Not one person, tribe,church, mosque ,synagogue should be above or beyond reach of the Australian law.The law that was put in place by our society to keep our society,all of us,as safe as possible.
This country has become a hodge podge of different tribes from all places yet the ONE law must work for all of us or we descend into anarchy.
No one must be allowed to claim immunity from that law for whatever reason.
Black or white-our homes are our castles and our law must protect us all.

Thanks OLO for providing space that even the most intellectually challenged can have a say without being personally identified or even feel compelled to show evidence that they have some personal or professional capacity and history to engage in the subject matter with informed reading or scholarship - that in any other serious forum would be considered embarrassing.

Better here than in the real world.

And No. I'm not talking about this article or its author.

I would add to Rainier's point that just because people are not intellectual or "well-read" in their expressing of a situation, does not disqualify them from rightfully having an opinion on a topic that can often be very difficult for them to describe. There's a stigma attached to not being intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that - everyone brings something different to the table that collectively adds to the final picture.

It's up to those who do have the learning and intellectualism on a particular subject to bring that to bear. The ones who can't are usually expressing a dissatisfaction with, or insight into, a situation that they can sense but often can't explain very well. Pauline Hanson was a classic example. Despite the disdain of the polical elites even she was useful because she acted as the conduit for what many people wanted to say (about the flooding and dilution of Australia's Anglo culture) but couldn't because of the politically correct mood of the times.

i rest my case!

Rainier,

Maybe I'm wrong, but I detect some haughtiness in your post.

While having an intellectual knowledge of the ins and outs of Indigenous Affairs is no bad thing per se, it's still not the be all and end all. In the final analysis, all scholars are doing is studying the past history of events and trying to find patterns in it that can inform them of what might be coming. However, the world is sufficiently unpredictable that knowing all about specific case histories, for example, probably won't prepare you for the next big event. So even accurate scholarship is limited in its usefulness. Sometimes you can get more out of standing back and seeing the big picture than painstakingly going through all the detail.

RobP, Knowledge is experience, everything else is information and from your comments it seems you don't even have the right information.

What is it that makes you feel so morally entitled to then declare a stokehold in discussing an area that you have no expertise in?

Or is it because its 'aboriginal people' as 'topic' for which you understand to be something you innately possess, (but can't explain why)which nonetheless in your mind rationalises your sense of entitlement to assert, declare, no matter how inaccurate your position. (ie. simply because you are white?).

Your stake hold resides in your privileged to decide not to engage at all. Ie. Standing on the sidelines making lots of guttural noises about what you 'think'.

This ontological phenomenon that asserts proprietary interests in Aboriginal people and things (from the fringes) is not unknown to me or to many white folk I work with in indigenous affairs (broadly speaking).

We just shake our heads to each other and move on.

Is that enough haughtiness for you?

Please let me know, I don’t like to disappoint.

><((((º> ><((((º>