I believe the new term is visibly intoxicated, of which slurring was an example.

Public drunkenness is a real issue that needs to be dealt with. That some may misuse it needs to be dealt with separately, as getting rid of all laws that can be used to discriminate would essentially block all contact with the public.

I think public drunkenness laws apply to all. They do in SA, at least.

Laws do not “criminalise” anybody. Laws are to deal with law-breakers and public nuisance. Perhaps aborigines are more likely to be subject to this law, but that’s their fault, not the fault of the law. Aborigines had to be cleared out of Victoria Square in the centre of Adelaide because their drunken, abusive and threatening behaviour was a disgrace. Why was it only aborigines? Because there were no white drunks there.

Ms. Anthony might think differently if she had been a victim of this drunken behaviour like that many tourists and locals complained about repeatedly in Adelaide. She might change her tune if she walked down Todd Mall in Alice Springs, or any other place where aborigines sit around, pissed, because they have nothing better to do, and no intention of looking for something useful to occupy themselves.

“According to an ombudsman's review of the move-on powers, there was a very high incidence of police issuing such directions in parts of NSW with large Aboriginal populations.”

Probably right. But, again, whose fault is that? Is the author suggesting that police are discriminating against aborigines?

Or, perhaps, like most people with bees in their bonnets about single issues – particularly those who see themselves as the saviours of aborigines – she is imbued with more impractical and romantic views of aborigines that she is with common sense

I suggest Dr Thalia go to any Regional town in QLD or WA and then she will know why such laws are necessary. Yes it is a tragic situation but many people get sick of being called 'white trash' and hounded for money by drunks. The law is stacked heavily against fathers in custody battles and in this case the law will apply more to the groups of people who through being drunk create not only a public nuisance but also danger for the most vulnerable in society (old ladies doing their shopping). If Dr Thalia wanted to be a little honest she would know that the incarceration rate of aboriginals is far below the crime rate of aboriginals. The sooner this victim mentality is dealt with by our academics the sooner some solutions might be able to be found.

Walk down Flinders Mall in Townsville any time after 4:00 in the afternoon and the only sounds you are likely to hear are slurred voices and clinking - or smashing - bottles. And that is in a state where public drunkenness is still an offence. Is it any wonder, then, that businesses are so quiet in that part of town? Who would want to shop or do their banking in a street where safety and hygiene are so disturbingly low?

Of course, on the other hand most of these people have nowhere to go if they are moved on. You can take a look under the bridges or in the nice parks alongside the creek, and you'll see a few souls sitting around, feeling sorry for themselves. So they have little choice other than to be in the public eye, causing a nuisance and making some of the nicest parks in Townsville no-go zones. But they do have a choice when it comes to getting drunk. That the vast majority of these people are aboriginal should be no barrier to the enforcement of law and the establishment of order. And yes, white people who are found to be ridiculously drunk in a public place are moved on as well. As far as I can tell, there is no criminalisation of being aboriginal - just criminalisation of being drunk in a public place.

Racists see most -if not all, things as being determined by racial measurements.

Racists have difficulty accepting scientific analysis based upon actions and reactions.

Racists thrive upon arguments continuing, not reaching agreements and then the resolutions most hope for.

Racists then are unlikely to respond to reasoned arguments.

In simple terms Dr Thalia Anthony as well as being a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney, is a racist.

the above responses to Thalia all have one thing in common - they all look at the visible superficial appearance of a situation and show no analysis or understanding of the complexity of the history and depth of issues beneath the situations they mention. Such superficial thinking allows for no compassion in their hearts. Unlike them, I hope people like Thalia continue to research the cycles of criminalisation and the accumulation of disadvantage in disempowered sections of society. Otherwise all we'd have left to thoughtfully discuss things with are the non-thinkers who think they 'know' because they 'observe' without analysis - they are too simple! yawn!