Well, if you want to name them, fair enough
- But you also have to take responsibility for doing so when an angry mob hunts them down.
I think they deserve a fair trial, if they're to be accused of something, and the right to defend themselves fairly.
And if you are going to punish them based on social justice, rather than criminal law, then you better establish some kind of standard because things are going to get messy.
Why not just create a better policy (that all parties agree to) for the conduct of these people as part of their employment contract?
That way you create a better system that saves all the dramas.

And it would want to be a fair system, because I hate left leaning political correctness and social justice.

Unless of course you want scalps?
If you want to set heads on pikes to deter people in the future, well I can't really support that.

If I wanted to set heads on pikes for all the things that annoy me, well there would be plenty of heads on pikes,
- But were not supposed to do that in a civilised society.

Hi Joe,

It seems about this time of year we discuss the Aboriginal question. Well there are three types of meaningless arguments put forward as some kind of justification for the illegal occupation of this continent by Europeans beginning in 1788.

!."Someone Else" the claim that if it wasn't the British it would have been someone else, much worse. Irrelevant, as we can only deal in the reality of the actual events.

2. "Benefits" the claim that Aboriginals benefited from the superiority of European culture and material development, not true. The gendercide and other crimes committed by the British, negate any possible, questionable, "benefits" bestowed.

3. "It Didn't Happen" Those who find an easy justification in denial will use this one. The overwhelming evidence of murder, rape, disposition etc of Aboriginal people is simply denied as if it never happened.

What I say Joe, is we deal with the reality, not sugar coated fairly tales. The first step is the recognition of the past, which must be a true account. Then and only then can we move on as a nation of black and white united as one Australian people. The conservative side of politics think a bit of tokenism, smoking ceremonies, painted up Aboriginals dancing, a word in the anthem etc. They mistakenly think all this inconsequential triviality will be enough to placate those demanding equality. That wont work, the days of beads and blankets are passed and real action is now what's required

Paul1405,

We need a good old fashioned Name & Shame.

Dishonest and untrustworthy low-life scumbag politicians, bureaucrats and business people hate being named and shamed.

Paul,

"2. "Benefits" the claim that Aboriginals benefited from the superiority of European culture and material development, not true. The gendercide and other crimes committed by the British, negate any possible, questionable, "benefits" bestowed."

That paragraph has to be your best attempt at humour to date!!

Getting a written language was not a benefit?
Education?
Being able to travel to other countries?
(thus enabling the late Buram Burnam to take possession of England).
Warm clothing for the colder months instead of untanned scratchy animal skins?
Cloth to make sham "traditional" dance costumes?
Medical care?
Freedom from forced marriages to much older men along with general freedom for women?
Decent housing beyond the wildest dreams of 60,000 years of non-development?

How do any crimes committed by the British negate the benefits of a University education and remunerative employment?

How do they negate the undoubted benefits of being able to flick a light switch?

Hi Paul,

I don't think the matter of our origins is 'irrelevant' - it's quite possible that some other colonial power could have had a more benign impact on the Aboriginal traditional foraging life, but my point was that, no matter whom it may have been, it was inevitable that the continent of Australia would be 'settled', or invaded, sooner or later, by an outside power.

If you don't think so, perhaps you could go through the steps that might have been required to avoid such a destiny ? Some international treaty amongst colonial powers, and an agreement to patrol Australian waters at a suitable distance forever, and provision those ships, perhaps hundreds, forever ?

The inevitability of 'settlement' or invasion, as you wish, good or bad, still underlies all of our subsequent history.

And by the way, it was assumed from the outset - and later, in the 1840s, written into legislation - that Aboriginal people had the right (obviously somewhat compromised) to use the land as they always had done. That condition is still written into pastoral leases, at least here in enlightened South Australia - in fact, it's why pastoral leases have almost never been converted into freehold title, except for the more backward colonies of Queensland and Western Australia.

In the 1880s, the Protector here in SA was told that a young pastoralist, John Lewis, in the north-east was about to drive Aboriginal people off his lease. The Protector advised him that he would be in breach of his lease if he tried that on. A few months later, Lewis applied for rations, and thirty years later the station, Cowarie, was still a ration supply point.

Joe

Foul-Mouth,

What about you, do you like being named and shamed?