Foxy, did you even read that article about the impact of the Intervention ?
Do you honestly have a problem with alcohol and pornography being banned from remote communities even though all the women supported this?
Do you realise that the welfare quarantining applied to all people in the NT, not just aboriginal people?
Do you not understand that women in communities were happy to have an increased police presence in communities because they had more protection against domestic violence?
Do you have any idea of how many chronic diseases were discovered in children due to the compulsory health checks?
And finally, the one issue that most uninformed people most frequently use to condemn the Intervention, land acquisition.
I will explain this in simple terms. Housing and facilities like schools, health clinics and stores were all built on aboriginal land in remote communities. Essentially private land. Many communities demanded visitors apply for a permit to enter this land, which meant social workers, health workers, child protection etc, couldn’t always gain access to community members who needed help. But all those facilities, housing, clinics, schools etc were built with public money, not private money as happens in the rest of the country. So the government offered a deal to the people. If they wanted to continue to receive all these public benefits, then the land on which they were situated had to become government land, as is normal elsewhere. Bear in mind we are talking about less than a square kilometre in most places, in communities that owned millions of square kilometres! So, this was not a land grab, as many people tried to imply, it was simply a method of guaranteeing access to public buildings for purposes of Maintenance and provision of services.
And that was the Intervention!

Dear Big Nana,

When parliament makes laws and policies about the
First Nations of the Northern Territory, as they
did with the Northern Territory Intervention, the
First Nations of the Northern Territory should have
a fair say. Whether you agree or disagree that the
Intervention was necessary, there is consensus that
it was poorly implemented without proper consultation,
and not as effective as it could have been. Even
Mal Brough stated that. The Intervention failed to
achieve its aims.

Had local First Nations been empowered to take
responsibility in its formulation, the Intervention
would not have been discriminatory. It would have
been better accepted by communities and more
effective.

Those on the political left say the Intervention was
discriminatory paternalism; they tend to oppose
government intervention promoting responsibility.
The right say it was a necessary intervention they tend
to support government intervention promoting responsibility.

The "radical centre" approach is to empower communities
to take responsibility themselves: to take the lead
when it comes to intervening in and ultimately resolving
their own problems.

Government cannot solve people's problems. To paraphrase
Eleanor Roosevelt, government cannot do anything for you
that you are not willing to do yourself.

The First Nations of Australia have a right to take
responsibility. They should be empowered with a
constitutional voice in their affairs, so they can always
participate in decisions made about them. And if we
are champions of responsibility, we should support such
a reform.

Foxy, how many tines have I asked you this? Apart from the intervention, over the past 50 years, what laws have ever been made that affect only aboriginal people?
I would like an answer please.
And rather than create privilege and division in our constitution by mentioning only one race, the best solution is to simply remove the section that relates to making laws that apply only to aboriginal people.
After all, none of us get a say about laws that affect our lives. We elect a representative then just have to sit back and accept what laws are made.
Why should aboriginal people have anything different?

Loudmouth, do you think there is anything in the premise that the number of people calling themselves black are in fact not black but are merely people who have been categorised as 'wannabees', by even some elders, and for the benefits the blacks receive.
I agree with their comments as it is impossible to correlate and explain the huge and sudden increase in the number of blacks as quoted on the stats or census.
There is no known way the number of blacks, and I mean true blacks, could have reproduced so quickly to have suddenly increased over such a short period of time, multiplied into the numbers quoted these days.
60,000 blacks in uni or graduates?
I won't say, I don't think so, instead I'll say, it just isn't so.
As for 40% of blacks owning or paying off households, I think you mean 40% of the blacks are doing so, not 40% of all Aussies.
Then there is the comment that a fifth of Australia is under the control or management (the responsibility) of the blacks.
I get the feeling that number is also worthy of question or scrutinee.
Anyway, these are just a few observations that came to mind as being doubtful.

Big Nana and Joe,
To the best of my knowledge, many more people read the posts here other than those that comment. Therefore many more people get to read your comments than you may think.

I am sure your experience and practicality is understood and appreciated by most readers. Am also sure that we know your comments and imparted knowledge are aimed to benefit ALL Australians.

Keep on keeping on.

Big Nana, Loudmouth, hear, hear.
I feel somewhat despondent over Foxy, I like her but find myself feeling a little sad that she has been convinced of things which on the surface are good and well meaning, but unfortunately hide a poisoned chalice.
It is a shame, that she appears a very intelligent and intellectually savvy person and that is possibly and partly why I like her. (well her demeanor at least, obviously I don't KNOW her socially or outside of OLO, like the rest of you)
I find I cannot stop correcting her, and it is a tiresome feat, more so because I see no glimmer of compromise or even a partial acceptance of some of the points we raise in scrutinising her, even after exposing the obvious and controversial aspects of her submissions and or links.
Anyway, my interactions with Foxy are nothing of note, so if I do suddenly fall off the perch, I think there are enough other equally, if not more pragmatic and objective people on OLO to keep trying to get her to at least, soften her stance on certain issues or topics.