Jay,

Interesting.
I agree with your comment in reference to values'...as long as they don't damage the progress of society.." however the statement "..Multicultural society where all values are considered equal" appears contradictory.How could we consider some of the barbarous practices of Islamic society,for example as equal? In my opinion this is the multicultural dilemma for democratic societies,ie to what extent do they allow "Multiculturalism" before the consensus that provides their cohesion is undermined.The advocates of multiculturalism don't seem to really consider this danger,some might be in favor of cultural ghettos. That's why a policy of multiculturalism is both unnecessary and inimicable to democratic societies.
I agree that we have to come to terms with the original inhabitants of Australia and I've long been in favor of a treaty, as mentioned in the video,without one,the Aboriginal people are in much the same position as the Palestinians.But,as I wrote earlier, 'what's done, is done',I will not accept some kind of collective 'racial' guilt for the actions of earlier generations.

Jay Of Melbourne enough people in Australia already consistently support one set of values, that of
equality between women and men, the foundation of Aboriginal tradition as interpreted by Tom Calma
with the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, to achieve the declaration of a Republic of
Australia should a referendum be held on equal rights governance this Saturday morning.

Equality between women and men conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures
and committees is the foundation from which true tolerance of cultural diversity proceeds
and the only genuine basis from which a treaty with the nation's First Peoples can be negotiated.

Hi Whistler,

Wit hrespect, you do seem to be a one-trick pony. When are you going to realise how reactionary and sexist your proposal is ? Do you honestly think that women would tolerate some form of gender-Apartheid which dictates what are women's issues and what are men's issues ?

Here's a little job for you: list ten issues which a women's legislature would deal with, and ten which a men;s legislature would deal with. Now fit immigration, education, health, foreign affairs, economic issues and urbanisation into your framework.

All of those issues, I would maintain, are BOTH women's and men's issues - i.e. issues to be resolved together, without unnecessary distinction. Pope didn't write that 'the proper study of mankind is man, and the proper study of womankind is woman, and never the twain shall meet.'

Just as Nelson Mandela champions a non-racial and democratic society, so we should be championing a non-sexist, non-racial and democraticd society. Your proposal would take human affairs precisely in the wrong direction.

Mind you, many fundametalists, Muslim and otherwise, would go for it.

Joe

So does anyone agree with me?
You can politely disagree with me all you want but does anyone else think we just need a "do over", I mean it's only been 220 years, we really could just start all over again.
As the video says, this is one of the most meticulously documented periods in history, we know who did what and when, all this "equality" business and the refusal to actually BE White people is a denial of our part in it.
Anyone who won't accept their Whiteness can't possibly claim to have the best interests of the country at heart, they just can't, this is a Black and White issue, you can't hide behind "Multiculturalism", "Racism' or any of your other "WORDISMS" any more.
You all know what will happen if we start at an official level calling the treatment of Aboriginals a Genocide.
You know what will happen if we recognise the sovereignty of Aboriginal people and engage in a treaty with them.
The Right will never do anything, they're stagnant and Hogtied by Israel, you guys are similarly bound by the religion of Political Correctness.
So do you want a revolution or are you going to just stand there yelling as the cattle cars go by,doing nothing like Leftists always do?

To be fair, Andrew Jakubowicz did make one good point:
"3. freezing the refugee processing of asylum seekers"
seems reasonable, although I think he meant to say illegal immigrants.

I’ve got a great idea!
Australia should formulate a population policy based on bringing people with as many disparate value systems as is possible, from all over the globe.
The genius of this idea is that when they get here, their very differences will be what unites them with us!
We’ll call it obtusity.
When they get here, we will strongly encourage them to retain their own value systems.
This will accelerate their integration into the community.
The only value we insist they adopt is the core Australian one of obtusity.
In return, we should also adopt their value systems:
We should put gender-segregated prayer rooms in our universities as a refreshing alternative to the secularism of the public sphere and as a sign of our commitment to obtusity.
We should actively promote the wearing of traditional tablecloths by their womenfolk as a pleasing contrast to the immodesty of Australian women and as a sign of liberation, and obtusity.
We should whitewash the histories of their ideologies so that we can feel better about ourselves, and so that they aren’t provoked to harm us.
In fact, we should make laws which criminalise anybody saying anything which might inflame the situation. Offence taken, not truth, should guide us in implementing these laws.
This is not to say that we should elevate all their values over ours.
For example, when they claim their ideology as justification for harming us, we should reject their proposition as absurd. We must make a principled stand somewhere. To admit to what they say would undermine the validity of our own ideology.
Those who disagree with our plan should be labelled haters and racists. Not only because they disagree with us, but because nobody wants to be labelled a hater or a racist so it is an effective way to stifle dissent.
Hang on.
Andrew Jakubowicz et al. already thought of it.