Part 1;
Notably the article states;
“The status of Aboriginals as second-class citizens in their own country is no secret to any Australian.”

Obviously, the writer of that article didn’t know or seems to understand that Aboriginals have no citizenship at all! And, this thanks to the con-job 1967 referendum that is claimed to be for the best will of Aboriginals.

As Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed, published 30 September 2003, I have been seeking to set out how the con-job 1967 referendum robbed Aboriginals of their constitutional rights.

This response could not permit me to set out matters in great details, but the fact that ALL states are based upon racial discrimination, and this was further endorsed by the con-job 1967 referendum against Aboriginals, then those who so much supported this referendum only can hand their heads in same.
I make it very clear, that the majority of delegates (Framers) attending to the constitution convention debates to create the Constitutional Convention Bill 1898, the forerunner of the Federal Constitution (Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act) insisted that Aboriginals would be dealt with as any other Australian, and not be discriminated against as a race. However, soon after federation racism set in and Aboriginals were, albeit unconstitutionally, robbed of their rights to vote. The con-job 1967 referendum could not give them the right they already possessed, neither could stop the racism! What it did do however was constitutionally strip Aboriginals of their citizenship! As I have set out in my book, “citizenship” is a State legislative power and “naturalization of “aliens” is a Commonwealth of Australia legislative power.

Part 2;
Dang, Ex parte - Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002) High Court of Australia I noticed some of the following comments;

KIRBY J: There is no mention of citizenship in the powers of the Federal Parliament.

GLEESON CJ: What is the source of the Parliament's power to make laws about citizenship?

GLEESON CJ: How does the power to make laws with respect to naturalisation sustain section 10 of the Citizenship Act, which says that:

KIRBY J: My recollection is that the powers of the Congress do extend to citizenship.

The US congres has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Australian citizenship, this as the US constitution has “citizenship” and “Naturalization” together, while the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1989 (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution held that the powers to define/declare citizenship rested with the States and was and remained their sovereign powers, while the powers of naturalization was provided to the Commonwealth, upon federation.
Hansard 2-3-1898
Mr. BARTON.-
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
And;
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

At the very least, I would expect, that people who write an article about racial discrimination first get their facts right and do a proper research, which I view obviously never was done!

Gerrit, lighten up please. The author may or may not have the issue of citizenship correct but that was not the focus of the article nor was it central to what was be conveyed. Kirsten has attempted to convey a sense of day to day issues, not provide a legal brief. By all means post a polite message pointing out errors "in law" which you might be aware of but the tone of your post was way over the top. Don't set the bar so high that only professionals with research staff can write an article, sometimes the need is for the authors own experience and impressions not a legal brief or research paper.

Kirsten as a reader who has never seen much direct racism (but plenty of stuff which looks like culturalism) it would be helpful to see some context to incidents you describe.

I recall a test done by one of the TV stations some years ago where an Indiginous artist and a white businessman both visited a number of real estate agents to enquire about rental properties. The artist had untidy grooming and dress, the businessman was in a suit. The different response's they received were attributed to racism. If I had seen the comparison done between two people with similar presentation but different racial characteristics I might have been convinced, what I saw was a set up stunt. The bus incident sounds like racism but the fact that another Indiginous person was on the bus makes me wonder if there was more to it.

i remember watching the documentary of the 1965 freedom ride a few years ago on the abc, i was enthralled. i remember thinking how brave and challenging charles perkins was and remained until his death. i also felt apalled at how brazen and outward the racism was back in those days. i felt glad that i did not have to experience such overt forms of racism like segregation, at the same time knowing that my own parents had the unfortunate experience of having to live through such times in their heyday.

when i heard about its re-enactment i was hanging out for any information about how it went, often logging onto antars webpage for updates and tidbits as posted by the current riders.

i hope that the footage is made into a doco also, such information is very much needed to help fight against the institutional racism that continues to thrive in this country. however, i dont need a doco to tell me that it is thriving, i just have to simply get around in my black skin with aboriginal face to know this fact.

in my own experience i have come to understand that aboriginal people cannot do it on their own and that the support of non-aboriginal people is very much necessary to help us along the way in the struggle for recognition and in the fight against racism.

thanks kirsten for your insights, very much appreciated.

gerrit your book sounds interesting, intend on making it my business to find it and read it.

Re; Gerrit, lighten up please.

Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:02:44 PM

Thanks for your friendly comment, but unless someone goes to the root of the problem, little will be achieved.

Racial discrimination only can be stamped out by addressing the root problem. The same with human rights abuses.

Because government are hiding behind unconstitutional laws to inflict racism and human rights abuses, but obviously pretending to “protect” their “captives” (meaning “victims”) we will get no where.

Trying to get corrected more then 100 years of legal wrongdoings is no minor challenge! But, when I hear about children being unconstitutionally removed from school, children having a gun put into their face (to that effect), children put in detention, children who are born Australians deported as Stateless, racial and other human abuses, etc, then it stirs me on to fight for them. I would hate to have any of my own children or grandchildren to suffer as they do! Standing at the side, so to say, doing nothing is not my cup of tea!

As for my books, my website www.schorel-hlavka.com has email details, and I might even send out a copy (FREE OF CHARGE) as I do so often. I am not in the game of trying to make money. In fact, I ask people that if they really like my book to make a donation to a refugee organization of their own choice!

My wife was a refugee from a communist country, more then 35 years ago, and knows first hand what it is all about.

We must protect our country by protecting our constitutional rights, and that does not include unconstitutional detention of people!
Hansard 8-2-1898
Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so. We are making a Constitution which is to endure, practically speaking, for all time. We do not know when some wave of popular feeling may lead a majority in the Parliament of a state to commit an injustice by passing a law that would deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law