Col,

A level playing field is a great thing to aim for. I would dearly love to see everyone presented with the same opportunities to fulfil their potential.

However if you want to have a level playing field, then you have to ensure that everyone is starting from the same line. Realistically this is never going to happen, individual circumstances will always ensure that some are a little ahead of the line, or a little behind when the gun goes off.

However there are those in the community who aren't even on the track yet. These are the people who need society's help. Whether that comes in extra spaces for aboriginal students at TAFE or Uni (in order to encourage more aboriginals into the education system), or free english classes for new migrants (to ensure they can interact with the wider community), or drug rehabilitation programmes.

I'm not saying that we should molly coddle people, and lets be honest living on the dole is not exactly living on the Ritz (no matter how many "Evil Dole Bludger" stories ACA or TT run). I'm just saying we present them with the tools and the opportunities, what they do with them after that is their own responsibility.

Col Rouge: "Adjudicated by a bench stuffed with socialist apologists who were out of touch with the realities of life, motivated by their own misplaced sense of guilt or possibly anti-libertarian malevolence and with the complicity of socialist federal government who were looking for yet another grandiose scheme to squander tax payers money on, rather than represent the expectations of there electoral majorities."

While that was nice little spray that undoubtedly made Col feel better, it is little more than vacuous invective that simply reflects his political prejudices. So the Mabo decision by the High Court was a plot by the wicked "socialist" majority of judges, in cahoots with the "socialist" Keating government?

Only an unreconstructed Thatcherite could regard either the High Court of the early 90s or the Keating government as "socialist". No doubt Col regards Kevin Rudd as "socialist" too - with any luck when Rudd's elected PM later this year, Col will scuttle back off to the UK and live out his dotage muttering about the filthy socialists out in the colonies, and his beloved Maggie.

It's becoming apparent to me now why all the articles here are written from a green/left/politically correct stance.

And all the most rabid, vicious posts are from green/left/politically correct types, who immediately attack anyone who questions their dogma.

They're on a sinking ship and there's no more lifeboats.

You can hear the desperation, bitterness, arrogance, annoyance in every word they utter.

Right/conservative/liberal types posting here seem to think we can sensibly discuss issues like mature adults.

Then the green/lefties start foaming at the mouth and scratching at your eyes.
Like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist".

Impossible to either get a straight honest answer or in some cases even a post that addresses the issue supposedly being discussed.

Lots of name calling, contempt, belittling. Plenty of that.

As to "aboriginal sovereignty", this article's author seems to chase his tail, muttering about cannibals and frogs.

Well, there never was such a thing as "aboriginal sovereignty", and never will be.
Thank God! *Hundreds* of sovereigns? No thanks!

Aboriginals didn't have a warrior class.
If they'd believed in "territory" like the rest of the world, they'd have had warriors.

The Maoris did, and the Native Americans, and the Africans.
No warriors, no territory.

The concept of "common law" land rights arrived with the first fleet.
Odd that the land laws of the invader are now championed by the conquered (when it's in their interest).

Even without Terra nullius, the colonists could have claimed Australia under the common laws of "squatter's rights/adverse possession" and the "homestead principle".

The first says you can take another's land simply by occupying it, the second that unowned land (Aboriginals weren't *everywhere*) belongs to the first to make use of it.

So Aboriginals either had territory but lost it by occupation, or never owned it to begin with.

And sorry to burst your bubble, Rainier, but the invaders brought Jesus with them too.

Those nasty white supremacists with their golden rule!
How dare they claim to love their neighbour, then take his land!

But you believe in forgiving sins, don't you?
Not by the sounds of your bitter festering hatred.

SHOCKA... keep it up :) I feel some kindred spirit with your posts.

Just on the point of 'forgiveness' and Ranier, and Aboriginal land.

Yes.. they were displaced, mostly by White people...some of whom brought Jesus and the Gospel among other things.

While the basically secular and self interested government made policy decisions primarily in the economic interests of their supporters.. the Church has a mixed track record in its dealings with Indigenous people. We can neither 'write off' or.. 'applaud' the efforts of Missions.. some were good..some were bad.

I do know one thing.. Cherbourg town was established as a result of cruel self interested GOVERNMENT policy to remove pesky Aboriginals from around 47 different tribal areas, but Cherbourg MISSION was established by the Anglican Church, to bring Christ to those displaced aboriginals.

The mission was not perfect, it was a child of its time, but today, the happiest people in Cherbourg are the aboriginals who confess Christ as Savior. (based on the observations and experience of those who have visited them, and felt the warmth, love and passion for Christ among them)

When it comes to some aspects of white/black relations.. there are some things which can never be fixed, only forgiven. Other things (such as unpaid wages) CAN be fixed..and should be...only then should the withholding of them be forgiven.

In the end.. we are all victims of history, but the future will be as bright as we make it "together".

Yeah, make sex-not fight.............

so anyway, do they still point the bone?