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.