I do not doubt that Kevin Rudd did mean his sorry speech but as a “constitutionalist” I view he had no position to make such an unqualified apology. Section51(xxvi) specifically is designed to discriminate and the 1967 con-job referendum was supported by Aboriginals that they can be discriminated against. As such the “never again” is hollow in particular where we have Kevin Rudd supporting the Northern Territory intervention. The Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islands-Act is unconstitutional as it deals with more then one race, which is constitutionally not permitted. The Racial-Discrimination-Act is unconstitutional as it is against the general community not constitutionally permitted. Aboriginals like the abuse of Section 51(xxvi) to discriminate albeit unconstitutionally in their favour. No complaints then! Personally I oppose discrimination but as a “constitutionalist” I have no choice but to accept that Aboriginals themselves pursued the 1967 “yes” vote for being discriminated against!
Neither can we by way of Section 128 of the constitution amend the preamble to recognise Aboriginal traditional ownership because the preamble is not within the grasp of Section-128-referendum powers as is neither to turn the Commonwealth of Australia, a “POLITICAL UNION” into some independent country. This post does not allow me to set out all relevant details regarding the issue save to say I have covered this extensively already in previous published book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series.
Kevin Rudd may wish to push his own wheelbarrow of goodies he may desire to seek to hand out to others but if legislation is made by a Parliament then it was done for a reason at the time. We may not agree in today’s society what then occurred but likewise will future generations to certain legislative provisions now enacted.
Why is it that the removal of a child from an Aboriginal-single-mother- is to be apologised for but not for the removal of a child of a non-Aboriginal-single-mother?
Get rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) racial-discriminatory-powers. Failing to get rid of the Northern Territory intervention is another clear demonstration of talking with a split tong. Say one thing and do another.
Realistically, it was a show, that is all.

From memory, every single one of the 41 communities in the NT investigated revealed the existence of sexual abuse of toddlers and childen. In some cases children raped children. Should the Australian or NT government remove those abused children from those communities? If so, where are they to be removed to and for how long? Or should nothing be done to rescue the innocent children and instead a blind eye turned to this epidemic of abuse perpetrated by aboriginals? Will other aboriginals and non aboriginals say 'sorry' to the abused children for the wrong that has been perpetrated by aboriginals? In future times will those abused children themselves demand a 'sorry' for NOT being removed from horrific abuse? I hope that together a solution can be found.

The K-Rudd Crew(as I like to call them) do NOT apologise on my behalf, nor do I suspect, on behalf of the BULK of right thinking individuals. How DARE he presume to speak for all of us without mandate, implied or otherwise. Democratic principle in a constitutional monarchy would dictate that a referendum be held to determine the will of the people and give them some say in the wording of any statement.
Victimhood and monetary gain is being promoted here, nothing else. There is NO doubt that if you dug deep enough into EVERY persons past, you would find a time when one of their ancestors clashed with another person and peaceful settlement was not possible, resulting in heartache and loss for one. Nevertheless, people got on with it.
Mr Marks, you draw a long bow by applying a vernacular, populist term(stolen generation) to individuals taken as a result of state legislature which was designed to protect those accepted neither as Aboriginal or white. How conveniently socialist of you...K-Rudd would love it.
Apology? NO apology necessary...

tRAKKA - "Socialist"? I think you'll find that "liberal" is a much better descriptor of my views. And there is one hell of a lot more than "victimhood and monetary gain" being "promoted" here. How can you be so sure of this claim?

While I'm at it, how can you be so sure that the "bulk of right-thinking individuals" does not support an Apology? (If you want people to completely avoid populist language, I'd suggest you not use such terms.) And just why would this issue warrant a referendum? Australia's is a liberal democratic system, its legislature is representative. You don't present any reason to back a referendum - except an implied expectation that the majority would be ignorant and prejudiced enough to reject the Apology. Of the hundreds of historians who have researched this history, only Keith Windschuttle - whose unsound method rejects oral history and puts enormous faith in the legitimacy of some contemporary written records (while completely ignoring others) - has concluded that there is no case to answer.

Your sophistry regarding the "heartache and loss" in "EVERY person[']s past" is fascinatingly self-delusionary. Have you even engaged with this issue? You imply incredible ignorance of basic human psychology. How would you normally expect someone who was taken from her mother, who was in turn taken from *her* mother, and who has grown up in a society in which she's a minority in almost every way, to conduct her life and affairs? Would you honestly say to her face: "Get over it"?

And your blind ignorance of institutional racism is, in the present century, staggering. Are you so dense as to expect to see “We hate black people” helpfully tagged to every incidence of racism? Are you completely unaware of the way Australian legislatures, aware of international anti-racist opinion but fully intending to maintain the “White Australia” policy, removed explicit references to race in legislation dealing with, say, child welfare, but merely described how they saw Indigenous culture under concepts like “Neglected child”? Please read the text of the Child Welfare Ordinance 1957 (Cth), s5, for an example.

RussellMarks - Are you suggesting there is something wrong with racism? If so, what? 'The belief that some races are different or superior to others' is one of the three listed uses of racism in the dictionary. I can see from your grammar and logic that you are border-line retarded, however you cannot be so stupid as to claim 'all men are equal'. Then again, perhaps you are.

I can't wait to put all the liberal perverts in camps and force them to break rocks into smaller rocks and dig holes and fill them. You scum have destroyed my country. We need to bring back the white Australia policy, but make an exception for Jews who are one of the 'noble races'(Greeks, Romans, Jews and Western Europeans).

Bill02, So what makes you more superior than non-white people?
And what do you base your evidence on?