually from some obscure town in Tasmania or WA.

No worries, I'd say, since one could easily ring up a local Indigenous organisation - what, your mother or father or both ? Usually mother. Oh, what was her maiden name ? Um, she didn't really know, she was stolen generation. [So how did this person 'know' he/she was Indigenous ? I'm such a cruel bastard].

Or, if they hadn't planned well, from a local country town. Oh, my wife's auntie lived there, I'd say, did you ever know her or her kids, they might have even gone to school with you. No, I didn't live there, I left as a baby.

Okay, I'd say, just fill out this family tree and we'll take it from there. [Goodbye].

One bloke got into a more 'friendly' Indigenous program and later was their Aboriginal Scholar of the Year, and scored a plum job in Canberra in policy development, and then one back here in SA. Others I was a bit uncertain about. Usually Indigenous people are happy to let you know who they're related to, in case you know one of their rellies. So the equivocation was a give-away. With others, it's like playing some blind card game: do you have an ace of spades ? No. Do you have a six of diamonds ? No. Do you have ....

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 July 2019 6:32:57 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
Loudmouth you cannot believe how wonderfully enlightening and vindicating it is to read your postings on certain topics.
Had I had the gall to cant the same words, stories and events you have, I would be abused and vilified from one end of the forum to the other, which has been the case thus far.
It appears we are not allowed to question certain people and what they say, and simply take them at their word, or anyone else's for that matter.
I must admit I am surprised at your candour as it reminds me of the 'pigs' (just one of the endearing terms we used call you lot years ago) of our day who were more like 'mates' than your enemy, and so unlike the 'pigs' of today. (todays lot are not endearing, they really are more like 'pigs')
You were, in the main an OK bunch, back then.
I find comfort in reading your comments.
Keep it up.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 9:03:21 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
Loudmouth sorry I meant o sung wu, I still had your entry in mind when I started writing in response to osw.
I appologise to both of you, as I had a response in mind for your comments as well Loudmouth, but now I find I've lost my train of thought.
I might respond later to you loudmouth, if I can get back on the bike.
I was distracted momentarily and will have to get back to this after I deal with this distraction.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 9:11:30 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
No probs, Altrav :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 July 2019 10:04:27 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
Foxy, care less what your kangaroo court says about 'recognising' someone as something they're not, merely because a 'group' say so.
And as for the Vic govt doing whatever they are doing, there are no grounds for recognition or restitution.
The absolute arrogance.
Foxy you are no better by promoting these agenda, they and by association you are complicit in a major deception and fraud, which ultimately is major theft.
So as not to allow you to gloss over it or deflect, look up google for the meaning of 'complicit'.
They are NOT entitled to the gratuitous bounties they have enjoyed thus far, and still do.
I, unlike you, believe that Aussies are not as brainwashed as you, and because of this, will not allow the govt to give away any more 'benefits', or anything for that matter.
If they are struggling to retain their ancient culture, I don't see how giving them money and benefits will in any way help them with their culture, because there is an ulterior motive, and it has nothing to do with culture or heritage.
You can't be serious, and if you are, you have a problem
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 10:17:12 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
Loudmouth, I recall now, the reason I was going to repond to your comments was because I felt the same response to osw and so I basically felt as though I could copy what I said to osw, but obviously without the comic references to the 'pigs'.
You both exemplify people of maturity and experience.
Something I always appreciate.
Look forward to more of your comments.
Another I have enjoyed but have not heard from lately, is canum malum, wonder where he has been hiding?
Keep up the good work.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 15 July 2019 10:32:44 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
Whew.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 15 July 2019 10:50:29 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
Joe,

What would we do without Dr Google, you ask?

Well, you could also go to other search engines
and databases, you could go to original works,
diaries, books, articles, original research,
fieldwork, research published in scholarly
academic journals or alternatively go to your
state and national libraries and ask a librarian
for help.

There's also essays written by people like -
Megan Davis, Damien Freeman, Stan Grant,
Jackie Huggins, Nolan Hunter, Rod LIttle,'Shireen
MOrris, Warren Mundine, Noel Pearson,
Galarrway Yunupingu, to name just a few.
Then there are the diaries of explorers,
pastoralists, protectors, and historians.
Bill Gammage is worth reading.

But, perhaps you're right - stick with Google.
It's an easier option for you.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 10:45:36 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
A multicultural Pom, with the grand old English name of Sahil Mahtani, has written a tongue-in-cheek piece demanding that Britain’s Anglo-Saxons deserve reparations for the Norman Conquest of their country. Funny and absurd, it highlights the equal absurdity of our own Recognition and Voice nonsense.

He refers to the enduring devastation, war and genocide that occurred in 1066. The Anglo-Saxon ruling class was was replaced, the church had to surrender to foreigners, English was replaced as the official language by Norman French.

The Conquest of Britain by the Norman invaders has had lasting effects, according to Sahil Mahtani. Norman surnames are over-represented by 25 percent in Oxford and Cambridge. Cambridge “drips with Norman money”. Graduate descendants of the “rapacious Norman invader” class earn 400,000 pounds more during their lifetimes than do graduates from non-Norman universities. And, it’s been like this for ‘31 generations’.

There should be Royal Commission to trace the present day descendants of the Norman “usurpers”, and they should pay a tax to the Anglo-Saxon victims for the invasion and genocide.

Mahtani knows that there will be the “inevitable” moans from descendants of Normans that they were not personally responsible, but this is “feeble prattle”. (Sound familiar?).

And, that’s not the end of it. One Royal Commission into injustice will not be enough. Once the Anglo-Saxons have been compensated, the descendants of the ancient Britons will need to go after the Anglo-Saxons who took over from them. The enormous cost of all this, could be retrieved by the Scandinavians in compensation for all the raping and pillaging by the Vikings.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 11:58:51 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
Constitutions confer power upon parliaments, which
are, by definition, political organisations. The
purpose of constitutions is to organise and manage
political processes through the creation of political
institutions.

Internationally, many publicly funded institutions empower
First Nations with a voice in their own affairs, often
accompanied by constitutional provisions, recognising and
protecting Indigenous rights.

Norway, Sweden, and Finland have publicly funded Sami
affairs, New Zealand has the publicly funded Maori
Council (and reserved Maori seats) to ensure the
Maori have a voice in Maori affairs; and Canada has publicly
funded the Assembly of First Nations,

All these countries not only guarantee First Nations have
a voice, but also constitutionally recognise Indigenous
rights and interests.

Why do they accommodate their First Nations in institutional
and constitutional arrangements? Because the First Nations
of a colonised country are not the same as any other lobby
group. They are a group of citizens descended from the
original owners of the land. They were dispossessed, and have
rights and interests arising from this history.

Responsible democracies put in place measures to manage
relationships between their Indigenous peoples and the
nation state, to ensure Indigenous peoples
can participate fairly in the nation.
Representative arrangements are part of such
measures.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 1:52:00 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 there ALTRAV...

I'm sorry I hadn't realised you were addressing me in one of your posts. As you can probably gather, I'm very much a blue-collar person, who will never cite some academic opinion, on a particular topic, other than statements made by the individual(s) I'm responding too.

I don't think anyone is smart enough to determine a person's ethnicity purely by meeting and speaking with them momentarily. But as a copper, stationed in an area with a high (Australian) indigenous population, you do tend to know, after you've been talking with them for a while, precisely who they are.

As an example, when I did a stint at Redfern (Sydney), and we had an area under our local Command, very near the Redfern Railway Station, known as the 'Eveleigh St.' sector. Four densely packed Streets, bordered by Eveleigh, Holden, Vine & Caroline St's. with Eveleigh Lane, abutting behind. This group of streets roughly in a square had a very high concentration of blacks 'living' there in conditions that I could only call squalor.

I kid you not; it was a veritable war zone! Drunken, brawling, rowdy, drug-affected individuals, all spoiling for a decent stink with the coppers! Egged on, by several people of questionable Aboriginal heritage, who delighted in nothing more, then agitating and stirring these people, to belt the 'bejesus' out of the coppers. It got so bad when I was there. I (think) it was 'Four Corners' that did a TV Show dedicated to all the trouble. It was the 'stirrers' we wanted to lock-up, but 'the best laid plans of mice and men'?

The only voice of reason in those violent times, was an Aboriginal lady called 'Mummy SMITH', a really wonderous person who knew exactly where the troubles laid?
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 1:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Both Canada and Australia fund their respective Assembly of First Nations. But your surfing through Google is commendable.

It strikes me: do you actually know any Indigenous people ? I don't mean someone on the same Committee, maybe a few years ago, but an ordinary person, here and now ? Your comments have a sort of extra-planetary sound about them.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I was honoured to be mistaken for you by AltRav.

I have some second-hand association with Redfern: my father was born there, and my mum's father died there. My sister was beaten up there on the railway platform by an Aboriginal bloke who pinched her purse. Those were the days.

Many of those inner-city suburbs are familiar by word of mouth (I'm a Bankstown boy myself, we moved up in the world): as a kid my mum lived in Glebe, her mum later lived in Surry Hills and died in Annandale, an aunt in Woolloomooloo - all back in the days when a hovel was a hovel: my grand-dad's had a dirt floor, it was eight or maybe ten feet wide. If only he'd lived to 100, or 120, he could have sold it for a fortune to a Green. Or a left-Labor functionary.

Have you thought about writing up your memoirs ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 2:15:57 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
Ttbn,

Your thread has got me thinking. Indigenous groups are trying to revive their languages, maybe all 500 or more of them, a task difficult enough for a team of linguists, let alone someone with the basic 200 words or less. Indigenous languages were full of hunting/gathering terms (and farming terms in the Torres Strait Islands), which have largely fallen into abeyance, at the same time as new terms have not been devised. I wish them every good luck.

Fortunately for Indigenous gatherings, they have a language which is almost universal, spoken from one side of Australia to the other, from universities to communities. It's called English. That's their language as much as it is anybody else's.

Of course, it may be spoken in a vast range of dialects and accents - my wife had a charming Pt McLeay accent from the lower Lakes, it was a shock recently to hear her voice on tape.

Different groups - at least in SA, an insignificant state - have slightly different accents (phonies, please note: copy an Indigenous accent). But they all can understand each other through a common medium for the first time in 60,000 years: English.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 2:25:05 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
Joe,

What about the more remote people who, we are told by the 'experts', don't understand English. Is that another example of us being had a loan of? I have never met a person of indigenous background who couldn't express themselves as well as, if not better than, I can.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 2:38:25 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
Joe,

You keep referring to my use of Google
as being "commendable." I don't use
Google all that often. You should not
judge others by your own standards -
commendable as they may be. I am trained
in the use of more than one search engine
as I stated earlier.

Do I know any Indigenous people? Yes, quite a
few. One that stands out is -
the Director of our nearby Mia Mia Gallery.
Colin McKinnon Dodd.
Who introduced all of us in the city to
his Gallery and people. His much loved Gallery
attracted over 250,000
visitors a year, and specialised in not only
Aboriginal artists, musicians, actors, dancers,
poets, story-tellers and sculptors. But it -

was a very popular spot for tourists, school students
and school groups.

Learning about Aboriginal
culture was a wonderful feature of the gallery.
It was in a bush-like setting and very much loved
by everyone. Unfortunately it closed in 2013 - but
the work continues today at the City's Centre.

Anyway, Thanks for asking.

How about yourself - any Indigenous people that
you're still friends with? Any elders?
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 3:17:03 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
Foxy,

Not too many friends these days, I don't get around much any more :) But I do remember some of the 'elders' when they were kids and tearaway teenagers. Some of them do have very big beards, so they must be elders.

Ttbn,

There would be quite a few people in remote areas who don't have a good grasp of English. But fortunately, many of them have grandparents who do, who can help them out when they go to town for something, or need help with a document.

Of course, in spite of the ABC's coverage and film shots, the vast majority of Indigenous people live in towns: the percentage living in 'remote' areas is probably less than 10 %, and in very remote areas, 3 - 5 %. After all, there are more Indigenous people in the Sydney area than in the NT and Western Australia combined.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 5:34:45 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
G'day to you LOUDMOUTH...

Hi Joe;

I know the Glebe area well, the site of Harold Park, Trots & Dogs and of course, Arundel Street Glebe is the present Site of the Coroners Court and below them, the Morgue. Even though the correct address for the Court, is Parramatta Road. I'm shocked to hear your Sister was assaulted and robbed, by an Aboriginal bloke on one of the platforms at Redfern Railway Station. It certainly can be a rough area around there, especially at night.

Again, I know Bankstown, Punchbowl & Greenacre pretty well too. I was part of the Lebanese (illicit weapons) Task Forces when I was a Detective. Another hazardous occupation at the time. That said, I always liked Bankstown and their vast Shopping Mall, and their terrific RSL Club.

You know my friend, your family sounds similar to mine. Back in the days of the Great Depression and the War. Both families dirt poor, yet they still worked their butts off, so we kids had bread 'n butter on the table at night!

Sorry, Joe, I'm well off Topic, so I best go. Thank you for your kind sentiments. I do appreciate them, very much indeed.

My memoirs? I think I'd bore everyone utterly senseless?
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 6:20:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article pretty much encapsulates sensible discussion:

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/07/a-voice-of-division/
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 6:27:27 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
Joe,

This is better:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678

We've heard your argument for decades. Nothing new there.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 6:44:27 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
Foxy, did you just sideline loudmouth?
Because what you wrote tells us, no loudmouth my suggestion is better than yours.
Yet again you push your way through with more plagiarism and still pushing YOUR same old mantra and dogma.
I am predicting that just like the SSM thing, those people who could not be bothered to come out to do the 'survey' last time, will not make the same mistake next time in making it quite clear that the so called indigenous people do not get to realise their unjustified and arrogant demands.
First nations my Ar&e.
The truly 'first nations' people were in fact the convicts.
Even though I will cop the wrath of the great unrealistics, like yourself, it is far more reasonable and justified than giving the blacks one more hint of praise or shekel for having done NOTHING, and therefore are deserving of NOTHING!
Tell me what the blacks have done for the country or even for the people, or anyone for that matter, that they should be rewarded or even revered.
Foxy stop this baseless campaign trying to raise the profile and viability of the blacks.
Those who are aware of this campaign are well and truly over it.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 8:54:49 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
ALTRAV,

More ranting from you does not a discussion make.
I am not sidelining Joe. Merely providing a
balance to the views he's presenting. That's
not plagiarism. It's called dialogue. And it's
what happens in discussions of social and
political debate, which is what this forum is.

How about you providing something of substance?
Ranting, does not count.
Neither does your beating the same ignorant drum.
It's wearing a bit thin.

Give us something to back up your claims that the
Australian Aboriginal people are worthless and
have contributed nothing. The evidence says
otherwise. So show us what you've got to disprove
the evidence of historians.

Put up or shut up.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 10:44:34 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
Do some klutzes not know of Joe's published research, his website and his marital connections.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 16 July 2019 11:56:12 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
Foxy, you make it so easy, OK I'll take on your challenge I will now 'put up' and you will finally 'shut up', do I understand you correctly?
Right well, your challenge is too easy.
What I 'put up' to you, is all around for all to see, just how successful your poor downtrodden blacks are.
I give you their progress over the thousands of years they have been here.
It is non-existent.
There isn't any.
The blacks are not progressive and any attempt at trying to make them appear anything but people who have just 'settled' is futile.
Historians can spew out all these theories and quote 'actual' interviews which we are to take as the true account of the times.
Well no one has had the stones to respond to the question; if they were so smart in actually displaying an ability to engage in some new engineering and construction practices, why oh why do we not see them in a more advanced state or culture by the time the white's turned up.
As I said, more than likely the people who built the rock circles/houses, were wiped out by the warm and welcoming blacks, who would not harm a hair on anyone's head.
There are many other examples, but we know you don't want to hear them so I'll just release them as and when 'I' feel inclined.
I don't understand why you promote these inane causes.
It's almost as if you have something to gain by displaying this, what can only be described as extreme adulation for certain people.
I'm damned if I know why.
You really need to dial it down a notch, we're all getting a bit concerned.
Now that I've 'put up', I will, at my discretion remind you and take you at your word to 'shut up'.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 12:17:54 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 O Sung Wu,

As a kid, I lived in Greenacre when it was Chullora, on Waterloo Road. Our mum had taken out an order against our father. God knows how she (or us) survived. We went to half a dozen schools to keep out of his reach. When she re-married, a lovely, quiet, gentle bloke, we moved to Bass Hill, to a one-room place that he built near the paperbark scrub. And then to Penrith.

Exciting times for us ! Thinking back, we were remarkably self-reliant, getting buses and trains on our own at five and six. Our mum couldn't really be a helicopter mother :) Yeah, the Depression had a long shadow. But we got through all that, didn't we ? Tough little buggers.

Our greengrocer in Bass Hill, with horse and cart, was an Aboriginal bloke, with two pretty daughters, maybe eight and nine, a bit older than me. One lent me her comb to try to untangle my matted locks, but I probably gave her nits.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 10:16:36 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
Joe,

You have mentioned before that, while some people in remote areas have trouble with English, their grandparents can help them out. This means that the situation has regressed; it is now worse that when Whitlam and Coombes decided that they wanted a 'living museum', with aboriginal people as the exhibits.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 11:32:07 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
ALTRAV,

After European settlers arrived in 1788 thousands
of Aboriginals died from disease, colonists systematically
killed many others. At first contact, there were over
250,000 Aborigines in Australia. The massacres ended in 1920
leaving no more than 60,000.

The Constitution empowered laws and policies that denied
Indigenous people voting rights, property rights,
equal wages and asserted unequal protectionist controls.

Had the principle of equality been extended justly to
Indigenous peoples in the first place, Australia would not
now be grappling with Constitutional reform to ensure
Indigenous people receive a fairer go then they've had in the
past.

The political context exposes the hypocrisy - had a racial
non-discriminatory guarantee been supported by those who today
espouse "equality" Indigenous people might not now be asking
for a constitutional voice in their affairs.

Judging from your comments you firstly really need to
find out more accurately - the
history of our Indigenous people. Who they were and what they
did prior to colonial settlement. And why things changed
for them so drastically after the colonial settlement.

Still you're not alone in this. Many Australians are unfamiliar
as to what is being asked by the Indigenous today, and why.
Many don't even want to know. And that is what makes any change
difficult.

Australians have before us to guarantee mutual respect,
kindness and comity in the relationship between
the First Nations and the Australian government.

It's not asking much as I've stated in the past, to hear
Indigenous views when parliament makes decisions about them.
It is a modest and moral request. It is not beyond this
great nation to make it happen.

See you on another discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 11:56:01 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
Foxy,

Hmmm ..... the old 'Well, how do you explain .....' fallacy. There were many reasons why the Indigenous population may have seemed to decline from 250,000 to 60,000 - lack of immunity to diseases (TB could take people off in a month or two), grog, massacres, infanticide (common over most of Australia) and simple merging of people into the community. I'm always very sceptical about estimates of population off the top of people's heads.

Before the accession of British sovereignty, the population might have fluctuated between a quarter and half a million: at the onset of a drought, population in affected areas might decline substantially and keep declining until after the end of the drought; then take much longer to build up again. Before the next drought.

Of course, droughts had little effect on numbers of groups fortunate enough to be living along major rivers, but must have been devastating in areas where feed for animals was always precarious - i.e. most of Australia.

Paradoxically, the ration system - at least in South Australia, an insignificant state - meant that everybody was provided with food for the duration, including the able-bodied who couldn't find work. So people were more settled during droughts, not less, as before. That must have actually boosted the revision of song, dance and ritual. Of course, during droughts, people from 'way-out' came 'in' to ration depots; they weren't stupid.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 12:14:39 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
Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

G'day Joe _

By the sound of things we both did it pretty hard in those days, nevertheless, I wouldn't have traded those times for quids. As you say we trudged off to school on our own, no worries about some twisted bastard, molesting us in the process.

I would hasten to say growing up in the 1940s-50s though we never had the material things, it still was one of the best times of my life. The Chullora Drive-In was a regular haunt of ours back in the day. My first car was a Wolseley 1947 mod. 18/85 Horsepower, with twin SU Carbs. (standard). It would do 0 to 60mph in about 45 minutes, down a steep incline. It's best feature was a spacious back seat, very handy at the Chullora Drive-In! Cheers...Joe.

I surely MUST remain on Topic, sorry TTBN, my apologies.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 4:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AS Foxy has finished with this topic, my response will be in the form of a broadcast.
In dissecting Foxy's comments and submission, I find it necessary to give a baseline view on any objections to her propositions.
I believe that Aussies, in the main, do not side with Foxy's views because we do not believe we have caused the blacks any grief.
Whether it was at the time of settlement or through to and including today.
We are aware of the claims being made and their reasons for them, we just don't feel their claims are justified, for several reasons.
Firstly, we, the white man are NOT responsible for their plight, neither now nor in the past.
Secondly, we've been 'throwing' money at them for as long as we can remember, to no avail.
Thirdly, we do not trust the black fella's agenda with this push for self governance and all the reasons given.
Fourthly, and probably the most important point of all, is the idea that one group should get priority or beneficial treatment over ALL others is the ultimate slap in the face to the overwhelming majority who now 'own' Australia.
At the head of all this is a hugely misleading dogma that has been preached ad nauseum and is being pushed by virtue shaming people into submission.
People we have nothing to be ashamed of and we owe the blacks nothing.
Had they demonstrated that they were an advanced civilisation, and by our arrival we, destroyed their lifestyle and drove them back into the bush and back to a life of subsistence and homelessness, then I might be inclined to cede to some of their demands, but such is not the case, the opposite is in fact the case.
PS, just saw the news and guess who was being shown punching up a black woman in their 'living room'?
A drunken black guy, and they were under a tree in the park.
NO!
The blacks need to fix THEIR own internal problems, before anyone will take them seriously.
Till then, non-blacks must all stand firmly together.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 9:51:11 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
ALTRAV,
But how to deal with the dumb Whites in the meantime ? The book reading ones ones who keep throwing fuel into the fire ?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 10:11:00 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
Indy, your question is a pertinent and valid one, because one of the main problems I have found with people or debates today, is the clash of truth and fact.
I cannot believe the vast amount of conflicting and opposing books and documents or writings on a particular topic.
Why is it so hard to report the truth, not just the facts?
I fear it has to do with personal preference or a pre-concieved and long held, even if unfounded, view or belief about something.
This type of mind set refuses to accept anything which questions their long held beliefs.
What we must do is hold our ground and try to find truth in what they otherwise present/promote as fact.
Remember, truth and fact, are not always the same thing.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 10:29:13 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
Dear, Oh dear.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 11:08:41 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
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32162214?searchTerm=pizarro%20missing&searchLimits=
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 11:27:56 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
Dear, Oh dear.
Yeah, well !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 18 July 2019 8:11:36 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
Indy, sorry don't follow what you and Foxy are saying.
Foxy, says, "Dear, Oh Dear".
Then you say, "yeah, well"!
I'm a bit thick, what does it all mean?
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 18 July 2019 8:34:07 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
ALTRAV,
I meant yeah well, that's just her ! We've all tried to make her remove her blinkers but she steadfastly refuses. I think we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that common sense is not taken in by some people even if it is thrown at them.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 18 July 2019 10:17:27 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
Thanks, O Sung Wu,

Yes, the Drive-In was just up the road but we had moved by the time it was built. i recall a flooded quarry in between our place and the Drive-In site, maybe where the shopping centre is now. My mum said later that a bloke rescued my brother and me from a make-shift raft that we intended to sail across it. It's a miracle some of us survive our stupidity :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 July 2019 10:20:40 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
Individual,

Mud and faeces slinging, does not count as common sense,
except by sewer dwellers, primates, and mental midgets
with an IQ of a fence post.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 11:33:04 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
Foxy, you should write a book, you come up with some real pearlers, I gotta hand it to you.
Although no maybe that may not be a good idea, because you will get charged with plagiarism as we all know you don't have an original thought worth sharing, of your own.
Where did you copy your response from on that last retort?
That's right, you mentioned it once, was it the "The book of un-original comebacks"?
Keep it up Foxy, your nearly at rock bottom.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 18 July 2019 11:59:08 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
The story so far:

* . there is a multitude of mechanisms for 'voice';

* . a case for another, new and improved, 'voice' has not really been made;

* . the difficulty of ensuring that a 'voice' does not become a de facto Third Chamber, one with plenty of power but no responsibilities, has not been thought through; in fact, I don't think the 'voice' has been thought through at all;

* . most certainly, the need for inserting 'race' into the Constitution by recognising yet another 'voice' has not been explained;

* . the successful 1967 Referendum abolished 'race' from the Constitution, so many of us are mystified why it should be put back in, and in this cack-handed way.

Many of us may have the IQ of fence posts, but we honestly - yes, Foxy, honestly - can't understand these demands, except as yet more grabs for illicit power, lucrative employment and spite against the 'system'. We're starting to realise, some of us more belatedly than others (e.g. me), that the flow of demands will never stop.

Get into Google, quick, Foxy, and give us one of your succinct and brilliant rebuttals.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:11:25 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
Loudmouth,
Foxy's last post is dirtier than any mud/faeces slinging so, expect the same.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:26:43 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
ALTRAV,

Don't concern yourself about my writing.
I've got a whole stack of caustic quips.
A putdown for every occasion.

I realise of course - as Paul pointed out to you on another
discussion that English
is not your original language, nor is it
your second or third.
And your comprehension skills - well lets not talk about
those. That would be unkind.

You thrive on insults, you poor creature.
You need them to continue your
rants, barks, and raves. But even those are very limited
skills. However, it's all you've got.

Never mind, you do show us the prejudice, bigotry, and
mental midgetry that does exist.
All one can say is - "Dear, Oh Dear!

But even that you obviously don't understand.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:31:39 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
Joe,

Pleased to help you out:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/after-uluru-australias-politics-of-contempt-threatens-the-soul-o/10095186

There you go dear heart.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:35:57 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
Sorry, Foxy, it's no clearer.

Why can't the multitude of voices currently available be effectively used to persuade Australians of the need for some sort of statutory body, enshrined in the Constitution, which anybody can see would have great power to scrutinise each and every piece of proposed legislation, and yet have no responsibilities, not even the responsibility of explaining why any particular piece should be objected to - after all, it won't be a third chamber, will it, so explanation within the parliament itself won't be necessary, and actually can't be called for.

Certainly the government could legislate for another body to represent the views of Indigenous people, except that there is already an Assembly of first Nations - awfully quiet - and an advisory council within the PM's office. Also strangely quiet.

And a number of MPs in most parliaments. And media organisations. And peak bodies. And round five thousand organisations all over the country. Etc. Etc.

If you can't persuade me, then this issue is in trouble :(

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 July 2019 1:28:13 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
Joe,

We've been down this route before. Anything concerning
our First Nation's people you've made your mind up
a long time ago. And all you're really interested in
is shat stirring. I'm not interested in arguing with
you. It's a waste of time as I and others have
discovered years ago.

You're presumably an intelligent man and are quite
capable of doing your own research on what the Uluru
Statement is really asking for and what has yet to
still be decided as to how it will work. Look into
the matter yourself if you really want to know the
answers.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 1:42:20 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
Foxy,

I've looked and looked, and read and read, and still can't see how any of it will help communities or families. Maybe I'm too practical :(

Maybe I've experienced too many scams and rorts and policy failures over fifty years, but to thine own self be true.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 July 2019 4:47:50 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
Joe,

As Associate Prof. Robert Foster of the University
of Adelaide and a specialist in Aboriginal History
would tell you -

" Ït's how you choose to spin it!"

You've obviously made your choice years ago.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 4:56:50 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
Foxy,
have thought about a career in teaching snakes how to be venomous ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 18 July 2019 6:30:58 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
Individual,

Thanks for the offer but I'll leave that to
Aussies like you. Wouldn't want to take
your job away. You're so good at it - it's
a cultural thing with you. For me it would
be rather difficult to do.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 6:37:06 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
cont'd ...

Individual,

But hey, give me time - I'm learning so much
about venom on this forum. It seems to excel
in certain quarters especially.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 July 2019 6:43:42 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
Foxy,

Yes, I remember Bob Foster's remark that you partly quote, and what it was in relation to. Do you have the full article that it was from ? Wow, nearly five years ago.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 July 2019 6:57:26 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
Guys, guys, I think we may have pushed our little wallflower to the point of exhaustion.
Loudmouth I concur, i too am skeptical of the true and ulterior motives behind this, yet another money grab, via the guise of First Nations and so many other titles.
AS for the word "race", I am sure MOST Aussie's are repulsed by the notion that we have a very aggressive and selfish minority insisting on laws which will segregate and alienate us even more than we are currently.
But most of all they can see through their bull, that it's all about money, and nothing to do with self regulation.
Just find who are the people behind these agenda and who is really benefitting from these billion dollar payouts, and you will find the truth and the true culprits.
The blacks need to be told, to come into line and stop making insane demands based on an arrogant fallacious belief.
We owe them NOTHING, and if they don't stop this annoying and continual ranting and raving of demands, they will end up getting completely ignored, which is very near to happen soon.
I might remind them of the little boy who kept calling "wolf".
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 18 July 2019 7:03:50 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
Altrav,

Maybe it's not as simple as that - the Indigenous elites are probably more interested in power than just funds (which will flow from power);.

And their 'left' spruikers are, as Gramscians, interested in bringing bourgeois society down, no matter how and no matter what the consequences may be; PLUS, as Marxist-oriented parties always have done, they assume that they can control the Indigenous elites and use them.

But I wonder which are the useful idiots and which are the puppet-masters. Or are they both duping each other ?

So the elites will never acknowledge any satisfaction with whatever concession they have screwed out of the 'system'. There will always be something else, which makes them ideal targets for the Gramscians and anarchists (and Trots as well, I suppose: are there still Trots ?) - so the Gramscians think. And of course, the Indigenous elites think they are manipulating the 'left'. All quite hilarious.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 July 2019 10:58:13 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
A very interesting and insightful article in today's Australian, by Henry Ergas: that a legislated body, for a period of trial, something subordinate to parliament, would be more workable, and testable. Highly recommended.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 19 July 2019 9:49:38 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
the Indigenous elites are probably more interested in power than just funds (which will flow from power);.
Loudmouth,
Not only that but they're also way more pale !
Posted by individual, Friday, 19 July 2019 10:37:20 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
Loudmouth, would this not be just another department, group, body or entity to once more just do the same things the current fifteen departments, bodies or groups are already doing?
No I say, enough is enough, we are and have been doing more than is reasonable or justified for the blacks, and I know for a fact that if these jelly brained marshmellows ever woke up to the truth behind the financial handouts and leg ups we are throwing at the blacks, the public would be 'up in arms', and you would see a vastly different mood and opinion than we have thus far.
No I for one consider the blacks to be Aussies, and because of that should not be given special privileges over the rest of the 99% of Aussies.
I dream of the day when these scum bag politicians get exposed and the public actually grow some stones, we might see some of the pro-activity of the past, where the people actually revolted physically and stormed into parliament dragging these bastards out kicking and screaming to finally lynch them up to a fitting and justified end.
It would be some time before we would see any criminals attempting to run for office again, that I'll bet on.
Ah well, one can dream.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 19 July 2019 10:57:49 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
Henry Ergas has suggested a compromise position - that parliament legislates for an Indigenous advisory body rather than an unremovable body sanctioned by a change in the Constitution.

He suggests that, if after ten years, this body, subordinate and answerable to Parliament, has been performing efficiently, fully representative of the Indigenous population, and has been constructive in the interests of the Indigenous people, then the notion of a statutory body can be put to a Referendum.

I suppose such a legislated body would replace the current Assembly of Traditional Clans (or 'First Nations') and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council.

So what do intelligent readers (the great majority of OLO contributors, and all so good-looking too) think of that suggestion ? Too much ? Too little ? Too premature ? Too late ? Too limited - there should be local, regional and state bodies too ? Already too much - why not leave it to the elected Indigenous reps to speak up ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 19 July 2019 5:27:55 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All

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