what is a flag
a symbol

i note you didnt start a topic
re pissing..on them dead arabs...[murded by snipers]

yet burning a flag drives you nuts
[well get ready for this one]
i tested the law re flags

and its not a crime
the only crime was..a petty crime
public unrination...[the four flags didnt rate a mention]

your not burning a flag
your burning an idea/a symbol
[its dumb..but the media redneck's..love it]

insult to all austr-alians
lol...would their parents..have felt the same
indignation..[lol]..insult...re their oppressors flag burning?

i symbolicly tested..
the flags..that symbolize

yes it was symbolical...
but they all get wet..and pissed on flags dont burn

so a burning flag
means no one is pissing on ya
nor on ya flag

only burning a dumb flag
a symbol...not even a good rag

i must note
a short walk..on a main road
will reap a huge number of aussie bluey..flags...on the road

WHO"S CLEANING UP THE MESS?

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for your quick and detailed response. However, my post is not about violence. It is obvious that violence is not acceptable in any case.
As an Australian citizen, I am deeply insulted by words "it is our land", "piss off from our land", "give us a treaty", etc.
It is a historical reality that Aboriginal people have lost their exclusive right for this land quite a long time ago. This is not new for human world. Nations, states, ethnic groups, etc. have been appearing and disappearing all along human history.
It is a historical reality that our current state of Australia has been built and is continuing to be built by people of variety of ethnic backgrounds. Thus, our country equally belongs to all its citizens regardless of their background - historical,ethnic, cultural, etc.
Any public threats to equality of our citizens, any attempts of discrimination and division of any Australians must be dealt with the fullest power of our law.
It is not possible and acceptable to correct past discrimination of native Australians by 'discrimination backwards'.

Andreas,
You won't find much support for your point of view here or for that matter out in the community, assimilation is dead, separation is the only way a multicultural society can survive.
The commercial precincts of our cities will soon become the cosmopolitan hub areas with various groups returning to their segregated (if not gated) communities and living their lives as their traditions and beliefs dictate.
The only way we can survive is by keeping away from each other, mutualism and the rule of law are not possible in a multiracial society because of Racial and cultural differences, non White people can't be held accountable to White law.
What's more forced assimilation is classed as genocide under international law, people spruiking views such as your own need to realise that the world will not stay as it is today.
I recently read an article detailing the Genocide charges being leveled against the former Guatemalan president Mejia.
He's accused of complicity in the deaths of 1700 indigenous Guatemalens and the displacement or mistreatment of 29,000 others.
My point is that if you force people to change any aspect of their lives, their culture, their behaviour etc you are possibly committing a crime against humanity and these things always catch up with you, it doesn't matter if the head count is six or six million.
Mejia is now 80, the crimes were alleged to have occurred in the 1980's, I don't suppose he ever dreamed he'd spend his twilight years in prison but there he sits.

Dear Andreas,

Words are important I agree. And one has to be careful
in certain instances as to how they are used. However,
the facts don't change regarding our country's
original inhabitants. They were dispossessed of their land
and were discriminated against by the first British and
European settlers as well as in the two cneturies following
white settlement. The phrases -"This is our land," and
"Piss off..." may not (like Mr Abbott's choice of words)
be the most tactful - but they are expressions (and reactions)
to the understandable injustices that
some people still feel today.

However, I doubt whether these words are criminal offences.
Inciting violence is against the law.

It is unfortunate that the ideology of national culture
sometimes regards minority cultures as alien and a threat
to social cohesion. Where pervasive cultural assumptions
are the beliefs and customs of the dominant group they're
presented as the norm. This results in the status and
behaviour of minority groups (particularly those who are
more visibly different) being defined and judged with respect
to the dominant group.

These attitdues are widely discussed in the media where they're
presented as reasonable and commonsense and are reflected through
media images that don't accurately portray Australia's
cultural diversity.

Many of these beliefs are at the core of the resentment
expressed by some people at measures taken by governments to
address the disadvantages of particular groups of
people. Affirmative measures and positive
discrimination are frequently seen as the preferential treatment
of one group at the expense of another rather than
the means of redressing the disadvantages inherent in our
society.

Examples include opposition to Aboriginal land rights,
calls for the removal of special benefits for particular groups
and resentment towards the provision of English language support
to migrants. These beliefs are absorved into popular
culture - and hence problems arise.

You have a very valid point, Jay, but I don't think we're talking about forced assimilation here. Many races, 'nations' (by Benedict Anderson's definition of the term) and groups can be united in one state without becoming one group. The Belgians have done it for a couple of centuries now, as have the Japanese. We don't have to agree about everything, and we don't have to follow the same path; we don't even have to like each other. However, following a few common goals (wishy-washy things like peace, harmony and prosperity) sought after by a central state symbolised by a single flag should not be impossible.

As for the burning of that flag, it seems to me that it was a futile act. It hardly garnered the support of the nation, which must be the purpose of any successful public demonstration; it also seemed misguided. The angry 15 year-old who has been mentioned many times in the press spoke of ancestors being raped and murdered under that flag. Today's news outlets are suggesting that she was talking specifically about the Union Jack, but it wasn't a Union Jack she ignited and spat on. It was an Australian flag. The murder and rape of her ancestors were never authorised under a government symbolised by that flag. Many other atrocious things were, but she didn't mention them. That flag represents a nation that still has a way to go to fix up the errors of the past, but it also represents a nation that mas made considerable progress and commits itself to further progress. It represents a people emerging from ignorance, racism and bigotry and, though she and a fair few others might disagree, it represents her people as well.

As for legality, perhaps any Canberrans around might be able to let us know whether or not a total fire ban is in place in Canberra at present.

Ancestors raped and murdered ? Who ? When ? What are the details ?

Or is just easier to throw those sorts of accusations around, without having to prove anything ?

Not any more, it's not.

No more lies from either side. No more scams. No more sucking dry the goodwill of others.