The line was drawn by the Australian people at Federation, again in 1967.

Australians drew their line so Australia's laws subject to their Constitution shall NOT discriminate, shall NOT qualify rights and or responsibilities of ANY Australian on the grounds of race.

Australian's permitted prejudicial treatment for NON Australians on grounds of race where deemed necessary by the Parliament.

Australia's ratification of UN agreements to eliminate racial discrimination widened our Constitutional restrictions to include ALL persons.

Racism claimed as lawful is direct result from action or inaction by the Parliament.

ALL racism held lawful is direct result of treasonous dereliction of their duties by our High Court Justices.

Legal racist prejudicial behaviors continue due Parliament and the Justices cooperative behaving without rebuke.

HREOC supports identification of Australians with racial codes, fails to object, fails obtain inclusion of "DECLINE TO ANSWER" on all government forms.

Those who ask you to identify your race are the problem, not the solution.

Or do you believe that all victims of criminal attack must accept the attack to continue as a pre-condition for compensation ?

Supporters, promoters and practicers of racial discrimination must be frustrated at inauguration of President Obama with his loud, clear rejection of their failed racial separatist ideology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?em=&pagewanted=all

Start of short extract:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Its clear to me that many posters here do not know the history of human rights advocacy OR understand how the rights they enjoy are indeed residual from these fundamental developments in law.

For example -

In 1815, the Congress of Vienna is held by states that defeated Napoleon and International concern for human rights is demonstrated for the first time in modern history. Freedom of religion is proclaimed, civil and political rights discussed, slave trade condemned.

Indeed this nation went to war to defend these same laws and principles of human rights, law and liberty.

Good post polpak.

Foxy wrote
1. "about 60 percent of white-collar criminals receive no
jail terms, and of those who do, serve one year or less" OF CAUSE THEY BELONG TO THE PRIVILAGED RACE! Aborigines and migrants do not have any reputation and they go direct to prison!
2."People with money, have an advantage,can often obtain the very best legal advice,and get much more lenient sentences" Yah, the "justice" depends on the size of the wallet and the bank account! Do you call it justice?
3. "men tend to get tougher sentences than women" kick them! they created this crazy system!

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-UN about Australia report
15. The Committee notes with concern that it has proved difficult for complainants, under the Racial Discrimination Act, to establish racial discrimination in the absence of direct evidence,
and that no cases of racial discrimination, as distinct from racial hatred, have been successfully litigated in the Federal courts since 2001 (arts. 4 and 6).

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Spikey, how do you know I am not 'aboriginal' or from some other minority group? (For the record mate I recently had the great honour of being invited to speak at the funeral of a very close aboriginal friend.)
Despite your comments I was putting up an issue for discussion rather than trying to comment on an individual case. I am genuinely concerned by this issue and the way we, as a society, seem to be handling it. I do not know what the answers are. I would like others to think about it and be aware of it.
It seems to me that the current trend is not one which helps people who identify themselves as 'aboriginal' or indeed a member of any minority - instead it can encourage a tenuous identification by some with a particular group for their personal advantage. This is often highly insulting to the many other good, law-abiding members of that minority group whatever it happens to be.

Communicat,

"...how do you know I am not 'aboriginal' or from some other minority group? (For the record mate I recently had the great honour of being invited to speak at the funeral of a very close aboriginal friend.)"

Mate, I recently had the great honour of being a guest at a reconciliation dinner. But I am no closer to being a Koori than before the event.

"Despite your comments I was putting up an issue for discussion rather than trying to comment on an individual case.

Communicat, you are commenting on an individual case and claiming it to represent an issue.

"I do not know what the answers are. I would like others to think about it and be aware of it." Maybe some of the other OLO posters know the "answers" better than you then? What's the point of making people aware of an "issue" when you don't know what the "answers" are unless you are open and receptive?

"It seems to me that the current trend is not one which helps people who identify themselves as 'aboriginal'..." Why the relative clause? It is only one of the usual methods of confirming Indigenous status.

"...instead it can encourage a tenuous identification by some with a particular group for their personal advantage." The key word is "some". Would you damn a whole system because "some" might use it for their personal gain?

"This is often highly insulting to the many other good, law-abiding members of that minority group..." I agree, but abolishing the system as a whole might be even a greater insult to those with a legitimate need for it..

I am sorry Sparky I didn't realise you had all the answers, or that I was making an issue (rather than example) out of a single case. I am puzzled that I am apparently racist - makes me wonder though whether some of my friends are really my friends or a figment of my imagination - and I wonder what you would have said if I had used a different example.
(I can think of a few but presume you would view issues such as intellectual disability in a different light - after all if you know the difference between right and wrong that is an end to matter is it not?)
Humble apologies Forum members. I will retire from the debate and allow Sparky to continue to provide all the answers.