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

thanks gerrit gonna check your site today, cheers for that info.

Gerrit, thanks for taking my comment in the intended spirit. I agree with the view that we do need to get to the root of problems - often very difficult when you have groups and individuals determined to ensure that does not happen. As a single dad trying to get people to take the issues facing fathers (and children) following seperation seriously I am very well aware of that.

As someone who is not convinced that the level of racism in this country is as bad as some suggest I think it appropriate to say the article got my attention in a friendly manner. Kirsten may not have hit on the root of the problem but she did raise awareness of the day to day reality for people.

As I mentioned in my earlier post I don't take incidents without context as proof, I do suspect that a lot of what is attributed to racism may be a reflection of other issues but then I have never lived in western towns. I am prepared to change my view if the evidence is clear enough whereas contrived examples (the grooming example from the TV story) make it look like there is not enough real examples to use.

Kirsten appears to be on the same side as you, just coming at the problem from a different angle.

The left cannot possibly run out of racist expletitives.This is their crutch,like some Muslims with their Jihad,George Bush with his WMDS,the Nazis with their hate.There must be always be some one to blame,or some cause to fight since sometimes being responsible and attending to your own back is just too damn hard.
The left is always there generating this perception of racism when in fact we see little evidence these days in Australia.

I was a single father once caring for up to 5 of my children! I know first hand the discrimination I suffered then.

For example, I was scorned by people that despite being separated from my (then) wife, she kept having babies, who eventually all came to live with me. Just, that I knew, that at least 2 of them were not my biological children, but I pretended they were, to protect them. Now that they are adults, and know the truth, they ask me why did I cop all the flake, and just didn’t tell people the truth. I make clear, it was none of their business, and my priority was to protect them.
I know what it is being judged by people, being cursed and verbally abused, and all because they were ignorant to reality.
People often do this, they condemn a person because they assume a certain position!

When as a single father I reported sexual abuse of one of my daughters, after returning from access to her mother, and the Children’s Hospital found the evidence confirming my concerns, the judge made it clear, that unless I had personally witnessed it I could not prove who had it done, and so that was the end of it. This, even so my daughters mother (remarried) had at the same time her other daughter in a Children Court case and her husband was ordered from the residence because of sexual abuse with that child.
Now, if a woman was to claim sexual abuse, then without needing medial evidence, the father immediately is generally denied access!
We clearly have double standards!

With child support the same, as a judge made clear, if I could not support the children without child support then I should not have the children. So, I had a total of $300.00 child support over 15 years! Now let see if the same applies to women!

Now being remarried, my wife and I are retired, I spend my time writing books, exposing the rot involving lawyers/judges/politicians so others may perhaps not suffer the same!

Gerrit, your last diatribe about discrimination does not belong on this page. It is about racism, which is alive and well in country Oz. After living 4 years in a country town in Vic, where everyone is either indigenous descent, farming family or mixed, it's a definite line in the sand. The first thing you get told as a white person is to "watch out for the .... family". They're not racist mind you, but they'll call an aboriginal a coon as soon as they know you're not one. The aborigines in my town find it hard to get jobs because they look aborigine. If they don't look aboriginal, they are accused of rorting the system. They just can't win because of the attitude at the grass roots. In 4 years of running employment programs I have heard every excuse that hasn't changed for 40 years about why "we don't employ them". I have not met an indigenous person in this town that has not met abuse, distaste or discrimination on a regular basis whilst going about their business. And this is from respected elders as well as youngsters. We, on the ground, must start looking to them as regular people and seeing them as people that need the respect that all human beings deserve, that we unhesitantly accept their history and their whole and the fact that there have been major mistakes white society has imposed. Otherwise, nothing will change. Laws can be useful and necessary but people must drive them with spirit and action. I like most of the indigenous people I've met in this town. And most of the white people. Skin shouldn't come into it. Culture's a more difficult issue. But I've never met an aboriginal redneck! Even in Redfern.

Well Di ,what Govt instsitutions have made these people unemployable.It is an attitude of the world owes me a living and Govt bodies telling them that they don't have to try too hard.In the present environment private enterprise cannot afford the risk.Just employ them in Govt institutions,tax the life out of the private economy to pay them not to work and watch us all slide into recession and poverty.This is the logic of the lunatic left!!

Having resided in a country town for about 15 years, racism or discrimination (depends on what you see it being in the circumstances) was rife.
For example, an (Australian) man coming to live in the town (with wife and 2 children) was denied work, not because he didn’t have the qualification, but because as one woman made clear, he might ruin the tractor on their farm. What it really was about was racism of country versus towns people. When he finally got himself a job, his then employer praised his abilities. Still, within a year the family moved back to Melbourne, as the ongoing racism continued. Taunting the children ,and the wife in shops, that they ought to go back where they came from (Meaning Melbourne), etc, finally was too much for them to bear!
Racism doesn’t mean it has to be against a person of different colour of skin!
It is not just against Indigenous people!
I have never known such a bunch of egoistic, racism lot of people as in that town!

Having lived in Melbourne for about 18 years in total, besides visiting it about weekly in an additional 15 years, I for one found no such kind of discrimination/racism! Perhaps that most people all are in the same situation that you are or you know someone who is from a different area and hence people help each other out.
When visiting Adelaide, for the first time in 1980, I found the people there very spontaneous, very warm towards newcomers, and absolutely no trace of racism, etc.

Remarkably the very towns dying out because people are moving out, rather then moving in could reverse this tend to some degree by not being racist!