Ginx

How about just stopping your ridiculous efforts to prevent others from expressing their views?

Why can’t you just address the views that are put, instead of bagging those who post stuff that you don’t like? Cut the puerile hate-ridden name-calling. Why such incredible intolerance?

You accuse others of racism. Well I accuse you of some pretty heavy-handed and highly inappropriate attempts to restrict peoples’ fundamental right to freedom of speech.

I think that VK3AUU and others that you are trying to knock the stuffing out of have made some very valuable contributions to this discussion.

The truth is that some god-awful things have been perpetrated upon the Aboriginal people, along with some pretty profound efforts to help them. It’s a very mixed bag. Blame and commendation lie on both sides.

So Looders, what took you so long?.......:-

"More to the point, who is the most balanced and constructively contributive member of OLO?

That’d be someone who doesn’t spend all day every day on the damn thing and posts only good meaningful stuff.

Of course my vote would have to go to………………ahhhh ummm err…..Ludwig…. of course! (:>)

(or it would have done if he hadn’t post this piece of meaningless blurb! (:>())
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 17 November 2007 8:12:02 PM"

The font of all knowledge reduced to voting for himself!

If your comments had come from those whose views I value and respect on this forum, I might have taken more notice. But they come from you.. We have 'met' before haven't we?

What is it with you people? Do you have a textbook of quotes to justify your views?
I'm intolerant? ABSOLUTELY;- of the intolerant.

If you had a modicum of intelligence, you would not have referred to someones fundamental right of freedom of speech, and completely missed the fact that they did not exercise that, they printed up a Stormfont invective.
Or is THAT what you meant??.....the right to exercise SOMEONE ELSE'S freedom of speech.

As for this 'freedom of speech thing'; it's all in the interpretation isn't it?

I exercised MY right to 'freedom of speech'.

THIS is how YOU see it:

"puerile hate-ridden name calling" (quote required of PUERILE,HATE-RIDDEN name calling please).

"...knock the stuffing out off".

I object to White Supremacist crap, and I am trying to: 'restrict peoples fundamental right to freedom of speech'!!

Your little mate didn't even write it, he joined this forum to peddle it!

Do you remember Looders? Do you remember telling me to stick to the topic? Is this the best you can do on this thread? Just use it to take a shot at me on behalf of someone else? How pathetic

Ginxy

Thanks for reading my comments and giving them due consideration.

Have a nice day.

Onya Ludwig.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

David

I noted “Nilay B. Patel is a Melbourne-based lawyer and writer on constitutional law issues.” But his article to me appears to be anything then properly constitutionally based. As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” AND Author of book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series in regard of constitutional and other legal issues I consider it sad that Nilay B. Patel seems to me to have failed to present his argument on a properly researched manner.
He 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.
.
It is regrettable but “racial discrimination” is the foundation of every state and territory and the federation to which Subsection 51(xxvi) is a clear example! A provision that all Colonies supported to be used for federation and therefore International treaties cannot override this.
.
Nilay B. Patel ought to have realised that the way to go about would have first of all to be to hold a referendum to omit Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution. Without it we remain an underlining racial lot and entitled to discriminate! Personally I deplore racial discrimination but that does not alter what is constitutionally permissible!

RobP “The bottom line is that much of it is not delivered effectively, or just not at all.”

That sounds like a very inefficient process Rob.

My thoughts

Leave the money in the tax payers pocket and let the individual voters decide to spend it directly on the philanthropy of their choice.

That way people can exercise their own discretion to the merit or otherwise of aboriginal subsistence demands by contributing directly to the charity of their choice.

This will avoid the government, then bureaucrats and the “ineffective delivery” which you mention, whilst enabling ordinary Australians to do what they think is right and appropriate toward their neighbours.

Ginx

“Tomorrow morning I shall be making formal moves to get that defamatory piece of nonsense on page 4 removed.”

Well it is now Monday evening and I am pleased to see you have failed in enforcing your self-proclaimed censorship upon your fellow posters

I have long debated, often in opposition to Ludwig. However, I will support him against your mindless drivel.

I have no hesitation in observing he respects an opposing view and is not afraid to challenge it.

Some belligerent racists have proposed I be banned because they cannot deal with the opposition I present to their view.

You tend to justify my observaton that those who are first to demand censorship are usually the first to abuse others.

If you cannot deal with the confrontation of an opposing view, I suggest you go and live in a cave far away, high up in a mountain and without broadband.

A society which separates its people based on race is a racist society.
Expecting special consideration from government based on ethnicity is racist.

Demanding compensation for past wrongs inflicted on say ancestors is invalid since the claimant did not suffer the loss.

In claiming compensation for being removed from a dangerous domestic situation, I would expect the claimant needs to “prove” the intention which prompted the action and records may well cast a different perspective to the circumstances of removal, I don’t rate the chances of any compensation claims.