Howard was right, they did do what they thought was right at the time. Attempts to say otherwise are moral revisionism.

Despite the academic language used, I can see what the former senior lecturer is trying to do: he's arguing for a morality that transcends time, place, cultures, and civilizations. Kant did indeed try to argue for this. However, Kant's argument becomes highly confusing, and thus unbelievable, when we have a look at his metaphysics. It's predicated on removing human beings from the chain of causal effects and peering into the "thing in-itself". True morality, for Kant, was devoid of human interests, values, and influences. Nietzsche correctly refuted this assumption because it insinuates human beings can free themselves from their earthly condition and view phenomena purely, with no causal influences. This is commonly called the "view from nowhere." Removing human beings from earthly influences is the domain of religion, like Christianity's distinction between the spirit and flesh, or Buddhism's Nirvana. Attempts at making morality transcend time therefore has little to teach us on actual history.

Morality today has shifted considerably since the time of the "stolen generation". Today, academics and "progressives" are hell bent on reinterpreting the past according to their hyper-sensitive morality. There has been considerable effort by them to paint Australian and/or Western history in the worst light possible. This is political through and through.

The author feels able to dismiss the reasons for Howard involving us in the Iraq war in a short paragraph, very abruptly, because it was “wrong”, but thinks it is necessary to spend the rest of his time analysing why the Coalition did not apologise to the so-called stolen generation, when the same short answer could have been given: because it was “wrong” to apologise for something that has now be proven to have never occurred.

The whole saga was fabricated by left leaning academics (one an ex-Communist, whatever an ‘ex’ one of those is) and activist aborigines for political and economic reasons.

Our “community values” were soiled by the whole fairy tale of a manufactured stolen generation.

"Howard was right, they did do what they thought was right at the time. Attempts to say otherwise are moral revisionism. "

I don't think the author did attempt to say otherwise and I think any implied conclusion that the author is therefore guilty of moral revisionism does not follow. In fact, I think any contrary implied conclusion, that their doing what they thought was right at the time means that it was right, also founders.

Lots of seemingly good people manacled slaves, doing what they thought was right at the time. This does not move most people today to conclude that because keeping slaves seemed right at the time, therefore it was and that consequently we have no need to feel sorry for the way slaves were treated by our ancestors. Perhaps the fact that we do owe some kind of apology to slaves, and any other groups who were badly treated by our ancestors, would be easier to grasp were our ancestors part of the offended against group rather than the offending.

But Glen C, perhaps slavery is only wrong at this time, because some consider it so. It does at least solve any unemployment problem, & many law & order problems, so is it actually wrong? Perhaps it could cure many Mediterranean problems right now.

Actually, from what I have read on Roman slavery, it was often much better to be slave than free man.

I do find it most amusing that Max, who spent a great deal of his life training people for the most dishonest & immoral profession know to man, that of lawyer, should assume some right to lecture us, & John Howard on morals.

Taking the high moral high ground is the last thing anyone connected with the legal profession is entitled to do.

Hang on Glen C, that's a load of old cobblers, apart from the first two decades of the colony slavery has never been legal much less practiced in Australia so how could our "ancestors" commit such crimes and what do your comments have to do with this article?

The only problem with the "apology" is that it's misunderstood by most people and that misunderstanding is wholly the fault of the "Anti Racists" who have injected their own false and pernicious White guilt narrative into the proceedings when clearly it simply doesn't belong there. The apology is a very narrow document pertaining to a very specific group of people who were affected by a very specific set of practices implemented by the state. There's no implication of collective guilt or collective victimhood in the apology and it has no wider context, it's between the state and those Aboriginals who were for one reason or another taken from their parents under the coercive powers of the state.

Max seems unaware that there is no factual basis for the false assertion of a “stolen generation”.

This phrase is an activist slogan for a political movement, aimed at gaining power for the activists dishonestly repeating it.

Numerous failed Court cases have demonstrated the absence of any factual basis for this scurrilous assertion.

How about some honest research, Max, before subjecting us to your baseless version of history?. Pleae relinquish your asserted belief in history devoid of facts.

Dear Hasbeen,

There are lawyers, and there are lawyers. Like any group of humans they are different from one another. Some are crooked. Some aren't. I am reading "Team of Rivals" which deals with Lincoln filling his cabinet with his former political rivals. I get the impression that Lincoln was a very moral man, and that his morals would stack up favourably against those of most people. Some lawyers are very concerned to promote justice. He was one of them and was not unique in that endeavour.

Dear Aristocrat,

I have not yet read this article - I will read it AFTER replying to you.

Morality IS independent on time and biology, because morality is based on just one independent principle - Hillel's golden rule:

WHAT YOU HATE DONE TO YOU - DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS.

There are no cultural discounts and morality does not shift according to our whims. What may however change, perhaps, is which things we hate done unto us. As some commented, such a change could occur as a result of gaining new information.

Now off to read the article - see what the fuss is all about.

OK, after reading the article I find it indeed a storm in a tea-cup, at least the first part. Yet the second part claims:

<<the nation, as a political entity, is responsible for what its governments do>>

So if you are looking for a culprit, then you are welcome to look up in my attic and under my bed, or anywhere else you like - because you won't find any nation there (but if you do, then by all means give it a good hiding).

Just remember: has anyone ever asked for your consent to belong to that 'nation' of theirs?
Yet now they want you to share the blame.
Sadly, this wouldn't be the first nor probably the last time when bullies frame other innocent people for their own crimes.

I have read that there have been a number of court cases that have
tried to establish that there was a "stolen generation" but all have failed.
No doubt some children were removed from their parents for welfare of
the children but the "stolen generation" seems to be something different.

The only successful claim for being 'stolen' by an aboriginal was Trevorrow which also established there was no systemic process for removing aboriginal children. Other cases have also confirmed this in WA, Vic, NT and SA.

The "stolen generations" concept is another politically correct lie by the progressives who infested the previous ALP and Green governments.

Following is a remark by the Judge in the latest failed “stolen generation” case:
“This is the twentieth case in State, Federal and High Courts involving significant Stolen Generations claims, and the nineteenth to see the claims thrown out”. Justice Pritchard found:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
The successful case did not succeed on th basis that the subject was one of the “stolen generation”. Damages were awarded on a different basis.

Twenty failed attempts to establish the myth by resorting to facts found not to exist.

Well david f, what would you call the lawyers who attempted the twenty cases mentioned in the above Leo Lane post.

Is it moral to try to use false arguments to enrich their clients with tax payer money from a government, when obviously there is not a just argument for any such entitlement.

I would assume this would be cases of no win no fee type litigation, often organized by such lawyers, to get a big buck for themselves. Used car salesmen would never sink so low.

Dear Hasbeen.

If you had read my post you would have read that I acknowledge some lawyers are crooked. However, you condemned the entire profession. That is simply prejudice. I doubt that there is any profession where all are either honest or dishonest. To maintain that is an unjustified generalisation.

I wonder if Max feels Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard should offer an apology for the 1000 plus drowning due to their 'good ' intentions.

Runner, people have to be responsible for their own actions, don't blame any one else including politicians for a 1000 drownings, get on the boat and take the risk, or if you don't get on there is no risk, simple as that.

Hasbeen
A lawyer is bound to put the best case he can from the information given
to him by his client. He may doubt his client but he is not the judge.
The lawyer does not "know", that is for the judge or the jury.

It raises the question of course, what was Rudd's apology all about ?

First to the war.

Australia was called upon by the US for assistance and, given our inability to defend ourselves, should we be attacked, we had, and still have no choice other than to support the US as we need them far more than they need us.

In fact, if we were to be called upon to defend ourselves, we would be likened to taking a stick into a gun fight.

The apology.
The simple fact is that NO ONE owes an apology for ANYTHING they did not do.

I tuely is that simple!

Sure we are sorry for what happened, sure many of us feel somewhat ashamed, by we do not, and can not offer an apology.

This was Howards view, and he was right.

Besides, what do the Maxes of the world think would have happened to those kids had the authorities not intervened. Similar to what is happening stil to this very day, After the apology was given by Rud.

Has it stopped the molestation or rape of children, No!

Has it stopped the blatant disregard for publicly provided housing. No!

Has it stopped the kids waging school, or more so made the parents more responsible when it comes to seeing that their kids get to school to gain an education. No!

It was never more than a political stunt, from a few educated mouth pieces from within the indigenous communities.

I for one am sick and tired of this ongoing waste of tax payer funds, funds that could be put to much more deserving causes, such as fixing our broken education and health services.

One has to remember that to expect help from anyone, means the person/group wanting the help must first want to change. Evidence over the past decades show quite the opposite, despite getting their apology.

We are at a cross roads with our economy and it is simply time to put a stop to all forms of waste, and this ongoing saga is no exception.

<<there is no factual basis for the false assertion of a “stolen generation”...Please relinquish your asserted belief in history devoid of facts>> [Leo Lane]

Whatever for?

Texts like "Rabbit Proof Fence" are all the go in our high-schools.And most of the modern (and some not so modern) texts chosen for English "studies" at university level seemed to be selected mainly because they in someway denigrate white Australians.

Why would any self respecting academic sabotage his/her own career prospects by bucking the trend.

God, what a load of Socialist hypocrisy by Max Atkinson.

To begin with, the idea that mainly half caste aboriginal children should either institutionalised or made to learn job skills was a socialist proposal fully supported by the Communist Party of Australia, and it was one of those rare proposals that had bipartisan support from the Right and the Left. The Socialists wanted to prove that aboriginal people were the equal of whites, and the Right wanted to make aboriginal people productive and accepted.

Please notice how Max pretends that this was all some sort of crime committed by white racists on poor oppressed aborigines? These people are amazing in their hypocrisy. First, they demand that a certain policy be implemented and when they get what they want, a hundred years later they claim it was a crime against humanity committed entirely by their political opponents.

The charge by the Left wing Max Atkinson clones, was that successive state and federal governments in Australia committed "genocide" by forcibly removing aboriginal children from their tribes to "breed out the black". With the threat of thousands of lawsuits by outraged aborigines pending , this charge was fully examined by the High Court of Australia and found to be completely false. One High Court judge even said that the removal of at risk (from malnutrition, sexual exploitation, and even the murder of half caste children by the extremely racist full blooded aborigines) was a "humanitarian obligation." Thousands of compo cases went out the window. One interesting aspect of this High Court judgement is how little is known of it by the public.

There was little diversity of opinion in the media at the time, and the judgement was almost completely unreported. The judgement occurred at the time of the Human Rights organisations 'Bringing Them Home" report which claimed that "50,000" aboriginal children had been "stolen". This bullshiit report was of course given blazing banner headlines in the press.

Continued.....

Continued.

That the removal of at risk, mainly part aboriginal children was absolutely the right thing to do, can be seen in hindsight by the fact that the Socialists later dropped the ball when they insisted that aboriginal people must be given the right to drink alcohol. It was the Socialist Left which insisted that aborigines must be given full equality with whites, and if that meant that they had drinking rights, then so be it. Socialist ideology trumps everything. If the aborigines got drunk then that was just too bad. The Peter Atkinson clones also demanded "self determination" of aborigines on their own apartheid communities, and they got that too.

It was the Socialists like Peter who set the scene for the social catastrophe that we see in the dysfunctional aboriginal communities of today. Very high incidences of domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, substance abuse, and endemic welfare dependency involving drunken "parties" every fortnight when the social security checks arrive. Ironically, the rate of removal of aboriginal children today is even greater than during the so called "stolen generations" period because people Peter made things worse.

The "Intervention" enacted by John Howard and even supported by the succeeding Labor Government's of Rudd and Gillard, showed that even within the fractious hall of Parliament that both sides had realised that things on aboriginal communities had gotten right out of hand. Unless state and federal governments once again put aboriginal communities under some sort of direct control, they would continue to deteriorate until there was toal anarchy.

This did not suite two types of people. First, there were the self appointed aboriginal "men in black hats" who saw the intervention as interfering in their vested self interests, that of being the distributors of government funds and largesse. Then there were the Max Atkinson clones who even today insist that aboriginal people are in every way the equal of whites, and that they can run their own communities without white help. The Intervention was unwelcome evidence that even the Labor governments do not believe that crap anymore.

Regarding Aristocrat's comment on moral revisionism, etc., this aspect is beside the point as to Howard's correctness. The invasion of Iraq was illegal per se as now amply demonstrated from the available legal literature. What was even worse however was the fact that Australian forces invaded Iraq even before the US deadline for the Iraqi government to comply with its 'demands' had expired. That is surely preemption-plus. Moral aspects might be relevant in relation to the conduct (modus operandi) of the invasion and subsequent follow up on the part of Coalition forces.

Your readers might be interested in having a link to the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry website at: http://iraqwarinquiry.org.au

Dear LEGO,

<<If the aborigines got drunk then that was just too bad.>>

That is only sensible: otherwise, if government is allowed to order people not to drink (for their own good), then the next government might order you not to pray and worship God, because in their view it's your type of booze, so it's for your own good - there were in fact governments like that and still is one, in North Korea (and if you are not religious, then consider that government just the same could order you not to pick your nose).

<<The Peter Atkinson clones also demanded "self determination" of aborigines on their own apartheid communities, and they got that too.>>

The only wrong thing about it is that they failed to grant the same autonomy to everyone else who so desires.

Dear Yuyutsu.

The time has come for me to once again explain the error of your ways. You are very polite, and that is indicative of superior upbringing, so I think I can deprogram you away from the Dark Side.

Your first premise, implies that a government which prevents it's citizens from drinking alcohol is a totalitarian government. Wrong, the Australian government once prevented aboriginal people from drinking alcohol because it was smart enough to know that giving aboriginals the right to drink alcohol would cause social catastrophe for them. At that time, Australia was not a totalitarian state nor anything resembling a totalitarian state. In addition, preventing young people under the age of 18 from drinking alcohol is routine in every liberal democracy.

I know that aboriginal people are sometimes legally considered "adults", but there are already a lot of state and federal laws which take it for granted that many aboriginal people are not emotionally mature enough to be treated equally. There are many laws which give aboriginal people rights which no other race has, and laws which give leniency in sentencing to aboriginals because they are aboriginals.

The point is, that if a nation insists on racial equality, then racial equality is supposed to mean just that. But it is a fact of life in Australia that we have racist laws which benefit aborigines only because it recognises their special problems, and is for their own good. But once we have admitted the need for these racist laws, we have crossed the Rubicon. We have admitted that it is morally justifiable to enact racist laws which both protect and give special status to one particular race.

Your second premise is a bit unclear. You seem to be suggesting that every social group in Australia should have self determination. I must be reading you wrong, because such a concept would mean that Australia was no longer a nation but something on its way to fragmenting into dozens of new nations states.

Dear LEGO,

<<Your first premise, implies that a government which prevents it's citizens from drinking alcohol is a totalitarian government.>>

I didn't go as far as that, but a government that believes that it has a right to stop people from drinking alcohol, is on its way to stop them from doing other things. I do not drink alcohol myself, nor support the habit, but a snake needs to be killed while it is small.

<<that giving aboriginals the right to drink alcohol would cause social catastrophe for them.>>

Heaven forbid: I never suggested giving them such a 'right', only not to take away their freedom to do such foolish things.

<<preventing young people under the age of 18 from drinking alcohol is routine in every liberal democracy.>>

Again, here the state intervenes with private matters that should only be worked-out between parents and children.

Also, the 'age of 18' (by the Gregorian calendar, why indeed?) is arbitrary, artificial and does not indicate one's maturity or lack thereof.

Also, had the Australian electoral-system been democratic (which it isn't), Australia would be classified as "social democracy" rather than "liberal democracy", because its social element usurps the liberal element. However, democracy is wrong to begin with, because it asserts the right of the majority to oppress minorities.

As for aboriginal people, let them decide for themselves whether they are "adult" or not. If they prefer to be treated as "minors", then fair-enough both-ways, otherwise the only concern of the state should be that they harm no others.

I've been in South-Africa during the Apartheid and heard Afrikaaners claim, honestly and innocently convinced, that "Bantu" (blacks) are merely children and require the protection of the Europeans.

<<Australia was no longer a nation but something on its way to fragmenting into dozens of new nations states.>>

Australia was never a nation. It's cynical propaganda (and Gillard's favourite) to claim that all people who happen to live in the same continent and the islands surrounding it, form a nation, notwithstanding that most-of-us were never asked for our consent to belong to that particular bigger body.

An precisely how many court cases, seeking compensation by people claiming to have been 'stolen' as a matter of prevailing government policy been verified through the courts? Simple question, clear answer, anyone?

Yes Yuyutsu, in democracies, majority rules. The minority tail does not wag the dog. I am sorry if you think it should be the other way around. But few people in democracies other than tertiary educated pseudo aristocrats would agree with you on that. The people's parliament has the right to enact any law within our Constitution that it sees fit to maintain social harmony. Liberal democracies try to give their people as much freedom as possible, provided that individual freedoms do not conflict too much with other people's freedoms.

The Australian government, elected by the people, has the right to say which drugs are legal and which drugs are not, and to limit who can imbibe legal drugs, and who may not. The legal age to drink alcohol is 18 years of age and I would opine that the overwhelming majority of parents would support that law. No liberal is trying to change that.

It was a mistake to give aboriginal people the right to drink alcohol. If we can make racist laws directed entirely towards aborigines that are meant to benefit aborigines, and nobody bats an eye over that. Then why can we not ban them from drinking alcohol? Surely the principle that racist laws which benefit a minority is already a fact of life and this would simply be a natural extension of that logic.

Dear LEGO,

<<in democracies, majority rules.>>

I don't think there's a need to argue with the facts: the only point in contention is their morality or lack thereof.

<<The minority tail does not wag the dog.>>

Nobody suggested that - All I suggested is "live and let live".

<<The people's parliament has the right to enact any law within our Constitution>>

The "people's" parliament applies to those people who agreed to be part of that body-of-people in the first-place and to have any relation with its constitution - otherwise you could just as well count the bears of the forest in that majority.

<<Liberal democracies try to give their people as much freedom as possible>>

"Try" is not good enough and nobody needs to give anybody else any freedom - all you are asked is not to take away others' freedoms in the first place.

<<provided that individual freedoms do not conflict too much with other people's freedoms.>>

When somebody who has otherwise no agreement with you threatens you or tries to take away your freedom (in this context I also refer to your recent post in the other thread, against Muslims), then they are an enemy and you may legitimately fight them: you may kill them if necessary, but even then you have no right to take away their freedom, only to treat them as enemies and defend yourself accordingly.

<<The Australian government, elected by the people, has the right to say...>>

No, the proper word is 'might', not 'right'.

Nobody has a right to dictate how-to-live to others who have not accepted their authority in the first place.

<<If we can make racist laws...>>

Why not? Go ahead and make any laws you like, racist or otherwise, so long as you make them only for that group of people who consented to abide by your constitution and your laws in the first place.

You assume that you own this continent and have a right to subjugate all people who live here only because at some point in history England had better guns. That assumption is incorrect and immoral.

Yuyutsu and LEGO. A most fascinating and absorbing exchange, illustrating the extraordinary complexity, both legally and morally of the subject at hand. Many years ago I listened to senior law men in the wester desert (Jiggalong, Mantiltjarra mob), decrying the law that allowed alcohol, they foresaw the chaos it would create and lamented the demise of their authority within the community, particularly with the young (un-initiated) men. I also met and listened to the (rabbit proof fence) girls, (then women) and came to no particular conclusion, certainly not an 'answer' or 'solution' to the problem, merely a better understanding of what the problem is and the complexity of the interface between two vastly, monumentally different cultures.

Dear Yuyutsu.

You seem to be implying that it is "immoral" for the majority in a democracy to impose its will on the minority. Sorry, I can't agree with that. I would have thought that it was the other way around. Your next premise was more baffling, which seems to suggest that people are free to choose whether they are subject to government control? If I read that right, I would consider it too silly to even comment upon.

Your next premise, seems to suggest that governments are "not trying hard enough" to give their people as much freedom as possible. I can only shake my head in wonder at that. Total freedom is total anarchy. As one prominent US jurist once remarked "Freedom" means "to do whatever I damn well please." "Oppressions" means "stopping me from doing whatever I damn well please." No society can function without laws governing personnel freedom. Every freedom may infringe upon another person's freedom, and it is the right and the responsibility of governments to weigh the choices, and to give as much freedom as they can without causing social problems elsewhere.

Next you went right off with the fairies. You proposed that it is OK to kill people but not to limit their freedom. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. You haven't been cohabiting with DavidG lately, have you?

Your next extraordinary statement, appears to suggest that aborigines can do whatever they damn well please because they are a conquered people who have no obligation to take any notice of white governments. That is an interesting opinion, but could I point out something you are missing? That is, that liberals like yourself once wanted aboriginal people to live unmolested on "their" land with total self determination under an aboriginal flag. The result has been total anarchy. Child sexual exploitation got so bad on these reservations that a female prosecutor in the NT buttonholed PM John Howard at a function and told him just how bad things had become in that situation. Howard (to his credit) immediately reimposed the authority of the government on aboriginal reserves.

Dear LEGO,

<<You seem to be implying that it is "immoral" for the majority in a democracy to impose its will on the minority.>>

It is immoral for anyone to impose their will on another, regardless whether they are in majority or otherwise.

<<people are free to choose whether they are subject to government control?>>

Obviously at the moment we are not free, but I say that this must not be unconditional, that we should be free to choose whether or not to belong to that society whose the government-in-question represents.

If we agree to be part of a society, then as part of its social-contract we may be obliged to be subject to the control of that society's government and there's nothing wrong with that. If however we choose not to belong to a particular society, then we ought not to be oppressed by the institutions of that society.

<<No society can function without laws governing personnel freedom.>>

That's fine so long as those laws only apply to those who freely belong to that society, but not if they also apply to others who never consented to belong.

<<Every freedom may infringe upon another person's freedom, and it is the right and the responsibility of governments to weigh the choices>>

Yes - WITHIN that society which it represents.

<<You proposed that it is OK to kill people but not to limit their freedom.>>

Yes, that's the other side of the coin: Laws should only apply WITHIN a society (consisting of individuals who freely agreed to belong to it) and I agree that WITHIN a society, killing people is probably not a good idea. Now, when people OUTSIDE society threaten those within, then that society has a natural right to defend itself. In that case, it's legitimate for the attacked society to do what it takes in order to maintain the safety of its members, including to kill if required, but not to attempt to apply its internal laws on those outside its jurisdiction.

So if a person within society commits a crime, they are jailed as common criminals.

(continued...)

(...continued)

If a person outside society commits a crime against others outside society, then it's none of the society's business.

If a person outside society commits a crime against people within society, then society fights them, perhaps wounding or killing them if that's what it takes, and if that person is captured, then their status would be of a P.O.W rather than of a criminal: they are not to be trialled and can be held captive for as long as they pose a potential threat to society (but not longer).

<<that aborigines can do whatever they damn well please because they are a conquered people>>

I make no special case for aborigines (as I wrote earlier, above: "The only wrong thing about it is that they failed to grant the same autonomy to everyone else who so desires."): ANY group who so desires, for whatever reason, not to be part of Australian society, should be able not to be part thereof.

For practical reasons, people who do not wish to belong to Australian society should live on their own separate, contiguous (no holes), piece of land where all the inhabitants choose the same (otherwise, there is a reasonable expectation that their presence at large, especially in cities and on public roads, can threaten their neighbouring Australians, hence they could be treated as enemies).

Aboriginals already fulfil that requirement for having their own separate, contiguous, piece(s) of land - now the only remaining requirements are that:

1) They indeed do not wish to be part of Australian society (this includes no welfare!)
2) NONE of those who live in particular reserve(s) wish to remain Australian (because if they do, then Australia needs to protect them).

Any other group of people that owns a reasonably-secluded piece of land, where they can live their life without interfering with others who do wish to belong to the Australian-society, should be able to do the same. Note that this may even perhaps include mixed groups of aborigines and non-aborigines.

If aborigines wish to live stone age bliss in racially apartheid states under their own indigenous governments, then they can go right ahead. You only have to look at every other self governing black society on planet earth to know what is going to happen. The black communities will revert to total barbarism while holding out the begging bowl to the rest of the world.

How you can consider primitive barbarism as a preferable outcome to advanced civilisation is beyond me.

Dear LEGO,

<<How you can consider primitive barbarism as a preferable outcome to advanced civilisation is beyond me.>>

One's duty is not to achieve outcomes - while man may plan and scheme, outcomes are up to God.
One's first duty is to avoid evil - and forcing oneself on others against their will is evil.

You claim that the result of aborigine independence is necessarily primitive barbarism: I'm not certain about it, but let's even assume it's so - both primitive and advanced civilisations have pros and cons, which must be weighed carefully according to one's heart's desire.

I have no preferences whatsoever in the matter of aborigines because I am not aboriginal.
If I were, then it would be my own tough decision to make, but as I am not, I respect whatever choice they make.

Society, primitive or modern, democratic or autocratic, small or large, rich or poor, white or black, whatever, has no right to exist if built on immoral grounds - and what could be more immoral than forcing itself upon others against their will?

The first and foremost principle must be that participation in society should be voluntary, then only we may consider secondary issues such as democracy vs. autocracy, republic vs. monarchy, primitivism vs. modernism, etc.

We have had "Sorry Day" which is now to be celebrated annually.

Many undoubtedly felt warm and fuzzy. In such a context, "sorry" is easy to say. What exactly has been achieved for our indigenous people since then?

What "sorry" has actually meant in practical, concrete terms is what needs to be addressed.

While I thank ‘Aristocrat’ for opening the debate, I don’t believe in ‘a morality that transcends time, place, cultures, and civilizations’ - that absolutist idea seems as fanciful as the claim that morality is whatever most people at any given time think it is. The latter, when you think about it, is a denial that there are moral values - there are only opinions on moral issues.

The aim of the paper was to bring out the difference between an excuse and a justification in order to assess the Liberal Party’s changing views on the apology. To clarify why John Howard could not (it seems) see the difference, I asked if one could be a moral sceptic on political values and at the same time a practising Christian and decent family man.

There is a common view that politicians across the board cannot be trusted because, once parties attain power, the values they profess to stand for are compromised for the sake of expedience. It is reflected in a belief that the public votes for the least worst party, which means the idea of a mandate is nonsense.

If the common view is right I would suggest two reasons; the first is the doctrine of party unity whereby members of major parties give up their conscience and judgment and toe the party line. In practice it means acting on the views of party leaders, as in the Iraq War and the apology. But to act on the views of another on issues of this kind is to give up any pretence to values, including values the party stands for.

The second is a pervasive scepticism about values, which has its roots in currently fashionable ideas about the nature of moral judgment on social and political matters; it emphasises the ‘subjective’ and ‘relativist’ character of judgment, seen in popular claims that ‘we all have different values’. Dworkin’s thesis is relevant precisely because it challenges the assumptions underlying this scepticism.

Finally, I believe Kant’s Categorical Imperative has so far withstood the tests of ‘time, place, cultures’ and endless criticism.

Max Atkinson