Loudmouth,

once more you rise to the occasion, and in so doing putting the 'deplorables' back in their box.
I wonder just how high Mount Stupid really is.
One thing I have heard speak of was the idea that now that the un-natural YES debacle has been approved, the notion of such people also seeking their own independence and self rule because only they know what it's like to be them, and they feel they are being disadvantaged and prejudiced against by having to live by the laws of straight people.
How many people predicted just how long this garbage would take before it began to smell.
Joe, what makes it so sick is that there are the sympathisers who by facilitating these idiots, are saying, 'it's OK, you're entitled to make stupid and outrageously unsociable and uncontionable demands.
These facilitators are dangerous, as they promote dis-unity in the community.
Instead of convincing these freaks to abide by the laws which apply to all citizens, equally, NO they encourage them to push for in-equality, as some kind of birth right, and to hell with the rest of us.

ALTRAV,

They are not seeking independence or self-rule.
Once again, know your facts before commenting.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about
them. A practical reform. Not a veto, but a voice.
At present our Constitution confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate. Racially
discriminatory laws are permitted under the
Constitution.

The High Court has confirmed this.

In any case your comments really prove that your
opinions are not based on facts.

Joe,

Just letting you know that I won't be commenting
for a while because I'm going into hospital
tomorrow for surgery at 12 Noon. I'll be out
of commission for a while.

Take care.

Foxy, you of all people should know about comments NOT based on facts.
As Loudmouth has said a million times and you persist in ignoring his well researched and very knowledgeable comments and facts, that THEY already have more than THEY should and yet THEY still demand more.
You see Foxy, it is not the blacks who are pushing this massive heist, but the white trash, so gutless as to hide behind and use up the blacks into getting their hands on the monies and other benefits on offer.
Then along come the likes of you and bolster these con-men by pushing for the black fella, but you have no idea, the black fella gets none or very little of these benefits.
So it is people like you who have it all wrong, but because of your "well meaning" you are actually harming, by trying to help give the thieves more control over the blacks finances and therefore, well being.
Why don't you insist on the thieves being jailed and replaced by honest overseers, they are the problem, not more rights or money.
I'm sorry to say that self determination has also had flaws.
Good job Foxy, keep it up, I'm sure the black community already see through it, even though you don't.
Can't see them thanking you any time soon.

ALTRAV,

Joe's research has been predominantly to do with
the papers of the Protectors in South Australia
who were white men in charge of Aborigines. And
as Professor Robert Foster who specialises in
Aboriginal History at the University of Adelaide
has stated about Joe's work - he described is as
"simplistic" and although not untrue (from the
protector's point of view) it all depends on how
you "spin it."

Many people have argued with Joe over the many years
on this forum. You admire his work. Fair enough.
And I'm sure that he's done a great job. From the
white man's point of view.

The entire problem is that white Australians have always been
the prominent law-makers in our parliament, and they don't
enact laws that racially discriminate against themselves.
This may explain the rhetoric over practical measures
to ensure equality in practice.

White people's ancestors have never been denied equality on the
basis of "race" under Australian law, so their empathy for
discrimination against Indigenous Australians is lacking.

The Uluru Statement takes on board objections to a racial
non-discrimination clause, and calls instead for a First
Nation voice in laws and policies made about them as a
way of preventing repetition of past discriminatory policies.

Their proposal has a long history - they have argued for
decades for fairer representation in their affairs - A voice
in the Constitution would guarantee them a say, without
transferring power to the High Court, or undermining
parliamentary supremacy. It present a way of
improving Indigenous policy through early Indigenous
engagement, rather than subsequent litigation.

As I stated earlier I'm not really inclined to continue
this conversation. We're at opposite poles in our
thinking and I don't want to continue to explain things
to you.

So I shall walk away now - and wish you both well in
your dignified and respectful dialogues with those who
agree with your points of view. Keep on slavishly
congratulating those who have the wisdom to see things
your way.

OK, to the rest of the forum, I make this comment.
Seeing as one of the most unreasonable people on this medium will be unable to answer or comment, I take this opportunity to comment without the risk of stubborn and uncompromising rebuts.
I reject her continual promotion of an unrealistic and unpopular agenda.
If we are to accept these ridiculous contentions and submissions allowing the blacks anything that is not allowed to the rest of the people we will be discriminating against ourselves.
I don't care what you call it, if these demands are even partly met, it will set a dangerous precedent.
For example, we will have the Muslims suddenly apply for the same considerations as the blacks, as they feel aggrieved and discriminated against.
Then the flood gates will open, and every other race or creed saying they too have special needs and we, the white man do not understand their special needs so they have to self rule, and also have their voice in parliament, explaining and promoting their special needs.
If you think I'm exaggerating, just give in to these airheads like some here promoting these stupid demands, and wait and see.