Somewhere in the Australian constitution, there is a provision for making different laws for different races. Of course, back in 1901 things were quite different and this provision was added to try and address unscrupulous operators from viewing aborigines as slaves for their chosen enterprise. I feel this is how you can have streets in Cooktown where one side can purchase and drink alcohol, but the aboriginal people across the road cannot legally do the same thing.

Historically, settlers would feed and clothe a group of aborigines in return for work. Once the laws were changed to make them pay the same wages regardless of race, it was no longer viable to support the whole group as well, and welfare came about around the same time. This is obviously a very paternal approach, but the fact remains that the stockmen and cattlemen of that era are quite a different breed to those we see on telly carrying on about this and that.

I'm tending to think the abundance of threads related to aborigines might be more a fishing trip than genuine discussion, as half the posts will be either "for or against" aboriginal people, and the other half deeply suspicious of the first half. Whatever you try to do will fail and be "racist", but its getting to a point where that accusation is becoming very diluted.

ALGOREisRICH,
Your last post reflects reality but that's not acceptable. On the other hand the unacceptable is accepted as the norm. So, there you go !

Has anybody worked out what Whistler is trying to say?
If so, is it possible to translate it into a couple of sentences?
Does she mean that if we follow her principles,
Australia will become an egalitarian utopia
where nobody talks on their mobile while driving?
Please help me to understand.
I want to live in Utopia too.

Custard, if You can understand what I'm talking about a referendum on an equal rights republic is a shoo-in in this weekend, thank you. PatTheBogan the law isn't Racist unless its only applied to a specific race. Proxy, people won't be talking so much in court if they stop talking on the mobile while driving, rule of law. Have you considered the rite of passage to a republic recently?

Aboriginals and a Bill of Rights?

Whistler and Custard and Individual.. the reason I mentioned that situation of racial vilification is because it relates directly to how to 'treat' other communities.

So... to answer 'what to do'...etc as per the topic.. one might venture to suggest "with equality before the law" might be a good start.

Here is the case study I gleaned that stuff from.. but *warning*.. colorful language quoted.

http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournalFiles/Volume%204,%20Number%202,%202008/O%27Connell%20Pinned%20Like%20a%20Butterfly%20FINAL.pdf

I draw your attention particularly to the line of argument used by the Magistrate (was it CJ Morgan with a wig ?) see page 6.. it will 'open thine eyes'

Page 7
Brown FM decided that Ms
Power’s insults were not racial vilification
because they were made not because
of Mr McLeod’s race, but to express
frustration at the power differential
between them;

For their social dominance, ill-defined
boundaries and internal diversity as a
group, Brown FM finds that whites should
not be able to invoke the racial hatred
provisions of the Racial Discrimination
Act.

Well well well... most illuminating.

So...should (in terms of the topic) White prison guards treat aboriginal people according to law.. or not? Should aboriginal women treat White males according to law?(RDA) ..or not?

Was Pauline Hanson right ? :) (Equality b4 the law)

Do the Racial Discrimination/Human rights laws actually CONTAIN inherrent discrimination against whites? YES! if the magistrate is to be believed.
I wonder how it would be if a well educated Chinese doctor called a white laborer "You white piece of"....would the magistrate say the same ? :) oh yes.. the opium wars..British Colonianism..yep...that's it!

Custard,
I draw your attention to this article in the Aus this morning.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nothing-constructive-in-housing-disaster/story-e6frg6zo-1225877647700

I know that Adam Giles is a politician but, if it is only half true, to my mind, it is easily grounds for government dismissal in both the NT and Federally. Just how could any government allow this situation?

I recall those proporting to have the rights of aboriginals at heart, going on about the NT intervention and making a big deal out of 'sending in the troops' when all the army was doing was providing tents, etc. for the medical and police staff. How do you think your idea of using the army would be received by the aboriginal industry.

I rue the day this government took over to the detriment of the NT aboriginals. To my mind Mal Brough was a no frills bloke that would have achieved lots in regard to the safety and well being of the kids.

I don't want to become party political but can anyone show anything this present government has done successfully. This aboriginal housing scandal is just another in a long list of scandals.

Belly, even you must now be starting to question your beloved Labor party.

The sooner this mob is removed the better. If Labor wins the next election we could be well on the way of being like Zimbarbwe or some other broken down country.

Where are all the aboriginal activists now? They should be screaming blue murder about this. Seems their NT intervention objections were purely political and the kids still suffer.

If nothing else the aboriginal communities need Mal Brough as Minister.