How accurate and truthful is this article? Thank-you Sara Hudson!

The absolute tripe that is flung about as being representative of Aboriginal "Culture" suggesting that they lived in some sort of utopian paradise before the white fella came and ruined it all is nauseating.

Old aboriginal dreamtime stories are full of instances of family killings including the old folk but more often children, abduction (rape), women fleeing forced marriage and various other acts of violence. Most of these are cautionary tales for younger members of the tribe to keep them in line but also go to show aboriginal society was and is as full of the same human faults and problems as any other. As a culture Australian aborigines could hardly be described as pacifist.

But that was then and now is now. Most "Aboriginals" are of mixed race with many predominately of other racial genetics and cultural influence and very very few living anything remotely resembling a traditional lifestyle. So why keep up the pretentious BS?

Those with access to that considerable resource called "Land Rights" have every opportunity to provide very well for themselves and their dependants. Many more are well evolved into mainstream Australia. There's really no excuses that can't be applied just as equitably to any other strata of Australian culture or subculture.

I'd also point out that many aspects of so called Aboriginal law actively disadvantage those who are at most risk of abuse. So for the 'apologists' I pose the question: Are you comfortable with the absence of basic human rights for some members of a society while defending the 'right' of that society to uphold it's so-called traditional law? It's like saying we believe recent arrivals to this country should be allowed to mutilate the genitals of their female children or force them into overseas marriages because of 'culture'. I don't think so!

So I concur: ONE NATION, ONE RULE OF LAW FOR ALL, no excuses, get over it, get on with it!

Sara, Chris needs to do some research before he comments. In addition to the frail aged being abandoned in more cultural times, currently nursing homes around Australia are filled with elderly indigenous people who have been placed there by their family. As for obligation, that was one of the principal components of tribal life that has been totally disrupted by the implementation of welfare. Traditionally obligation worked in two directions but now, with the introduction of free money people are no longer dependant on maintaining that connection. These days many indigenous people have simply become takers, spending their own welfare money then bludging more off family members without any obligation to repay the favour. Aboriginal people earning a regular wage are particularly at risk of being "humbugged" by relatives to the extent that many find it easier not to work at all. With regard the legal process, the original cause of this whole dispute was sorcery and traditional punishment would have been a spear through the leg at the least. Would Chris Graham be comfortable with that punishment, especially if tradition was followed and the speared person was sent off into the bush alone to survive as best they could. Or would he demand a nurse and ambulance be standing by to escort the injured man to hospital as has happened in the past? That rather defeats the whole argument doesn't it.?