Blackstone, I asked for evidence about the Aborigines being regarded as "fauna". Your reply was simply that:

"A decade long struggle ended with a referendum in May 1967, which changed the sections of the Constitution that mentioned Aboriginal people. They would no longer be included in the Flora and Fauna Act, they would have rights to vote and be included in the census.

In answer to your question, Aboriginal people weren't even included in the Constitution. They were expressly included in the Flora and Fauna Act (Cth)."

The quote is unsourced, insufficient and inaccurate. It's inaccurate because the 1967 referendum did not give Aborigines the vote: this had already occurred years previously.

Even in 1901 electoral officers had the power to enrol Aborigines if they were considered to be integrated into the mainstream society. Aborigines had the right to vote in most of the states prior to WWII. In 1949 Aborigines in these states were also given the vote in Commonwealth elections as were all Aborigines who had served in the armed forces. In 1962 all Aborigines were able to vote in Commonwealth elections. In 1965 the last restriction, voting in Qld state elections, was also lifted.

As to your other assertion, I find it confusing. What do you mean Aborigines weren't "included" in the Constitution but, rather, in the Flora and Fauna Act? Given that the states had responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, what was the purpose of the Commonwealth mentioning Aborigines in the Flora and Fauna Act?

No-one seems to have any real information on this, so it's impossible to know the context even if the basic information proves to be true.

ah Bozo. You are so amusing.

I wasn't literally there in person. I was mentally supporting the cause. What right does the cartoonist have to "make people think of their religion"? Would you say the same to cartoonists who depict Jesus as a peadophile? Do you say "Hey Madonna..nice of you to dress up as Jesus in your lingerie...maybe the Christians will start to reflect on the true meaning of their religion now".

Grow up!

How does depicting Mohammed as a terrorist say anything about the position of women in Islam? Women in the west have only recently gained the rights they currently enjoy - this being a result of years of protests and fighting - and even then we still have a long way to go.

Islam is a religion. Spiritually women are more equal to men than in Christianity.

Culturally women suffer in some countries under Islamic Law - Shari'a. But what does this have to do with depicting Mohammed as a terrorist? Every religion differs from culture to culture. How can you begin to generalise them all into the one category because a couple of ill-informed journalists and leaders are telling you that is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

How did they do what was illustrated in the cartoons? Did they all suddenly become terrorists overnight? The cartoon is saying that all Muslims are terrorists and that their one and only prophet is a terrorist.

If a minority of this large community actually responds with violence are you going to tell me that this cartoonist's prophecy was realised?

To me it is on par with any anti-Jewish propaganda in Nazi Germany. If you condone such propaganda now then I'll agree with every point you've ever made (here's hoping you have double standards). and if you feel so strongly in favour of cartoons of this nature then surely this means you also condone the hatred expressed towards Jews which in turn led to widespread indifference towards their mass extermination.

If not then we can discuss like adults.

Mark, you beat me to the punch regarding the furphy of the "Flora and Fauna Act". The real situation was that some Aborigines already had the vote at state level in 1901 and that responsibility for Aboriginal affairs rested with the states. Details may be found here http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/ab_vote.htm Of course, having the right to vote and being able to exercise it are two different things and some states, particularly WA and QLD were loath to give Aborigines any rights at all.

The infamous WA 1944 Natives (Citizenship Rights) Act, better known as the Dog Act, granted "well-behaved" Aborigines rights including voting. However this status as an "honorary whitefella" could be retracted at any time, for misdemeanours such as fraternizing with other (non-citizen) family members. The grisly details may be viewed here http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/628/628p11.htm (a good summary even if your politics don't agree with GreenLeft) For a better understanding of the iniquities of WA Aboriginal policy I can recommend "Wanamurraganya: The Story of Jack McPhee", 1989, by Sally Morgan.

The appalling treatment of Aborigines by the various state Aboriginal "Protection" Boards is one of the sorriest chapters of 20th century Australian history. Revisionists are trying to whitewash the story. Don't believe them.

John

You are correct Aboriginals had the right to vote prior to Federalism. Federalism ended that. It's demise was contained in, if I recall correctly, the first piece of legislation enacted, commonly known as the White Australia Policy.
I am vague but can clearly remember reading of this...somewhere. Perhaps someone else knows of the details.

fleurette: Perhaps the cartoons were making the point that right from its outset, under Mohammed, Islam has always been a violent ideology. If we are to believe Christ existed as a historical figure, he certainly wasn't a conqueror, warrior or terrorist. Likewise with Buddha. Largely because they had no power, Christians took several centuries before they began their long road of barbarism. Islam, however, within a couple of centuries had already conquered most of the Iberian peninsula. The only thing checking this urge was people like Charles Martel, or later, Jan Sobieski. India had its own problems with Islam.

There's a difference between cartoons or any other propaganda and people actually committing crimes against one another. The Holocaust was the result of a lot more than propaganda, especially given that Germany was such an advanced and educated country at the time. No, it wasn't mere indifference, it was active participation and an active suspension of rationality.

Regardless of any of this though, the call for censorship on grounds of it causing offence or social disharmony is shaky at best. By your reasoning, the Reformation, Age of Reason, etc. would never have occurred.

J.S.Mill said something along the lines of, "we should welcome controversial ideas for if they are wrong, our own position has been strengthened; if they are right, we have learnt something." We have nothing to fear from ideas, even if they're stupid. This isn't the Dark Ages. Like I've already asked, why is/are Islam/Muslims so fragile/special it/that they can't cop the usual heat every other political or religious ideology does?

Shorbe,

I didn’t see fleurette calling for censorship, however nothing excuses the newspapers that published the cartoons for not using some restraint and sensitivity.

Given the anti-Muslim climate that was, and is, gathering steam all over the world (being ably whipped up by the media), the cartoons were quite rightly seen as a further provocation. And no doubt there were political calculations.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which first published the cartoons, supports the right-wing government that includes in its coalition a rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten supported Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Denunciation of the cartoons as a political provocation doesn’t imply support for censorship—no more than would the denunciation of racist anti-African-American cartoons or anti-Semitic caricatures.