Dr Antonio Buti is another lawyer who in my view has a problem understanding what is the proper legal way to go about things.
When one of my daughters was 2-year old (and in my sole care- being single father) and the police demanded that I handed over my 2-year old daughter because the WARRANT authorised them to do so, I made clear I refused to do so. The police still took my daughter of my arm, and as such executed the warrant. I requested immediately for my daughter to be handed back, this they refused. I consulted a lawyer who made clear I had hope in hell to get my daughter back. Still, 5-days later this my lawyer and a barrister attended to the Supreme Court and urged me to withdraw my case as otherwise I may never see my daughter. In Court the trail judge asked me what my position was and I made clear the WARRANT was unlawfully issued and I wanted nothing less then my daughter back. The judge agreed, set aside the WARRANT issue and ordered my daughter to be returned immediately. This was decades ago!
Now, are we to believe that none of those parents who claim their children were “stolen” didn’t know they could fight?
Single mothers of all races had their children removed. Why no apology to them?
Why is a half-cast an Aboriginal? What about saying then “SORRY” to the non Aboriginal parent?

Antonio Buti, could for example read up the so far in 3-part published postings of mine ( being a copy of an e-mail forwarded to Kevin Rudd prior to the “sorry” statement at “http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6981” regarding “Knowing when to say 'sorry'” to realise that claiming International treaties on the basis of being an “Aboriginal” is constitutionally defective.
Perhaps Canadian and Asian Aboriginals may also desire a slice of the money-cake?
.
International treaties, no matter how much I may value them, do not and cannot override constitutional provisions and the application of constitutional provisions.
.
Personally I deplore racial discrimination but that does not alter what is constitutionally permissible!

Trade215

"And now we may progress to being a truly humane inclusive nation" is the kind of thing that inspired taking aboriginal children from their families in the first place. The stuff of Social Darwinism and Fabian socialists.

Wrong, Trade, it was paternalism, racism and the complete lack of respect for aboriginals and their culture that was the catalyst for dividing aboriginal families.

An inclusive nation means acceptance of many different cultures, do not try to distort my meaning just because you disagree. Offer your opinion by all means, however, your sarcasm simply makes you appear petty.

Cheers

Fractelle,

careful there, you are now distorting my position, which as you say is petty. Paternalism... indeed. Lets not forget the maternalism that was also present and one could argue is what drives short-sighted renditions of 'social inclusiveness' into the realm of foolish policies.

But that would be petty. Wot, spinning this down the gender path.

All are instrumental and all play their part, notwithstanding the contrivances of social classification. Which again is part of what drove the mentality to 'integrate' aboriginals.

Social inclusiveness does consistently demonstrate a very real danger, namely homogenisation. Again this is closely related to the mindset that stole a generation.

The problem with this term thats being bandied about lately (Social Inclusion) is that its undefined. It rests on mere conotation and inference. Its a bit pretentious actually. The terms is in sore need of definition and direction. l suspect this wont be forthcoming though, as a clear definition wont serve the tendency of govt to murky concepts which can be spun this way or that.

In fact, in an Orwellian sense, a public office titled "Social Inclusion" is likely to be anything but. Prolly more likely to be divisive.