Rainier - I didn't say I was superior to non-whites. I didn't say I was white either. Next time read what is actually said and don't make assumptions. It just makes you look stupid.

Also, I refer you to the work of Dr Frank Ellis who has proven that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Surely you don't need evidence to prove something so obviously self-evident.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka - we let you in. Why? Presumably, despite your rantings, you think that, once allowed you had been allowed in, the dominant culture should accept you. Constitutionally, of course. And more than likely, we did. Constitutionally, Eastern European migrants, no matter how many Inspector Rex,er, Inspector Gadget potboilers they might have written and tried to flog, were never covered under the Flora and Fauna Act. Indigenous Australians were, in my lifetime. How would you, constitutionally, have liked to be thus dismissed?

Do be quiet. You are, constitutionally, a bigot, and a fool. We let you in. Why?

Fascinating - but perhaps unsurprising - how today's truly historic event has brought the racist trolls out from under their rocks.

Yes indeed CJ,

I'd say many of them joined just to spew their toxic bile out from inside their rotten souls.

They get excited reading their on crap. Very anal people.

Yes Russell, "socialist". You're a PhD candidate writing a thesis on the Australian Left(i.e Labor) at Latrobe University for goodness sake! Home of the ALP club et al.
Referendum? Because the apology is not a matter of legislation, moreso, one of conscience. Giving an apology is one thing but as it stands, the power to hand over money is at the discretion of the government and they should seek guidance from their electors as to terms applied, don't you think? Or do you prefer the socialist view where the state is responsible for everything and no-one is responsible for the state?
Oh and the inference of ignorance and prejudice on the part of the majority was yours, not mine. Read the following before you start foaming...
An apology, or admittance of negligence, other than when related to torts, does not prejudice the apologiser to be liable to compensation, yet here we have claims made before the apology has been accepted!"Monetary gain", Russ.
The giving of an apology as part of the reconciliation process would and should have an acknowledgement of acceptance of said apology from those lawfully wronged, or at least, someone speaking on behalf of the aggrieved. Where is that?
Sophistry, eh? Big word for you. My geneaology stretches back to the Isle of Thanet in Kent, the inhabitants of which were said to have originated in Jutland, so I daresay, that pre-history, an altercation such as I described stood a better than fair chance of occurring. In addition, my partner is Assyrian, and her family history is full of incidents where confontation led to discontinuance of a family tree branch. Trust that satisfies.
It's not for me to tell anyone to "get over it". That's their own determination and responsibility. Neither would I have expectation of anyone, other than that they conduct themselves appropriately to the dominant social norm. In the case you mention, reality is, it's her choice to consider herself an oppressed minority. "Victimhood", Russ.
People who subscribe wholeheartedly to the concept of racism are more apt than others in seeing incidence of racism. I don't.

Bill02,

Dr Frank Ellis? Who?

My search turned up nobody.

Is he a scientist?

What are his quals?

If he is an academic - how well is he supported by his peers and their scientific publications?

What are your qualifications to make such calls?

Do you use lubricants to remove your head from your lower orifice or are you professional contortionist?

How's your pension Bill?