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.

Funny enough I agree with Frankgol that some legislation giving the disadvantaged a hand up has many positives. The main problem is that it is impossible to discriminate in favour of one group without discriminating against another. We have also seen the stupidity of the religous tolerance legislation in Victoria where judges and feminazis have tried to use legislation to push their own dogmas. They have come out looking very stupid. Why the woman in charge of EEO wasn't sacked for stupidity is amazing.

It makes me wonder also why the women cricket players don't get paid the same as men. I know the ladies in the Australian tennis open threatened to boycott when they were not going to get equal money. Pretty funny seeing Venus or Maria getting the same dough for 2 sets compared with the standard that Roger plays at for 5 sets. Then again thats equality for you!

So just as a matter of interest,

If an indiginous member of society fails to cast their vote at an election, do they get finned like the rest of us?

Furthermore, do they get bom barded with political proporganda or encouraged to get themselv'es on the electoral roll?

If the answer turns out to be NO - Then is this not racist?

I would hope that they do for all their sakes, otherwise they have no grounds to complain do they!

Would like to know!

Frank,

When you snap dont blame your loved ones for it, for you are a mental fup or a government worker I'd say Government. Leftist freak, apart from the physical barriers your mum rocks my WORLD.

Dear FRank.... thanx .. that feedback/response was welcome and helpful.

We are both right... I believe.

Discrimination based on 'creed' could indeed have the ramifications you mentioned... IF.. such discrimination was allowed based on just 'difference' alone.
So..no, I don't accept that a Catholic or a Protestant can discriminate against the other simply on grounds of difference. Point well made.

I should have qualified my rather broad statement.

"Discrimination based on creed is essential and permissable when that creed involves:
-Inherrent threats to national security
-Abuse of people (Women, children)
-Doctrines which are against our laws.

Now..'child abuse' is not a religion, but it is PART of some well known religions. The problem is.. they don't call it abuse.
The classic case from the western context is the 'Children of God',(Now called 'The Family') then the David Koresh/Waco group and there is even a group in New Zealand led by one Neville Cooper.

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/providers/details.do?providerId=101810001
http://www.cults.co.nz/c.php#cooperites

Your response does raise some important questions also.. how do we "define" what is acceptable ?

If we cannot define it... how are we to successfully argue against it?

This is the huge dilemna facing the West. It's just so simple to say 'No discrimination'.. which works fine for 'race' but does not work for creed.

"Cults" are defined by their strange ways.. but what is strange?

PS. referring to child abuse at the creed level is not 'warped'..what IS warped is denying that it is a reality.. and that's also slimey for the record.

IF.. the Catholic Priests who have abused children could point to a doctrine.. a biblical foundation for their abuse.. what could the law say ? Would they be likely to see the error of their ways?

The simple truth is, that the biblical pattern for adult child relationships is absolutely pure, and abuse is condemned to the uttermost.

The problem for MIUAUG is that the concept of 'abuse' is fluid.. it will change with the loudest voices.

Agree with the basic tenet of this article, that the constitution must be reworded so that it is not racist (that way non-Aborigines might gain more equality with respect to the law). But an academic change only really. There are all sorts of trivial & ridiculous laws still on the books which haven’t been changed or deleted, but no-one takes them seriously as they have no practical effect. No one thinks for a second that the SG will happen again after all the commotion that resulted. Once bitten...

But behind the writer’s main theme of racist language in the books lurks the word Treaty (and therefore Compensation – the C word). (contd)

Can a pro-Treaty poster please give me some clues as to what the terms of such a treaty might be? Unless we know what Aboriginal activists / non-Aboriginal sympathizers want (specifics, not waffle), it’s hard to agree or disagree with it. Give us the bottom line. The author mentions other nations have treaties, eg Canada, as if to say: they’re the good guys, we need to catch up. As for Canada: there have been 11 treaties over a 50 year period. Here’s the basics of those treaties from Wiki:

“In order to obtain title to most of the lands, the Canadian government proceeded with this series of treaties. Each treaty delinates a tract of land which was thought to be the traditional territory of the First Nation or Nations signing that particular treaty (the "tract surrendered"). In exchange for a surrender of their rights and title to these lands, the First Nations were promised a smaller parcel of land as a reserve, annual annuity payments, implements to either farm or hunt and fish and the right to continue to hunt and trap or hunt, trap and fish on the tract surrendered.”

OK, so give each tribe a bit of land so they have hunting rights there & give em some cash to go with it each year. Take away the symbolic “hunting rights” & what’s left is a pile of cash. Does anyone seriously think the Aborigines want “hunting” rights”? Is it recognition that they were the previous “owners” of the land? But I don’t think they ever owned “the land”. They were roaming it. Were they the first occupiers? Very probably. But I don’t need a treaty to tell me that. Anyone can find that bit of info on Wiki, or go to Australia & have it in your face at any international airport.

So what’s left is the cash. But they’re already getting a pile of cash in the form of handouts & an array of benefits. Maybe it’s about the pride? OK. If a treaty achieves that, I'll could go along with it.

BOAZ

You argument is still specious.

We can't both be right, I'm afraid, no matter how exalted your aspirations.

You assert that: "Discrimination based on creed is essential and permissable when that creed involves:
-Inherrent threats to national security
-Abuse of people (Women, children)
-Doctrines which are against our laws."

Your last line betrays the flaw in your prejudiced position - if only you could see it. There is absolutely no need for discrimination based on religion. As you can see (if you'd just take off the blinkers for a second) that the three conditions which you say are the justification for discrimination based on religion, are already met in general legislation in Australia.

So these are not grounds for religious discrimination - they are already covered by law.

You tell us that 'child abuse' is "not a religion, but it is PART of some well known religions." Care to name names and give formal court evidence under any of the current laws that make child abuse a crime? Or are you waiting for a new law that allows you to attack real religious freedom where you disagree with that religion?

Slowly, the Catholic priests and other perverts of other 'Christain denominations like the Starvation Army who have abused children, are being brought to justice (e.g. Father Ridsdale of Ballarat). The defence you kindly offer of "a biblical foundation for their abuse" is exposed for what it is - perversions of Christian doctrine.

It's absurd of you to offer the excuse that "the concept of 'abuse' is fluid". Talk to victims - they'll soon tell you to stop being such a hypocrite.

Frank....

when you say name names... u mean of individual people ? Of course I wouldn't do that here.

I'm addressing the 'value' system rather than specific individuals.

My ears are still tingling from a bloke in Sydney aged 21 named 'Jamal' who said that to 'rape' Kaffirs is really no biggy, because they are "just" dirty Kaffirs who hate and fight against Allah.....

He describes himself as a 'sincere' Muslim.

-Child abuse is 'doctrinally' acceptable in the following:

-Islam
-Children of God (they have re-invented themselves now)
-Cooperites in NZ

None of them will call it 'abuse'.

Yes..our laws do limit certain behavior, but at least in Victoria, it is not illegal for an old codger to have sex with a child under 13 IF..he is married to her. I sussed this out and it appears it relates to the situation of Aboriginal child marraige.
I was stunned to find that outside marraige 'sex with children' is 'abuse', but within..its not. Mind boggling!

Migration laws will prevent outsiders bringing in child brides. (<18)

Glad to see you recognize that 'Church' related abuse is in fact a perversion of Christ and his teaching.. (phew.. agreement :)

RACE.....no discrimination.
CREED... yes.. some is needed.

BOAZ got only one thing right: Migration laws prevent immigrants bringing in child brides i.e. under 18.

But, with his usual disregard for the truth, BOAZ says:

"...at least in Victoria, it is not illegal for an old codger to have sex with a child under 13 IF..he is married to her."

FACTS: The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) lays down the age at which a person can be married in Australia - it's 18 (hence the Immigration Department's ban on child brides). (http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/family/family-Marriage.html#Heading58)

Marriages for people under 18 but over 16 can be made only by a court and only if a judge or magistrate rules that there are exceptional or unusual circumstances (and normally where the parents give their consent). The law says that the court must take into account the maturity of the parties, the length of their relationship and their financial circumstances.

There can be no marriage for a person, male or female under 16, so BOAZ's image of an 'old codger' having sex to his 13 year old wife is a fantasy.

BOAZ then claims that "Child abuse is 'doctrinally' acceptable in the following:
-Islam
-Children of God (they have re-invented themselves now)
-Cooperites in NZ."

That may or may not be so, but the fact of the matter is that child abuse is against the law in all jurisdictions in Australia, whatever people claim their religious doctrines allow them.

In Victoria, under the Crimes (Sexual Offences Act) 1980, sex is legal in Victoria from the age of 10 years, provided the partner is less than two years older. Again, so much for BOAZ's 'old codger' fantasy.

Below age 10, consent is never a defence. From age 16, sexual intercourse is legal with another person of any age, provided that person is not in a supervisory position to the young person. This includes teachers, guardians, officers of churches and youth workers. From the age of eighteen years, consensual sex is legal with a partner of any age.

So, once again, BOAZ poses as an expert and is exposed as a fake.

Re: age of consent law -

The Australian legal studies textbook Pathways to Justice, Law & Society 2nd Ed by Parker & Derwent in the section Family & the Law (can’t give a page number as don’t have access to it where I am) states that marriage is legal for Aboriginal women (girls) at 12 in the Northern Territory – TWELVE.

That was in the mid-90s. Don’t know if it’s changed. Can’t find any corroborating evidence on the net for that age, but plenty of sites confirm there is a clash between Aboriginal customary law on the one hand & UN / Australian law & the Human Rights Commission on the other, especially re marriage law.

Here’s an interesting transcript from the 7.30 Report in 2003
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1006774.htm

The Labor govt there wanted to change the law to bring it in line with Aust law & encountered resistance from the Aboriginal community.

7.30 Reporter: “Till now, Aboriginal males have been able to claim a defence under law to a criminal charge of carnal knowledge of a girl under 16, provided the parties were living as husband and wife according to tribal custom. That defence has now been removed and the Government is under attack for meddling in Aboriginal cultural practice.”

Elder’s response:
GALARRWUY YUNIPINGU (Australian of the Year, 1978), CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL: “You don't throw your punches at people who put you there, right.” (in reference to the fact that the Aboriginal vote got Labor in & so should but out of Aboriginal Customary Law)

"This is a mockery to our society and our law system….Don't put a marriage system into child abuse. (ie child abuse is OK if the child is married)

Reporter: “He's angry that the Territory Government has outlawed a legal defence to the crime of sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years. Even before birth, a girl can be promised to an older male. The families all decide later the time at which the girl is sexually ready enough for the marriage to be active. The system is fundamental to kinship within Aboriginal society.” (contd)

re: age of consent (contd)

Well that age would be puberty & menstruation presumably, as is the case in every tribal society I can think of, so that ealier figure of 12 (textbook) sounds not too far from the truth if at all.

ALISON ANDERSON, ATSIC COMMISSIONER (& sole female member of ATSIC board as of 2003): In my area, there was a young girl that was married to an elder and I think that the effects of what happened seven years ago is still affecting this woman and she's now living somewhere in another State just to get away from the man.

So think Boaz' general point may be correct.

Boaz,

doesn’t matter what you say or how amicable you try to be or how truthful you are, you know you’re going to get hammered by a core group of posters. These quotes are particularly indicative examples:

“BOAZ's image of an 'old codger' having sex to his 13 year old wife is a fantasy.”

And

“Again, so much for BOAZ's 'old codger' fantasy.”

The subtle implication here (2 references in the one post) could be you are a sick pervert (‘Boaz’s image’/ ‘fantasy’ re adult / child sex). Pure nastiness. You’ve tried to engage the guy in civil debate & that’s how he responds. Why do they hate you? I think it’s because you’re white, right leaning & evangelical Christian & the fact you raise issues which some people would rather hush up. You’re much more tolerant of these posters than I am & a lot more tolerant than them.

I commented before on the freedom of speech thread that the reason some choose to remain anonymous here on OLO is that in the real world many would unfairly be character-assassinated with the label ‘racist’, the second most dreaded label in the English label after ‘paedophile’. Is it any wonder some posters remain anonymous? Scary stuff from the self-professed morally higher posters.

"I think it’s because you’re white, right leaning & evangelical Christian & the fact you raise issues which some people would rather hush up. You’re much more tolerant of these posters than I am & a lot more tolerant than them.

I commented before on the freedom of speech thread that the reason some choose to remain anonymous here on OLO is that in the real world many would unfairly be character-assassinated with the label ‘racist’, the second most dreaded label in the English label after ‘paedophile’. Is it any wonder some posters remain anonymous? Scary stuff from the self-professed morally higher posters."
Posted by KGB, Friday, 29 February 2008 8:09:41 PM

Much more tolerant?? Your credibility went down the drain right there!

Talk about self-professed morally higher posters!!

Don't get so morally higher Kjibby. You posted the above tripe because it largely mirrors your OWN views.

Simple as that.

KGB claims that a school book he once read once “states that marriage is legal for Aboriginal women (girls) at 12 in the Northern Territory – TWELVE.”

As against that tenuous, half-remembered secondary source, readers who are seriously interested in the facts can go to the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/index.html
Under s51(xxi) of the constitution, marriage is a Commonwealth power.

As I said in my earlier post, the minimum age for marriage in Australia is now 18, but a court may authorise the marriage of persons under 18 and over 16 in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

The Commowealth Marriage Act applies in all States and Territories including the NT. KGB’s half-remembered school book was wrong if it said that any Australian can lawfully marry at less than 16. See http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/graphpages/bdm/marriages/reg_office.shtml

KGB’s dissertation on carnal knowledge refers to some dissent about tough laws, but the fact is those tough laws applied then and still apply. So interviews on the 7.30 Report are irrelevant to the facts.

KGB’s claim that “child abuse is OK if the child is married” is totally false. And five minutes googling would have shown KGB he was making a goose of himself – as did BOAZ earlier.

KGB complains that BOAZ gets hammered by posters. Well, you too KGB will get hammered if you rush into print with half-remembered ‘facts’ that are clearly falsehoods.

And what an insipid complaint: “BOAZ's image of an 'old codger' having sex to his 13 year old wife is a fantasy.” It was BOAZ who constructed the fantasy – except he called it fact, which it clearly wasn’t.

KGB thinks BOAZ gets 'attacked' because he is “white, right leaning & evangelical Christian & the fact [he] raise[s] issues which some people would rather hush up".

If you’ve been following this and related threads, KGB, you’d know that too is false. The 'attacks' arise because he bases his assertions on manufactured claims with no real evidence. He is 'attacked' because of his prejudices and his incessant desire to whip up fear and hatred of people who are not like him.

Perhaps we could return to the article and not be side tracked by the rantings of the reactionary right.

The myth that whites or whatever group some people on this site indentify with are discriminated against should be addressed.

Our aboriginal brothers have a life expectancy 17 years less than the rest of Australian society. Bridge the gap.

Second, aboriginal people use government services at half the rate the rest of Australians do.

Third the tax system delvers $60 bn per year to middle class (ie non-aboriginal) people and business. $60 bn is 3 times what we spend on defence every year (or maybe with recent increases twice what we spend on defence every year.)

A small proportion of that could fund better health, education and housing for remote communities.

PS George, I thought I saw you at a little cafe called Cream this afternoon. Sorry I didn't say hello because I wasn't sure it was you.