Yes, let's get rid of all racial discrimination in our laws, including the laws than enable the government to discriminate against other races in favour of Aborigines and other non-whites in areas of employment, land rights, government grants, scholarships etc.

What's that I hear you say? You ARE in favour of racist laws, as long as they discriminate in favour of people you like?

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place!

Cheap shot, grn. But your rhetoric is transparent and ill-informed.

Anti-discrimination laws (have you ever actually read one?) serve to prevent further harmful discrimination based on non-relevant grounds such as race, religion, gender and disability. These laws provide that a person should not be discriminated against (e.g. in seeking a job) simply because of the colour of their skin or because they are female. Commonsense exceptions apply (e.g. in clothing shops where gender may be important).

Positive discrimination laws are aimed at redressing past wrongs and correcting existing unjustified imbalances. For example, for a number of years universities have been allowed to provide incentives to get more females into law courses because the balance in the profession was so obviously tilted to men. Now just over 50% of all law students are female and the profession is becoming more balanced - although there are still significant differences at senior levels of the profession.

Scholarships do exist for Indigenous students, but if you have a look at the proportions of Indigenous students currently in universities and in the graduate professions you'll see good reasons why. They're the same kind of reasons the Howard Government introduced accommodation and tuition scholarships for students (of whatever race or gender) from regional and isolated areas.

Some people are so blind they are not able to see the difference between a hand-out and a hand-up.

Good piece George.

My understanding is that Federation was built on three pillars - protectionism, white supremacy and conciliation and arbitration.

It was if you like a settlement or compact between nationalist capital and nationalist labour.

The constitution was written to reflect this.

of course constitutions are living documents so that the words of yesterday are judged through the eyes of today (although certain US jurists would disagree). As the cases George mentions seem to show, the problem is that sometimes the wording is just so obvious you cannot put a non-racist spin on them.

George's call for a treaty is spot on. But unlike George I don't think Waitangi is that great a deal. Any treaty we have must recognise prior ownership and sovereignty and on that basis reach some sort of political, social and economic agreement with the descendants of the original inhabitants.

Initially i had thought that a treaty of such all embracing magnitude would never occur because it attacks the grundnorm of our society - profit and its expression in private property. Maybe Rudd can steer clear of that, but I think he will after the apology do little.

I think the strategy of the HowRuddistas is becoming clearer - to cover their attacks on workers with essentially cost free socially progressive actions like the apology. It was no accident that the day after the euphoria of the apology Rudd and Gillard called for wage restraint.

The aim then for those on the Left like George must be to push Rudd et al in the direction George has talked about - removing racist legislation (including that underpinning the Northern Territory invasion)and negotiating a treaty. That means demonstrations and strikes, sit ins and the like.

Sorrrrry Frank..

Racism laws are just that.. prevention of discrimination based on RACE...
we have other laws regarding religion in Victoria as you well know

the INFAMOUS DESPICABLE AND DISCRIMINATORY "RACIAL and RELIGIOUS (IN)-TOLERANCE ACT 2001"

If I ever achieve anything in politics it will be to ammend those laws so that
"TRUTH" is ALWAYS a defense.
"MOTIVE" is ALWAYS taken into account.

This pernicious piece of political correctness should be tarred, feathered then hung at dawn.

I intend over time, to make those people who supported this law PAY with their shame and embarrasment until they beg for respite from what is coming their way.(Verbally) (Think "Money changers/Temple/whip")

Still, even with that law there is scope for serious debate and truth telling.. such as here on OLO.

It is legitimate to outlaw discrimation based on 'race'...

It is NOT legitimate to outlaw 'discrimination based on CREED'.

If people cannot discriminate against 'creed'..then members of child abuse cults can apply for positions in CHILD CARE.. or perhaps the lawmakers naively think that such people have no interest in getting close to children?

If CREED is not an admissable basis for reasonable discrimination in employment, then we are left to pick up the pieces of abused children AFTER the fact.. when we knew of the possibility beforehand,...based....on...CREED.

BOAZ: "Racism laws are just that.. prevention of discrimination based on RACE..." Duh?

And: "It is legitimate to outlaw discrimation based on 'race'...It is NOT legitimate to outlaw 'discrimination based on CREED'."

So it would be OK if a Catholic Premier refused to appoint any Protestants to his cabinet? OK for Myers to employ only Jews? OK for government schools to refuse to enrol Islamic children (thus forcing their families to set up even more of their own Islamic schools - but then, you say, it would be OK for the government to ban any school that caters for any creed, so there wouldn't be any)?

The Victorian Equal Opportunity Act circumvents all that nonsense. It prevents anyone discriminating on the grounds that they are of a particular religion - or that they are NOT of that religion.

The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 was introduced "to promote racial and religious tolerance by prohibiting conduct involving the vilification of persons on the ground of race or religious belief or activity."

So you're happy for us all to vilify your religion? Or do you object to the Act because it prevents you from vilifying other people's religion? Not that I've noticed you abstaining from free speech when it comes to denigrating other religions.

Talking of free speech, the intent of the Act is the exact opposite - to allow people to practise their religion without suffering the impediment of vilification. As far as I know there have been only two cases brought under the Act since its introduction. Your outrage - you'll make them PAY' - seems out of all proportion.

Your final ploy of turning the argument around to showing a 'good' reason for discriminating on the basis of religious belief is slimy, BOAZ.

Insinuating that people who are not of your religion could somehow be "members of child abuse cults" who can apply for "positions in CHILD CARE" leaving good people like you "to pick up the pieces of abused children" is warped.

Since when was child abuse a religion?

It is not often that I have had to read such a collection of unadulterated bilge in an article on "Online opinion". Quite a few of the statements made are simply not true.

Let us start with the statement that aboriginal natives were not entitled to be enrolled as voters. That is not true. the facts are that they were not entitled to vote "unless entitled under section 41 of the constitution". What this means is that if they were entitled to vote for state elections, they were entitled to vote federally. A major difference. Aboriginal natives in South Australia voted in the federation referendum, and in all elections since.

The fact that the High Court subsequently destroyed section 41, resulting I believe in its latest determination that it only applies to people who were 21 years old in 1901, is simply a mark of the decline of that institution.

The fact that provisions providing for racial discrimination are still in the Constitution results from a decision of the people, not the political elite. If at some time in the future, the people should choose to remove them, well and good. Until that time they stay there.

Of course the fatal weakness in our constitutional system is that the High Court judges are appointed by the commonwealth, and their decisions reflect this. Fortunately, the convict tradition, in which the government of the day is regarded as the enemy of the people, and the atttiude toward politicians, who when compared with used car salesmen found the latter protesting at the invidious comparison, means that all federal governments, particularly Labor ones, will find the people notoriously reluctant to approve any referendum (in the 107 years since federation, Labor has only had one referendum passed, and that was in 1946). Perhaps one day we may achieve citizens initiative referendum, when provisions can be enacted into law in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal establishment. If that were ever to occur, the first on would have to be on bringing back hanging.