<<It is the past that should be addressed because how can we move forward united if it is not addressed?”
It’s a good question. Isn’t it time we held a new enquiry and as a nation accept what happened and absorb it into our reality?>>

The grievance industry cannot move on or it wouldn't exist.
I wish the grievance mongerers would be absorbed into the reality of doing productive work so that we can all move forward.

Substantial evidence from ethnography, the Courts and parliament supports an enquiry in recognition of a women's jurisdiction, so the matter appends a referendum to enable women's governance.

Dear Pericles... I guess you will duly mortify yourself this morning.

//The cult of the victim, once it takes hold, is highly resistant to appeasement, and extremely open to constant venting of emotions through the opening and re-opening of old wounds.//

That is essentially the problem with promoting 'division' through MC.

The 'pot' which you love to think I stir, is in fact those very grievances which are so hard to appease and which are exploited by specific interests (Socialist hardliners usually) for base political gain.

If you notice my words 'carefully'...you will observe that I refer to MC "as understood" by the various groups, rather than how it is legislated.

You might say this is a 'human problem' not a legislative one ? But I disagree.. any legislation which does NOT take human behaviour into consideration is both flawed and dangerous.

Multiculturalism is self defeating. My point about how society should function is simple "Promote and fund UNITY rather than diversity"
If you have spare funds...use them to facilitate and reward steps towards cultural and social unity rather than division.

How hard is that ? Unreasonable? Hardly.

You simply underlined and highlighted my very sound basis for this view. So...a-gain :) *thanks*

While I certainly wouldn't oppose a new inquiry into the Coniston Massacre, I'm not so sure that it would achieve much in practical or symbolic terms. While the massacre was relatively well-documented, it was only one of many that occurred in the process of subjugating Aboriginal people and expropriating their land. Assuming that such an inquiry were to reverse the risible 'self-defence' outcome of the original investigation, what would that actually achieve? Everybody who knows anything about the massacre knows that the original finding was rubbish anyway.

What about all the other murders amd massacres - are we to have a judicial inquiry into each one? To that extent I take Pericles' point, in the sense that we need to find a way of acknowledging the past injustices inherent in the establishment of Australia, without creating a perpetual 'guilt industry'. We need to be able to draw a line under unsavoury aspects of our history, rather than sweeping them under the carpet or fetishising them as evidence of the racist foundations upon which contemporary Australia was founded.

That's why I think that Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations, while representing a laudable effort to draw a line under that miserable chapter of our history, was inadequate because it said nothing about the deliberate effort to destroy Aboriginal culture, the widespread murder and mistreatment of Indigenous people, and the expropriation of Indigenous lands.

Gillard's preamble proposal could be one way of recognising these processes and of the State atoning for them. Another could be a formal Apology by the Head of the Australian State for all the illegal, unjust and inhumane processes that were integral to its creation. Another could be a formal Treaty, assuming that a suitable Indigenous representative entity can be established.

P.S. Boaz - as usual, you've managed to miscontrue and twist my meaning to push your own hateful agenda. This has nothing whatsoever to do with multiculturalism or your racist fantasies. Please don't misrepresent me any further, and do try and stay on topic.

I guess, if you stand on your head and squint sideways through industrial strength dark glasses, while wearing an EDL "we're for peace" t-shirt and carrying a dog-eared copy of Ayn Rand between your teeth, it might just be possible to understand where you are coming from, Boaz.

>>You simply underlined and highlighted my very sound basis for this view. So...a-gain :) *thanks*<<

Those of us who live on planet Earth and walk upright on two legs see it somewhat differently. There is absolutely no connection between the various massacres perpetrated by colonial invaders from wherever, to the implementation and prosecution of multiculturalism.

>>My point about how society should function is simple "Promote and fund UNITY rather than diversity"<<

That's a motherhood statement. But what you really mean is that you want everyone to be like you - white, Christian and suburban.

In your mind, any mixing of cultures is dangerous. We know you feel that way, as you have asserted as much, many times.

While I do not agree for one moment that such mixing can be described as "multicuturalism", it is in any case a far, far cry from the process of i) invasion and ii) subjection of the local population that we are supposed to be discussing here.

>>The 'pot' which you love to think I stir, is in fact those very grievances which are so hard to appease and which are exploited by specific interests (Socialist hardliners usually) for base political gain.<<

Let's unpack that rather unlovely sentence for a moment.

You, as the immigrant to this land, have decided that the grievances of the indigenous folk are the result of exploitation by "Socialist hardliners".

Tell us, how does this compare to your stated position on the residents of Israel. How do you justify your support of the historical rights of the Jews to their territory on the one hand, and your denial of those same rights to Australia's indigenous people on the other.

I doubt very much whether you can do that without reference to your somewhat self-serving holy book.

Sorry, this is a bit OT

But whistler, I couldn't let this pass without comment.

>>Substantial evidence from ethnography, the Courts and parliament supports an enquiry in recognition of a women's jurisdiction, so the matter appends a referendum to enable women's governance.<<

There is not a single part of that sentence that makes any sense, as it stands.

1. What is the "substantial evidence" to which you refer? I will be particularly fascinated to view the "evidence from ethnography", starting with which particular "ethnos" you have in mind.

2. Given that you have so far been silent on the nature of the "women's jurisdiction", what assumptions have you made that underpin your contention that there is evidence supporting an enquiry into one?

3. How would a referendum to establish "women's governance" be conducted? And while it is logical that "women's jurisdiction" should be included in such a vote, where do you see a separation between the two? Surely they have one and the same end?

For the best part of two years on this Forum, you have concentrated on the slogans and dodged the substance. I was wondering, since you are still here and repeating the same mantra, whether you have actually given the matter any deeper thought.