Polpak,

Is that all you have to say?

c'mon, some analysis please!

Why don't you publish your own piece setting out your arguements?

Or are to scared that brilliantly intelligent people like Megan Davis would cut your arguements to ribbons?

Yes, thankfully, Australia IS an island. Moreover, we are the only country in the world that has the four vital things, which are:

1. A surplus of food.

2. A surplus of minerals.

3. A surplus of energy.

4. Lastly, and most importantly, a sea boundary.

The general assembly of the United Nations has become a joke. As an organisation where India has the same voting power as Nauru, it has never had any strong democratic credentials. Fortunately it is restrained by the Security Council, which again is a joke, as the veto system almost always prevents it from doing anything. Only on rare occasions, such as the First Gulf War, when all the major powers are in agreement, can it take action.

In the calamitous century which we have entered, which will see untold suffering as the world population climbs toward 10 billion and the world simultaneously runs out of resources and is plagued by pollution, we will be tucked safely away in our corner of the world, worried by little more than drought, while the rest of the world descends into chaos. The things to remember is that we are not responsible for the state of the rest of the world, and am unable to save it.

Megan tells us that the Declaration has been adopted by the general assembly and Aust & its allies are now isolated –pariahs even.
“An unequivocal and emphatic rejection by the international community of …assimilationist thinking”, she gloats.
It conjures an image of an auditorium filled with august persons, looking down with disdain on a little Aussie swaggie, corked hat, unwashed, surrounded by a haze of flies who has just stumbled into the spotlight & can’t find a seat –because no one wants him sitting next to them.

Until… one delves a little deeper & finds that among the high principled signatories are:
Brazil (Amazonian Indians)
China (Tibet)
Indonesia ( West Irian )
Pakistan (Hindu rights/expulsions)
Saudi Arabia ( only one religion tolerated)
Sri Lanka (Tamils)
According to Megan Davis these and similar, put Aust to shame.

Contrary to popular misconception, most countries of the world have Indigenous populations. But most non-Western countries are more innovative in their handling of the issue:
1) A few, simply reclassify the problem out of existence by declaring the dominant race the Indigenes.
- India– whose delegate to the conference loudly declared –‘all Indians are Indigenous’.
- Malaysia –has rebranded everyone Bumiputra – except the Chinese & Indians.
(I have often wondered how this would work in Aust.
“Who’s Spartacus?’ … “We are all Spartacus!”
It wouldn’t solve the problem(s) - but in one fell swoop it would convert them from a race issue to a class issue – which perhaps it should have been all along!)
2) Some, like the Sudan, Burma & Indonesia are hard at it, working on their Indigenous issues – and given sufficient time, are confident of arriving at a ‘final solution’.
3) Most will however, simply file the Declaration away with all the other conventions/declarations/undertakings they’ve signed –but never had any intention of looking at a second time –let alone, complying with!

There are some other areas where I have issues with Megan:
· She rejects the charge that the declaration ‘elevates…customary law’ at the expense of national law – with a schoolmarmish rebuke –‘it does no such thing’ –it’s “inspirational”– but then she tells us some lawyers see its provisions as already international law – and similar law was a force in Mabo & Racial legislations ( and, doesn’t ‘inspirational” imply it’s on your list of things to do –more ‘unfinished business’ perhaps?).
· She charges the govt with discriminatory practices:
By it’s rolling back of some of the special indigenous legislation/provisions. It truly requires lateral thinking to determine that it is non-discriminatory to put into force laws apportioning rights on the basis of race, but discriminatory to roll back some of those exclusive rights –even if only for a short time.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that Aboriginal communities. is in need of assistance. And other countries intransigence does not absolve us from addressing Indigenous disadvantage. And I agree with Megan that a more conciliatory approach –bringing local Elders more into the decision making would had been advantageous –most traditional elders seem more in tuned with the needs of their communities than politicians or self-appointed city based spokespersons/activists.

I’m not altogether convinced however that people like Megan are helping the Aboriginal cause. Their stance seems akin to –Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The ever creeping UN suzerainty is ultimately not good for any Australian –black or white. Ratifying this or that UN convention/treaty all too often seems simply another step towards their bigger agenda – the RAT-ification of Aust!

Megan, as a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I am aware that the Commonwealth of Australia is in principle racist, and so the States, as it is approved for this in Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution. Personally I oppose racism but have to concede that constitutionally it is permissible. Getting rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) might then be the better way to go!
The United Nations Declaration cannot override constitutional provisions and as such cannot have any impact!
Aboriginals themselves, albeit being misled, were supporting the 1967 con-job referendum and still are unaware how it really affects them.
Aboriginals were constitutionally, since federation, equal to other Australians but lost this by the 1967 con-job referendum! If just lawyers pursuing Aboriginals issues bothered to research this first so they know what they are talking about!

While Kevin Andrews introduced the “(Australian) citizenship test” it is a sheer and utter nonsense, as learning who was a cricketer has got nothing to do with current cultural/moral conduct and legal position of Australians.
If we expect others to learn about Australians and heritage would it then not better that we teach our politicians some constitutional facts?

My book, published in July 2006, “INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is -Australian way of life- really” makes it very clear that it means that every person of whatever religion, colour of skin, nationality, etc, can live his/her life in whatever way he/she desires, including customs and traditions provided it is within the provisions Australian laws!

See people as equal and we all are better off