tRAKKA - Still not sure how my writing a thesis on the Australian Left (FYI I'm not writing on the ALP) at LTU is evidence of my "socialism".

Re your Apology-Referendum argument, I must confess I'm unsure as to what your argument is. Do you favour a referendum for an Apology, or in order to determine whether compensation should be payable? (Neither, in my opinion, requires a referendum - referenda are required only when Constitutional change is proposed.) Ideally, I'd love more of a "direct democracy", where people have more input into day-to-day political activity. That's is a different (or at least more expansive) debate than the one we're having. Within the bounds of a "representative liberal-democracy" (which is what we have now), the idea of "prescriptive" politics - the party that wins the election produces change by introducing potentially divisive political acts, but manages that divisiveness ethically by way of education and showing respect to opposing viewpoints - has much to commend it.

I would have thought that the Apology had been generally accepted by those aggrieved. This seemed rather obvious to me, judging by the sentiments expressed by Stolen Generations members following the Apology. I'm unsure as to what you're saying here.

I'm also unsure as to what relevance your genealogy has. If you're suggesting that you and your family turned out okay despite all that your people(s) historically endured, then - congratulations, I guess! (I see this as an argument for an Apology, rather than as one against.) But within the context of Australian society and history, the situation is that particular cultural groups were systematically broken by successive policies of the state. One such policy was the forced removal of the children of those groups, for which the state is now Apologising.

Finally, I find the argument that "it's her choice to consider herself an oppressed minority" perplexing. A major, genocidal wrong is committed against a people, and members of that people have the "choice" to "consider" themselves oppressed?? Seems like major justificatory logic to me.

RussellMarks; What on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned immigration. A social construct? Suggestion; if you cannot refute my assertions, and you are out of your depth, pretend I said something else and then refute that.

'You seem to have reached the conclusion that most of the problems of modern society are attributable to the immigration of non-white immigration(sic{?}) and to the treatment of "race" as a social construct rather than as a biological fact'.

Contrary to your assertion that I 'won't respond to reason', I am willing and able to back up everything I say with evidence. And to Rainier, who says he/she cannot find any mention of Dr Frank Ellis; try typing in his name in Google and then press ENTER. You will be presented with 10 sites, all of which refer to the evidence I sited. Simple really when you know how.

Bill02 (Wednesday 13 February): "You scum have destroyed my country. We need to bring back the white Australia policy"

Bill02 (Monday 18 February): "I never mentioned immigration"

Er, what was the 'White Australia' policy about, if not immigration?

Wasn't Frank Ellis the previously unknown lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies at Leeds University, who achieved his 15 minutes of notoriety a couple of years back for being sacked for his expression of clearly racist views in a university publication?

If so, what possible light can such a dildo bring to a discussion of Sorry Day in Australia?

Back under your rock, racist troll.

CJMorgan;
Yes I did mention the white Australia policy, however I was expressing incredulity at RussellMark's statement that I 'seem to attribute all of the problems of modern society to immigration'. My support for the white Australia policy is based on my belief that mass immigration is a racist policy as all cultures are destroyed in the 'melting pot'.

I notice that you have been unable to refute any of my assertions and throwing insults at me is your only resort. Your attempt to discredit Frank Ellis was purile and with each new statement you make, your ignorance becomes more apparent.

Dr Frank Ellis is not the only academic who has proven this theory. I refer you to Dr Hans Eysenck, the most frequently cited academic in science journals. He has been assaulted numerous times for presenting his findings, and whenever he attempted to speak he was shouted down. Here is a quote from him that I feel is very pertinent:

'I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts.'

Lastly, why must you discriminate against us trolls? I look forward to your apology.

PART 2-CONTINUED FROM Monday, 11 February 2008 3:06:11 PM
As such unless there exist already a specific definition to define what is an Aboriginal any apology seems to me worthless to refer to “Aboriginals” where no one knows what it really means in legal terms.
As I understand it to be, there are for example Caucasian born Australians who call themselves being Aboriginals because they are native born Australians.
As such the physical appearance itself does not determine if one is an Aboriginal or not and neither race background.
The Framers of the Constitution recognised in their debates that there were Aboriginals residing in Asia, and as such using the term to refer to “Aboriginals” which could include Aboriginals who migrated at some time, as then Caucasians did, to Australia and then to somehow exclude or include them would be racism against Negro’s, Caucasians, etc, who also were “stolen” “forcefully removed”.
I understand that when an so called Aboriginal was convicted for breach of law entering a while only pub the Supreme Court of Victoria overturned the conviction on the basis that it had not been established that the person was an Aboriginal. The fact that a person may look like an Aboriginal does not mean the person is an Aboriginal.
Why should a half-cast child be termed Aboriginal if its other part was Negro, Caucasian, etc?
What governs if a person is termed Aboriginal or otherwise?
In my view any apology made by the Federal Parliament should be as to “forcefully removed children” regardless of their race. To do otherwise would cause division within the population and rather then being a healing process between different races the apology would fuel already existing problems.
In my view, without a so to say cast iron definition if what is an Aboriginal the federal parliament has no business to specify Aboriginals. Hence it would require first to legislate what is a person of an Aboriginal race. Is the paternal or maternal heritage governing this for example?

TO BE CONTINUED

PART 3- CONTINUE FROM Monday, 11 February 2008 3:06:11 PM
.
Because Parliament has no executive powers it means it cannot held accountable for any wrongdoings against its laws.
It merely legislate. It cannot be held liable for unconstitutional legislation unless it can be demonstrated that it deliberately and knowingly or reasonable ought to have known that it legislated to cause harm well aware there was no legislative powers for this.
If such intentions cannot be shown then any harm flowing from its legislation can only be expressed as to regret that its legislative provisions were inappropriately used, without that the Parliament itself takes responsibility for this.
While a Federal Government can make an apology it can only do so for the actions taken buy itself and cannot apologise for actions taken by some Executive Government decades ago in regard of which it had any powers.
The Commonwealth of Australia is unlike any other system operating in the world, albeit can be compared to some extend with that of the European Union. The Federal Government unlike the Government of the United Kingdom is very limited in its powers even so its system has been much duplicated from the British system. For example, British Ministers have the so-called “Henry VIII powers” not existing for Ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia. British Ministers have unlimited powers within their portfolio, again not existing with their Australian counterparts as their powers are limited to “peace, order and good government”.
In my view any apology should be directed therefore to all and any children “forcefully removed” as to exclude Caucasian, Negro’s, etc, would cause uncalled division and if anything may inspire hatred.
The harm done to a child being “forcefully removed” is as much applicable to a Caucasian child then to a Negro child, an Asian Child, etc, as is to an Aboriginal child.
The term “stolen” refers to unlawfully removed children and would therefore not include “forcefully removed children”.
.
TO BE CONTINUED