Whistler, I recognise that, I mean the Suffragettes only got the franchise early last Century. However, I suggest a separate thread might be appropriate?

Proxy,

Asking them to work for a living - if you are basing it upon the negative stereotype, largely based on the "visible drunks" in major centers (whom are no longer welcome in their home communities), then yes, it is racist.

If you are suggesting that asking them to work within the bounds of the Aboriginal Communities themselves, it may suprise you to learn that that is where work for the dole comes from and where it is pretty much mandatory. Trouble is, apart from that work, there is pretty much nothing else available - so it is the dole or nothing for the majority.

I am serious, I just saw the spokesman for the Armed Forces Association on TV, in response to our two casualties yesterday, saying that the problem in Afghanistan is more difficult than most here understand.

Sure it is, they have to win the hearts & minds of the local people, away from the privileged few within the communities (who have vested interests), despite the language & cultural divide. Then they must not only rebuild the shattered communities and local economies, but do so in partnership with those who live there so that the communities become and can remain economically & socially viable.

Well guess what? That is PRECISELY the range of problems that have to be dealt with IN OUR OWN COUNTRIES ISOLATED ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES. If the Army cannot deal with them here, why on earth would they be capable of doing so there?

That is one reason why I suggested that the Army might benefit from the proposed solution. It is a "dry run" if you will, letting them sort out the teething problems involved in fundamentally altering the destiny of an entire community, while not getting shot at and bombed.

The other question is, why are we providing this service to Afghanistan when we aren't doing it at home?

"Presumably taking money for nothing is also beneath your dignity."

I am already tainted, but for someone who grew up free, touching that stuff is indeed below their dignity (unless they use it to light a fire).

Unfortunately, so many of us, myself included, take money for nothing: not necessarily from the public purse, but while performing jobs of no real benefit in the service of their employer's ego.

QUIZZ.... no prize but still worthwhile.

Could a few of you (specially those who regard themselves as liberal/progressive) have a shot at this ?

IF... a white man calls a black woman

‘you black piece of s’, ‘you f--g piece of black sh'
and
‘f--k you blacks you're all f*--g shi&’.

Is he committing a 'hate crime' or..infringing the racial discrimination act ?

Let's reverse this.

Black woman says the same ...but replacing the word 'black' with 'white'....

Is that a hate crime and an infringement of the Racial Discrimination act ?

I would love to have your opinions on this.

Of course.. Pauline Hanson would have firm views :) do you?

This, by the way.. relates directly to the topic..as it is a case study in 'white/black' relations.

Which I will *reveal* next. (after some answers)

Important..is "Law"... equally applicable to all ? or..should it discriminate on the basis of race?

Please, I am trying to discuss a serious suggestion, how is a discussion about whether one form of racial vilification or another is worse going to help? Yes, only one would be likely to be prosecuted, so what? I've yet to see anyone prosecuted for either.

Custard, the rule of law in Australia was laid down with the nation's Constitution BEFORE women got the vote, two years before to be precise, which is exactly why virtually all Australians to a woman and man treat the rule of law with exactly the same contempt as the first peoples, albeit from a different approach. The subject of this thread in relation to Australia's first peoples, as you stated in the first paragraph, is the perceived "absolute disbelief in the 'Rule of Law'".

Who in Australia doesn't hold the rule of law in contempt? Huge proportions of the population text and talk on mobiles while driving, drive a couple of kilometres over the limit, run an orange light when they could have stopped safely, use a vehicle horn inappropriately, litter, jaywalk, slander or defame others, commit minor assaults, become drunk and disorderly or smoke cannabis. Grab a copy of minor offences under the civil and criminal codes and you'll find a directory of what most Australians do every day. Virtually the entire nation holds its rule of law in utter contempt. While the law is not discriminatory it is discriminatory to hold one segment of the nation as having absolute disbelief in the rule of law, particularly when the overwhelming majority of the offences committed are as trivial as the offences everyone else commits. The distinction is that one section's contempt for the rule of law comes from a tradition of equality between women and men while the other, vastly larger section comes from a tradition of inequality between women and men, patriarchy. First peoples are more brazen with their contempt with reference to equality while all other Australians are more conservative with their contempt in the novelty of equality.

Fix the rule of law with a Constitution providing governance which achieves equality and the problem is fixed. All citizens will respect the rule of law in their daily lives and take advantage of the benefits in health, education, employment and opportunity the rule of law provides, not just the reserved.

Whistler, I stated above that I am aware of the issue and back you on it. I suggested it was worthy of it's own thread, because I cannot for the life of me see how it is relevant to this one, the absence of respect for police & the rule of law in Aboriginal Communities comes from years of abuse by "protectors" and police, not the absence of a Constitutionally enshrined right for Women to vote. Until the referendum, Aborigines didn't have the right to vote and, it could be argued, given that the referendum only REMOVED the specific words, but did not add a positive right, are in the same position as Female Voters.

I don't want to antagonise you on this issue, but this is not the thread for it. If you start a thread I'm happy to add what I know about the Suffragette movement and it's Australian Sisters. I'd also be interested to know why the question needs Constitutional Amendment, as the wording from memory is silent thereon. The whole thing rested upon a presumption, that later became an invalid presumption (unlike the specific proscription upon Aboriginal Voters - the words are still there in most printed versions of the Constitution if you'd care to look, they are just struck out). \

At the present time I am struggling to think of anything 'specific' within the Constitution which would have the effect you argue, there is neither a positive statement or a proscription regarding female voters, the whole rests upon an "assumption", which during the 1890's was that women didn't vote (but which didn't need to be said), whereas now the presumption is that they do (which equally goes without saying).

I am sure you could try and gather enough support to push for a referendum to enshrine the right, but as it is assumed now, I don't like your chances (Referenda aren't free & rarely succeed).