Mr Man,
thanx for your conciliatory words.
I also find it curious observing the apparent closeness between the political 'right' and the Protestant fundies of the US, but I think it goes back to the history of the place and the foundational aspects of the early pilgrims and their attempts to establish a more theocratic nation as far as they could.

With regard to Rednecks posts, try to look beyond the 'rough'ish exterior to his reasoning. A lot of it is quite spot on, but his terminology and mood tend to elicit 'reaction'. By his own confession, he has yet to experience the mellowing grace that comes from knowing Christ, so.. we pray on :)

To be honest, I see outstanding value in the various points of view here, the main aspect being simply that we are all TALKing about important issues which by and large have been neglected as 'taboo' for so long.

Immigration is a sensitive issue for sure. I think we should learn the lessons of history re human nature, group behavior and just forget all the 'chants and attacks' which are levelled against responsible policy because the most vociforous come, in my opinion, from those who perceive they have most to either lose or gain on a political level. I tend to look sideways with suspicion when 'Migration Agents' like Marion Li wax compassionate about 'assylum seekers' etc.

The best consultancy for our own policy would be the indigenous Aussies. Just ask them "Given what you know now, what would you have done differently on the arrival of the whites" ..I'm only guessing here, but total annihalation might just slip out :) and understandably so. When you think about it, there would have been no other way for them to remain independant. Unfortunately, the tides of history would not have allowed that independance to continue much longer anyway.

Today, we need to develop policies which are both compassionate and responsible, recognizing both human nature and political realies.

Redneck,

An example of crimes committed against the entire nation are the blatant breaches of civil rights called anti-terror laws, in particular the sedition laws. Another crime - although not against an entire nation - is that Howard is actually an accessory to the war crimes of Bush. What war crimes? Launching an offensive without UN approval, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib...

And if it wasn't for those pesky leftist State Labor leaders then I would’ve just committed a crime by speaking ill of our country’s leader and could've potentially been locked away for 2 weeks with no access to a lawyer or contact with my family and then thrown in prison for up to 7 years.

But if you look at history as whole, then we Anglo-Saxon whites are just as terrible as all other races - even nowadays. We just hide behind a corporate logo and call it "making a profit". Or steal oil and call it "spreading democracy".

But before you launch another attack, I would just like to add that I respect your defiance of political correctness, despite the fact that fundamentally, I disagree with you.

Mr Man,
I see another one eye propagandist view here.

"An example of crimes committed against the entire nation are the blatant breaches of civil rights called anti-terror laws, in particular the sedition laws. Another crime - although not against an entire nation - is that Howard is actually an accessory to the war crimes of Bush. What war crimes? Launching an offensive without UN approval, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib..."

Where were Beasley and the the State Labor leaders in this blatent breach? You single out Howard as though he was the exclusive decision maker in these anti-terror laws. Since you believe Howard is a war criminal, I suggest you bring him to the Internation War Crimes Commission. You condemn him without trial, most un-Australian! You see you are really a propagandist, not a factual reporter. You mention Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib etc but give no reference to crimes committed by the other side [Saddam and his Sunni murderers]. In other words you incapable of presenting balance and are a sadist bigot

Philo, up until the "sadist bigot" bit I very much liked your reply.
Kind of interesting how some of the left scream about Howard and the anti-terror laws and keep quiet about Beasley's claims that they are not tough enough.

It's not a right vs left issue, rather a freedom vs control issue and that is not something that is easy to pick from political orientation.

Personally I'm against some of what I understand the provisions to be - to easy for a genuinely corrupt government to misuse them. The thought of Labor having access to that kind of power is scary in the same way that I'm concerned about Beatty having access to the powers in the new IR laws.

R0bert

Philo,

Excellant points! And I agree - Where was Beazley in all this? Telling us that our rights needed to be stripped further, that's where.

But at least Labor wants to protect SOME of our rights. If howard had his way, half the country would be living in cardboard boxes, eating gruel. All for the benefit of the super-rich who don't even need his support.

But considering the how profound Saddam's crimes were, it would be a waste of time even mentioning them. Everyone knows how psychotic he is but at least he was open about his hatred and contempt. You never heard him say "The Saddam regime is a friend of the Kurds!". Besides, you'd expect more civil behaviour from countries who are apparently "spreading democracy".

And just for the record, I'm not pro Labor, just anti-Liberal.

But this is all completely off the topic.

Philo,

I agree that labour did not prevent these breaches, however I note that in the 1950's the states and opposition did not in fact prevent the Communist Party Dissolution Act. This act was in fact based upon a referral of power from the states, similar to the present laws. It was entirely invalid, beacause its effect, was inter alia, to impose retrospective criminal liability, and to declare certain acts illegal, by parliamentary / administrative fiat, without due process.

'a stream may not rise above its source' (Communist Party Case, Fullagar J).

Redneck,

I do agree that in some respects, rascism is a natural part of the human condition. However it IS learned behaviour. White children raised on aboriginal communities do not normally refrain from interacting with Aboriginal children, however they do notice differences - but they do not discriminate upon that basis. The noticing of points of difference is thus natural, whilst the discrimination against others based upon those differences is LEARNED.