"I wonder if you saw the show on Current Affair showing the Asian man in a bus full of Asian tourists.."

No I didn't BD but if I did I'm sure I'd exercise a little more scepticism than you obviously have. There's usually a lot more to the story than the selective little grab that A Current Affair puts to air.

"Now.. I don't particularly wave the flag for Hanson, but on this issue, she was completely justified in what she said..which was "TREAT ALL AUSTRALIAN EQUALLY" only a warped mind could interpret that as 'racist'.. and thats why some of us (not you notably) have spent about 170+ posts back and forth on the issue of INTERPRETING things."

I actually believe that a fair and decent society should strive to create equal outcomes for its citizens. That actually involves treating them differently, not equally. People who are disadvantaged need assistance that others born into better circumstances do not. When you treat all people equally you actually end up with an unjust society.

Hanson's call to treat 'all Australians equally' stemmed from a bitter resentment at what she perceived to be unfair favourable discrimination towards Aborigines. That positive discrimination was in fact a belated effort on the part of the government at the time to try and rectify the loss and suffering Aborigines experienced at the hands of white settlers and the hardship they had faced as a result ever since. Treating all Australians equally just means that disadvantaged groups such as the Aborigines fall further behind. A lot of people, like myself, understand this very clearly and no it doesn't mean we have a 'warped mind'.

By the way, what do you mean by "not you notably"?

RObert
The trouble is an inkblot is just an inkblot but a photograph of naked children displaying genitalia or in sexual poses does not pretend to be anything else. It is what it is - there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation like in the inkblot.

I don't really want to get back into the Henson debate as such, I was really trying to demonstrate my own reaction in the context of Ginx's comments.

pelican, I'm not wishing to revisit the original topic here either but rather discuss the way the debate played out. Our reactions to the flow. I get the impression that some of theis is very painful for you, I'm not wanting to add to that so if you don't want to further discussion please feel free to ignore this.

You made the point in your last post "there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation" - the fact that we have had this debate with some good people on both sides of the debate suggests to me that there is clearly ambiguity or room for interpretation regarding the photo's in question.

That there are people who's views we generally respect on the other side of the debate should give many of us cause to rethink. Having yourself, Foxy, Ginx, Bronwyn and others on the other side of this debate has certainly given me reason to re-evaluate my views on an ongoing basis.

Bronwyn, I don't think is possible or desirable to create equal outcomes. We eash have differing abilities and make different choices. To achieve equal outcomes we would have to remove all choice. At best we can try to create equal opportunity.

In regard to Hanson the issues she raised were not her creation, they were simmering away in the backgroud. I'd rather they had been brought to the fore and debated openly and exposed rather than suppressed. Many still continue to simmer away.

R0bert

Thank-you, thank-you, THANK-YOU all so very much. I would have felt such a wally if none of you had responded!

There is so much good opinion here to respond to; and I will before I head out next Wed (will be o/s). Work AND the desire for a break from the forum have coincided. GOOD!

OLO is such damn good fodder for the brain; and paradoxically I find that brainpower overwhelming at times.

I'm just passing through my own domain at this moment,-heading out again. Will be back before I go (...er?!!).

It is simple courtesy to answer posts and I will anon.

Thanks.

Bronwyn,

You say >>”I actually believe that a fair and decent society should strive to create equal outcomes for its citizens.”

In what sense do you mean this? Do you actually mean that everyone should have an equal opportunity, or do you mean that we as a society should “make it up to” people who don’t use their equal opportunities sensibly or usefully so we all have the same outcomes?.

Do you, for instance, believe that we should all be paid the same no matter how hard we work?

I think our culture of a fair go demands that everyone gets an equal opportunity. To my mind that means that all children deserve a good education, to prepare them to take advantage of their opportunities, good health care and a safe and loving environment in which to grow. As adults I belive we should ensure that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing and healthcare.

Beyond that however it is up to the individual to make their way in life, and it is not the responsibility of the community to ensure that everyone has the same outcomes. Those who study well, make good decisions, work hard and save money should be rewarded for their good sense. Those who are idle, use drugs or break the law, are not entitled to the same outcomes as those who do not.

All that being said, I am not averse to the positive discrimination in favour of groups which are significantly underperforming, IF that discrimination is well targeted and effective. For a long time, funding for Aboriginal communities was not well targeted, nor effective.

tbc

cont,

You say >>”That positive discrimination was in fact a belated effort on the part of the government at the time to try and rectify the loss and suffering Aborigines experienced at the hands of white settlers and the hardship they had faced as a result ever since”

Quite so, But you would do well to note that we have done more harm in our attempts to help than good. It was interesting to recently see footage of Aborigines involved in the strike for equal wages and recognition in the census. All the people were healthy, they were clearly not inebriated, they spoke English well and they looked dignified.

Whilst their cause was undoubtedly just, the result was anything but. The termination of employment of Aboriginal stockmen was the beginning of a road of great hardship and much adversity for many communities. The welfare solution, coupled with a poorly executed self determination policy has dragged low many an aboriginal community.

We have moved too far from the application of personal responsibility, and encouraged for too long the black armband view of history. The results have been an abdication of personal responsibility by many in these remote communities, well versed in their special status as society’s victims. This can only be corrected by holding people responsible for their own actions and making them accountable for the bad decisions they make. In excusing bad behaviour by referring to injustices decades old we do no-one any favours, least of all the miscreant.

Those who make the right decisions/choices should be rewarded, those who don’t should not. That’s the only fair way that you can promote the importance of making good life choices.