Saltpetre, it gets better.
The latest thing I read was the govt is considering not jailing blacks for non-payment of fines anymore, because there are too many in jail for not paying or defaulting on their fines.
Some form of useless rehab or other instead.
Yeah like that's worked in the past, NOT!
It simply means the blacks get yet another get out of jail free card and a further slap in the face for the rest of us.
And people wonder why I hate this place and it's overlords.

Dear Saltpetre,

It makes sense that you support the Advisory Group.
It would be illogical to
deny a very basic and simple request that is currently being
asked. Because, it really won't make any difference to our
lives in the general scheme of things. It won't affect us at all.
All it will do is give the Indigenous people a chance to have a
small input on legislation that will affect them and their lives.

However - just a reminder - for those who are fearful and
don't want to see any changes made whatsoever -

There was once a time when
"God Save The King" was played in cinemas, meetings,
at outdoor events. And later this was followed by -
"God Save the Queen". We had to stand each time.
Then - pictures of the Queen hung from
office and school walls.

Gradually, this faded out.

Today we have an acknowledgement
of the original owners of the land at every government
function. Whether this will continue - or will also
fade away with time - who knows?

What we're arguing so vehemently about today - may also
not be relevant for any of us in the future. And certainly
not for our children or grand-children. Hopefully all these
hiccups will have been ironed out - when we realize there
was really nothing to fear.

The government is going to listen to the Advisory Group.
But apparently it does have certain restrictions planned.
There are things that will not be accepted. We shall have to
wait and see what it will or won't accept. Personally, I don't
think there's much to fear. And all this arguing is just a
storm in a teacup.

There have been a variety of Advisory Groups in the past -
and probably still are in existence. For example -
Medical Associations, Ethnic Affairs, Sporting, Environment,
Trade, and the list goes on.

If we can have Advisory Groups dealing with migration and others, why not
have one dealing with our Indigenous peoples
problems and what better than to get input
from the people themselves?

ALTRAV,

Regarding the Same Sex Marriage postal survey?

A majority voted yes in 133 out of 150 electorates. This
shows that yes was victorious. It reflects a wide variety of
Australian life.

This result becomes more impressive when you delve into
the data

Foxy,

There is already an advisory group, perhaps by another name - in fact, there have been such groups for nearly fifty years now, since at least the National Aboriginal Advisory Conference (NAAC) in 1973. Then the NAC, ADC and ATSIC. There is a Prime Ministerial advisory council now; and an Assembly of First Nations.

And of course, every Indigenous organisation, several thousand, each have voices, in every conceivable field of responsibility. If they all spoke at once, it would be deafening. Fortunately, they have many forms of media to get their messages across - TV and radio stations, newspapers, journals, etc.

As for the Constitution: I don't think any ethnic, cultural, religious or language group is singled out for mention now, so why should that discriminatory principle be introduced ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

We would be here for a very long time if we were to go
through every advisory group and commission that has been
invented and ABOLISHED by Australian governments in
Indigenous Affairs. As Prof. Langton pointed out - it's
one of the reasons for the terrible closing the gap outcomes.
Therefore as she tells us "we have to draw the line in the
sand, find a model that will work, and stick to it".

As for the Constitution?

There are many who reject Indigenous Australians having
a guaranteed say in laws and policies made about their affairs
because " all Australians are equal".

This principle is the basis of our freedoms and a cornerstone of
the Australian Constitution. People argue that the proposals
would "divide Australians on the grounds of their racial
identity". That Australians should be equal and our
Constitution should unify, not divide. These are uncontroversial
propositions.

And -

Ours is a successful and an enduring Constitution underpinning a
fair democracy - for MOST Australians. The problem is the
Constitution has not ensured fairness and equality for
Indigenous Australians.

Because -

The Constitution confers upon parliament a special power to
racially discriminate. Joe I won't go into all the details here.
We've been over this in the past - covering the Race Power,
section 25, and so on. The fact remains that these clauses
and the constitutional history as confirmed by the High Court
has not ensured fairness and equality for Indigenous Australians.

I wish them luck with this latest Advisory Group. Hopefully
something good will come out of all this.

"You can be deterred from your pathway in life by the baying
of the hounds at your heels, by the constant hatred or you
can put up a shield and fulfill your destiny".

An ethos I've taught my children.

Foxy, by all means lead your children astray, that's none of our business.
BUT;
All that you have said about the constitution and those it refers to has been hashed out a million times before and Joe and many others have given very good reasons why this new (or is it old) claim is not one that should be considered at all.
You and the promoters of this renamed affront on the rest of us is an old story, well worn and therefore run it's coarse and we are sick of hearing about it.
I have explained very clearly and simplistically many times before, especially so that those who are mentally and emotionally committed to set a ideology with a closed mind and eyes, and absolutely and totally committed to not considering other views, which in this case is and has always resulted in rejection, or a NO!
Why do you think it has gone on for so long?
Changing the name has not fooled anyone, "statement from the heart", big deal.
That is a sick and dirty attempt at virtue shaming anyone who does not agree with those unreasonable and self-serving leeches pushing this agenda.
We are all making statements from the mind and all with good reasoning, and the resolution has always been to simply give lip service to the idea and do what is right for EVERY Australian and not favour any one group over another, as is the case currently.
Oh, and BTW, it was not a majority and I'm not going to ,let you get away without pushing the point home, yet AGAIN.
It was a percentage of those who participated, which when calculated was not a majority of the population, but only of those who voted.
If you don't believe me go back and check the numbers yourself.
If you DON'T WANT to believe me; tough!
The truth is always the truth.