This week is Reconciliation Week in Australia, but the question for many is will it ever happen? For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia’s history involved the taking of land by colonials leading to things like land dispossession, violence, the stolen generation and racism.

On the other hand, there are people who want to move forward, take a position that the past cannot be changed and the only way forward is to look to the future.

It is important to realise though that history is not there for you to like or dislike. It is there for people to learn from and cannot be changed. If you are offended by any part of it, it is hoped you learn something, so that such actions do not happen again.

How do you see reconciliation moving forward? What ideas do you have to see change or do you consider reconciliation to be something that will simply never happen?

Only if the Indigenous desire it !

Reconciliation simply means "the restoration of friendly relations".

How many of us have any sort of relationships with people identifying as aboriginal to start with? Not many, I would guess. Reconciliation is a notion of high-minded, holier-than-thou whites who haven't had much to do with aboriginal identifiers either; they are into identity politics and division, which is a prime tool of Marxism. For black activists and those with just as much European in them as indigenous, it's all about special privileges not available to any of the other many races of people in Australia. For politicians, it's all about votes; pretty stupid, really, because voting is the only way people can go against this nonsense without being called 'racists'.

Reconciliation with all the claptrap of recently invented rituals and 'welcomes' are just another scam to relieve non-aboriginals of more money, as our stupid politicians fall for the nonsense.

The different treatment of people on the grounds of race, which is an accident of birth, makes a mockery of the Morrison government's stated reassurances to create a society where race is irrelevant.

The High Court has already found that no sovereignty in the sense that it is understood today resides in aboriginal people. Now, activists want something that they did not have in 1788!

The "First Nations" did not exist either. There were 300 odd distinct tribal groups with their own oral traditions and laws, spread across the continent in independent clans. Most did not communicate with their immediate neighbours. Native guides used by explorers could seldom communicate with the tribes through whose territories they passed.

More than enough aboriginal culture is rammed down our throats already. Their flag, a for-profit concoction flies on every public building - for which royalties are paid. Reconciliation Week. NAIDOC. Welcome to country, etc.

Meanwhile, white society is abandoning its culture, history and values. Why should aboriginal culture be immune?

Reconciliation is a 2 way street.

It is going to take a great deal of change to the aboriginal industry, currently costing us billions for absolutely nothing worthwhile, before I'll be reconciled to the waste involved being worth while.

Hi NJ, thanks for the thread.

One person who is benefiting from Reconciliation Week is my wife, she has signed up for the Aboriginal Arts and Crafts classes in our local area. She went to the first class yesterday afternoon, loved it, will be going every Thursday.

Hassy I feel very sorry for you, I believe you are in your 80's with health issues. Its unfortunate you have lived so long and have all this "negativity" within you towards others. Life is not so bad, people are not so bad, what is left of your life spend it wisely on positive pursuits. I'm sure if you took the time and looked about, you would find so much that is positive in this world. Smile!

The Constitution already treats our Indigenous
Australians differently in so far as it allows
laws to be passed for and about Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people, cultures and
heritage. because they are Indigenous. This allows
the federal parliament to make laws that might end
up disadvantaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people.

For our Indigenous people this needs to change.
Constitutional change for them is about righting
and recognition of inherent difference rather
than promoting an agenda of sameness.

Changes in the Constitution need to be made -
to remove the laws
that discriminate against people based on their
race.

Only then can any form of Reconciliation have a
chance of succeeding.

Aborigines have already reconciled with the Australians, it's the pseudo indigenous who are the stumbling bock to an all encompassing reconciliation !

Individual,

Have a read of this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53436225

I don't think that most people have any great interest in this tomfoolery. The true original inhabitants died out a couple of centuries ago. Nothing can be done about what happened in the past, and people these days are not interested in their own history, let alone that of about 4% of the population claiming to be descendants of Stone Age people. Personally, the more I hear about these whingers and trouble makers, the less I like them. What used to be fellow human beings who were just there like everyone else, are now unlikeable pains in the bum.

Foxy,
Yes, it's much easier & more profitable to lean that way than face one's own shortcomings & lack of integrity !
I know many Aborigines & Islanders who enjoy a standard of living that I can only dream of !

"The Constitution already treats our Indigenous
Australians differently in so far as it allows
laws to be passed for and about Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people, cultures and
heritage. because they are Indigenous. "

Complete rubbish. Simply not true.

Simply not true.
mhaze,
How so ?

"but the question for many is will it ever happen?"

It depends.

When someone decides what I need to be reconciled to or about, then I'll be able to work out if it'll ever happen.

But at the moment it seems that we simply have to be reconciled to constantly hearing the usual whingers whinge.

We've been told that Indigenous people in
Australia want self-determination within the
existing nation. This would require recognition
by the government of their distinct cultures
and forms of social organisation, governance
and decision making.

A treaty would improve the governments obligations
that they would have to comply with new treaty laws
and rights. The Uluru Statement from the heart -
outlined a voice to parliament. It did not ask
for much. However, it did not happen. Other
countries have treaties with their Indigenous
people. Australia does not.

I guess few of us can imagine what it would be like
to be discriminated against because of colour or race.
None of us know how we'd feel if we were watched
while in shops or treated differently on public
transport. Or in the case of Kelly Briggs from Moree
who got tired of being rejected as a tenant for being
"too dark" that she asked a white friend to rent the
house she now lives in after six months of applying
as an Aboriginal woman and getting nowhere.

"Simply not true.
mhaze,
How so ?"

In the sense that what Foxy said was, predictably, utterly wrong.
The Australian Constitution doesn't mention aboriginals in any way. Not since the 1967 referendum.

If there is to be reconciliation in Australia, people must be open to the idea in the first place.

As mentioned before history is not there for people to like or dislike, it is there for people to learn from, so these terrible things that occurred in terms of our history do not happen again.

It is important to realise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been through many things, good bad and indifferent. One cannot expect someone to let go of or forget something, let's say if they were part of the stolen generation. The impacts are long lasting and will not simply go away.

In terms of change though there are ways to start.

Changing the date. Australia Day has been a discussion for a long time and change here may help out. Whilst seen by some as a token move, the idea of celebrating a day where colonials took over could be seen as hard to justify and continue.

Constitution reform may also be a good thing to consider. There is an excellent article on this issue.

https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-in-our-constitution-matters-and-will-need-greater-political-will-to-achieve-90296/

Bridging the gap is also important. There is a 10-year gap in the average life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Health and education are major contributors to this gap.

Finally people need to be willing to adopt change. Cheap and nasty comments will go nowhere and are signs of those not willing to work with others for positive outcomes. There are reasons for doing that, but I would encourage people to think of the bigger picture.

mhaze,

The following link explains why Australia as a nation
needs to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in the Constiution.

And it explains also when the discriminatory provisions
in the Constiution have been used.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-why-reform-constitution-needed#reform1

Foxy,

You claimed ""The Constitution already treats our Indigenous Australians differently in so far as it allows laws to be passed for and about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, cultures and heritage. because they are Indigenous. "

That is wrong. Show me where, in the constitution (http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/complete) it says anything even remotely like what you claimed. For that matter, show me where it even uses the word 'aboriginal' or 'indigenous'.

Hint: it doesn't.

I know you are genetically incapable of admitting you got it wrong....but you got it wrong.

Its just one of those things the luvvies believe because they've been told it so often that they think it must be true.

The fact is that the constitution doesn't discriminate against the aboriginals or any other particular race in any form. It just doesn't

So NathanJ, your idea of reconciliation is doing things the aboriginals, or at least those who claim to speak for aboriginals, want.

Do the aboriginals have to do anything to reciprocate? Is there anything they need to reconcile to? Thought not.

So basically "reconciliation" is just another way of making ambit claims on the Australian polity. We call it 'reconciliation' because that sounds all warm and fuzzy. But it might be more accurately described as ransom....we'll keep calling you racist until you give us everything we want, into perpetuity.

We all know that's what reconciliation is really about

mhaze,

Read the link I gave. It gives examples of where
the laws have been used against our Indigenous
people.

The Australian Constiution currently contains
no protections against racial discrimination and
the parliament is capable of suspending existing
statutory protections. The protections under the
Racial Discrimination Act - the federal legislation
designed to ensure equality of treatment of all
people regardless of their race has been removed 3
times - each time it involved Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people.

That's why Australia as a nation needs to recognise
our Indigenous people in the Constitution.

Read the link as to when the discriminatory provisions
in Australia have been used.

mhaze,

Why do come across as opposed to reconciliation? I'm open to all suggestions from everyone on the matter.

As I put it: "If there is to be reconciliation in Australia, people must be open to the idea in the first place." This applies to all people.

Secondly in terms of things I did put down, like changing the date, no-one can advocate for reconciliation and at the same time force a date change onto to the public.

Without having a majority on board, reconciliation is something one would not consider to have occurred at all, that being to force people into something they don't want as it is counterproductive and will achieve little.

I've pointed out history is not there for one to like or dislike and this also applies to all people. Learning from history is important. People today have also gained at other people's expense, so it is important to work hard to see things happen, both at a practical level (bridging the gap) and symbolic (changing the date).

Hi there MHAZE...

With respect, you're not entirely right. There are special legal procedures in place for indigenous folk when charged with a criminal offence. Whereas police abide by the 'Judges Rules' (9) for most of us in the community when attempting to discover the author of a crime.

Indigenous people have the normal protections of those same nine Judges Rules, but some additional rules are tacked on, called the Anunga (sic) Rules (8 in number?). Meaning when police are interviewing them in relation to the commission of a crime, they're allowed to sleep, have friends and an elder present, as well as counsel being present while being interviewed.

I can't remember them all, but they involve much more leniency when the police interview them. I was in the police force for 32 years, and I personally agree that all indigenous people must have those additional protections enshrined in police procedure. Some can neither read nor write and will say 'yes' to just about anything you ask them, usually because they don't understand you, afraid of the shame they bring their families, or out of genuine fear, if they deny your assertions?

I'm amazed how little most of us know about our
Indigenous people's history and the trials and
tribulations that they still have to live with.
I guess until we walk in someone else's shoes
our understanding is somewhat limited.

The whole idea of "A VOICE" is pointless, but may be useful for a time
if it has a sunset clause. In 100 years or a bit more there will be
no aboriginals.
There will just HAVE to be a DNA definition of what is an aboriginal.
How often do we see a black aboriginal on the TV ?
The ones that are vociferous aborigines are about the same colour as
Italians.
The whole thing is getting absurd and is getting more so every time a new on pops up.

cont'd ...

It takes someone like O Sung Wu - with real
life experience to set the record straight for us.

Dear Bazz,

You never know if something will succeed until
you give it a try. And a voice to Parliament
is worth trying. So is a treaty. Other countries
have done it - what can't we? And it shouldn't
be based on the premise - well they're going to die
out in 100 years anyway!

Aussies are better than that!

Hi FOXY...

I hope you and yours are all well FOXY. When we speak of our indigenous people, we should endeavour to remember -

They bleed red just like us; they feel heat, cold, and pain just like us; they need nourishment, water and air just like us; they have traditions, a culture; and material needs, just like us; they have tribal affiliations, a family structure and kin, just like us. They have emotional needs, attachments, experience love and hate, just like us. Moreover, they fear death, myths, and superstition, just like some of us. And finally, most are terrified of the police, enforced incarceration (being locked up), and our strange (white) laws that they can't understand, just like a few of us.

I harboured considerable disdain for our blacks for some years until I began relieving in the bush. And sure, there's a chasm between our cultures, but it can be crossed if one is prepared to persevere in circumventing the obstacles.

And after much thought and from what I've seen over the years - Gaol is NOT the right medium to punish our indigenous people. Their own form of tribal justice can be very effective in some cases, if not draconian in our eyes, especially for the bushman.

Naturally, gaol is the only option for some crimes; nonetheless, it's entirely inappropriate for others.

"I (individual) know many Aborigines & Islanders who enjoy a standard of living that I can only dream of !"

You don't say, must be more of those "Concrete Jungle Bunnies" you speak of. To think you're been free loading on Australian welfare for the past 50 years, basically ever since you arrived from wherever you came, me thinks South Africa as the apartheid regime was crumbling, and there's a black fella with a higher standard of living than YOU, a white fella! Disgraceful! You wont believe this, but I seen a black fella the other day with a pair of shoes on his feet. Do you wear shoes?

Hi Foxy,

The redneck racists on this Forum will never be able to walk in the black mans shoes. The simple reason is they don't believe the black fella is deserving of shoes to walk in.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Beautifully stated. And so true.

You've certainly led a very full life.

I love reading your posts.

Dear Paul,

I have high hopes that with enough support from
our fellow Australians - things will change for
our Indigenous people if they are given a chance
to advise on laws made by the parliament that
affect them.

Hi Foxy,

Some info on Aboriginal incarceration rates in Australia from Creative Sprits. Makes for interesting reading.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/aboriginal-prison-rates

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the link.

It says that every year it gets worse and that
the stats are even higher than reported.

Truly tragic.

Hi FOXY...

Of course, I've been retired for a while now. Still, in my experience, the two most destructive elements for our indigenous people are alcohol & drugs, usually supplied by a few white lowlife's who prey on them as soon as they receive their fortnightly government allowance.

And for the younger blacks, as well as booze and dope, they need to contend with boredom, hopelessness, social isolation, and thoughts of suicide.

Foxy, I didn't say they would die out, they will merge with the rest
of us and it will not be a problem. No doubt there would be a few who
would pretend they are aboriginal, even if they only 1/16 or 1/32 of
aboriginal DNA, just to rip the system off.
Their DNA will eventually spread through us all.
After all we all have some Neanderthal blood, so perhaps I can make
a claim on the European Community because their ancestors forced
my people into obscurity.

OK Paul there is an opportunity for you to call me something or other.

Dear O Sung Wu,

The more research that I do into the problems of
our Indigenous problems - the more depressing it
gets.

Dear Bazz,

The only way that things can improve is if we
recognise our Indigenous people's history and
allow them self determination as they ask.
It's no a big ask - and we should in Modern
Australia be mature enough to do it.
All that's necessary is for a government to
try . Then perhaps as you point out - things
will change.

G'day o sung wu,

"With respect, you're not entirely right. There are special legal procedures in place for indigenous folk when charged with a criminal offence"

That rather misses the point. I wasn't talking about the general legal status vis a vis those who claim aboriginality. I was addressing the utterly erroneous claims of Foxy that the constitution discriminates against those who claim indigenous status. I invited her, and anyone else for that matter, to show where the constitution does that. Foxy, being incapable of ever admitting error (even one so obvious as this) moved with alacrity to change the subject with more rubbish about things she doesn't understand like the Hindmarsh Island dispute.

The constitution is not racist. But some feel that erroneously claiming otherwise, it makes them seem more morally virtuous. And in a way, they're right - but only in their own mind.

Reconciliation is another of those virtue signalling issues. People like to preen themselves on being pro-reconciliation. But they don't even know what it means or how to achieve it or how we'll know when we get there. Change the date of Australia Day? OK how does that make things better for the truly disadvantaged natives, as opposed to the rent-seeking urban ABBAriginals.

As I write, there's an ad on TV urging action on domestic violence. As usual the violence is being perpetrated by a white man. But we know that aboriginal women are 40 times more likely to suffer domestic violence than white women. Want to do something to improve their lot? Well good. But that never gets a look in because it'd be 'racist' or something. Besides violent aboriginal male misogyny has been part of their 'culture' for 40000 years and changing that would be too hard. Its way easier to display virtue by complaining about racism in the constitution even though it doesn't exist.

Once again please read the following link as to why
constitutional reform is needed. As well as when have the
discriminatory provisions in the Constitution been
used.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-why-reform-constitution-needed#reform1

I can supply information, but I can't be blamed for someone's
lack of understanding.

cont'd ...

The following link should be read by everyone:

http://www.ulurustatement.org/the-statement

Racism institutionalised.

Foxy,

I've read it. Its rubbish but I can see why you want to rely on it.

Nowhere does it say or even suggest that "[t]he Constitution already treats our Indigenous Australians differently in so far as it allows laws to be passed for and about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, cultures and heritage. because they are Indigenous" which was your original erroneous assertion.

There are parts of the constitution that allows the government to make policy based on race. But nowhere does it say that power is solely for Aboriginals or solely about aboriginals. Nowhere. Despite what you asserted.

You say the link you provided shows when " the discriminatory provisions in the Constitution been used.". But it doesn't. Did you read it? It references the NTER but doesn't show how that was detrimental to the aboriginals. It also references the Hindmarsh issue but fails to advise that that dispute was really between two competing groups of aboriginals and siding with one against t'other isn't, by definition, racist.

What it also doesn't tell the dupes its trying to convince is that removal of the race provisions in the constitution could be detrimental to aboriginals. Currently the government can provide special benefits to those claiming to be indigenous as against the rest of the population due to the provisions of the constitution. If that is removed there would almost certainly be a challenge to those discriminatory payments and they would be lost to the most desperate of the indigenous - not that that would worry the urban ABBAriginals or their cheer-squad

mhaze,

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.
If you read the link I cited earlier then you should
have read when the discriminatory provisions in the
Constitution have been used.

The protections under the Racial Discrimination Act
1975 were removed 3 times - each time it involved
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Australian Constitution currently contains no
protections against racial discrimination and the
parliament is capable of suspending existing
statutory protections - which it has done 3 times
regarding our Indigenous people.

What is your problem in understanding that. I'm not
making a mistake here - you are. I am merely quoting
from the link.

mhaze,

I have mentioned bridging the gap as a way forward. It is possible and it's a practical way forward to see lives improved and better connection between people - particularly those who choose to help out or simply take a more optimistic stance on this issue on reconciliation.

The colonials in Australia had there time, their fun and their life good, bad or indifferent.

To continue to deny the appalling treatment of others by colonials in Australia, is simply something that cannot continue. History is not there for people to like or dislike, it is there to be learnt from. It is not there for people to erase - it belongs to all people - and this includes taking responsibility for it.

For those still affected by the horrible deeds of yesteryear, it is time for the people of today to help clean up the mess and that is not unreasonable - including the Government. One only has to look at the many government policies which left many indigenous communities displaced, disadvantaged and alone.

It is important to recognise people who are doing good things in Australia and this includes Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people, to help end stereotyping. Anything in this area will be positive, raise awareness and encourage good working relationships between first nations people and others.

As I also stated reconciliation has to be a two way street and it means people of all backgrounds need to be willing to get on board for it to work. My point is to the critics, why not try and give reconciliation a chance....?

Nah Bazz,

I don't need to call you a something or other, your posts clearly identify you for what you are. You are pushing the same racial rubbish of the past 100 years that led to the stolen generation. Take the "half-castes" and assimilate them into white society as menials, and given time the "full-bloods" will simply die out. All you need is lots of whites bonking aboriginals.

BTW, what percentage of Neanderthal blood do you assume you have? 100%.

As I understand it, I think you will find that under the current constitution aboriginals are treated exactly the same as all other people. It does not specifically mention any particular group of people at all (except of course Australians*) and thus perfectly reasonable and fair. In other words- the constitution does not have any bias to any race: not Europeans, Africans, Asians, nor Aboriginals.

However, the constitution does mention "race" a couple of times generally. The most important reference to "race" is section 51 (xxvi) granting the federal parliament the power to make laws about "the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws"*.

But only a complete idiot would not grant the government the power to make laws that discriminate on race/ethnic identity. Here are just some examples why the government needs such powers:

1) During wartime- it would be a major impediment to defending our country and us during a war if government couldn't discriminate
2) Special assistance to foreigners who need it based on race/ethnicity- eg: you couldn't provide ethnic/race based asylum for those in other countries who are being persecuted
3) Special assistance to people in Australia- eg: you couldn't give aboriginals ABSTUDY or any other government handout/service aimed specifically at aboriginals
4) Race based health treatment - some people require racially targeted health treatment for better results (eg: some diseases and drugs act differently depending on a person's DNA)
5) This one appears almost self-contradictory at first glance: the government couldn't make laws that outlaw racial discrimination- eg: if the government didn't have the power to make laws concerning race then it wouldn't be able to outlaw racial discrimination in the workplace

*1: well it also mentions New Zealand- but that is New Zealand as a potential State, not as New Zealanders
*2: this was amended by referendum, it used to mention the "aboriginal race"

I guess there's always different ways of looking at
things from different perspectives, and our values,
cultures, education, and of course there's always -
our histories and our understanding of them -
and what we do or do not accept.

Lots to think about and ponder. But unless we walk
in someone else's shoes and try to see things from
their perspective - out knowledge will be limitesd
to our own viewpoints.

cont'd ...

Many Australians are now at least trying to
understand Aboriginal history and are trying
to walk if not in their shoes - at least
are attempting to join in and walk with our
Indigenous people in their attempt for
self-determination and a say in the laws that
affect them.

Hi Foxy,

Unfortunately for the 'Usual Suspects' "The Uluru Statement From The Heart" is like a red rag to bull, they have no desire to recognise the Aboriginal legitimacy within modern Australia.

Hi Paul,

I blame not knowing enough about our First
People on that. The more we learn, the more
we shall begin to understand their situation
and their behaviour. This should all be taught
in our schools. It just may influence the
attitudes of future generations.

I remember my grandson and I talking about his
best friend who happened to have a Chinese
ancestry. I asked my grandson how he felt about
his best mate being Chinese?

My grandson looked at me puzzled. "What do you
mean Chinese, Baba?" "He's Benjamin, my best
friend!" said my grandson firmly.

Paul, I am not pushing anything in contrast to yourself.
I am not advocating this or that.
Just drawing attention to what is happening, now and in the future.
You can try to make things go a different way if you like but nature
will take its course.
If you want it to go your way, you will have to bring in racial laws
particularly for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders DNA measurements.

Dear Bazz,

All they're asking is to have a say in the
making of laws that affect them personally.
They're not asking for special legislation -
just a "voice," to be heard. The government
decides.

Foxy, do they need to ask for something that is not available now ?
Why is racial legislation necessary ?

Dear Bazz,

To protect people against discrimination.

Section 51(xxvi) of the constitution is the part that grants the Federal Government the power to make "'Special laws' for people of any race."

(Apparently in the fantasy-world of Foxyistan it is believed there is also a bit written in the margins in invisible ink that says this only applies to discriminatory legislation against aboriginals).

So ponder this: the race powers were used to validate the Native Title Act. The government passing laws that gave special rights to one racial group was only possible because of Section 51(xxvi). But it seems those who are most interested in displaying their imagined virtue want that section rescinded. I wonder if they care that that would invalidate the Native Title Act or is virtue signalling more important? I wonder how Foxy reconciles that with her belief that the constitution is racist against aboriginals?

Additionally Section 51(xxvi)was used by Hawke to allow him to pass laws allowing Chinese students to stay in Australia following the Tienanmen Square massacre. I wonder how Foxy reconciles that with her belief that the section only applies to aboriginals?

Logic takes a holiday.

A bit more for the virtue signallers to ponder. High Court justice Michael Kirby held "that the race power did not permit the enactment of laws to the detriment of the people of any race." High Court Justice Gaudron said that "it was difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a law to the disadvantage of a racial minority would be valid."

Foxy thinks she sounds like a broken record. More like a cracked record.

Most Australians don't give a tinker's curse about aboriginal activists or, at best, they don't think any more a 4% minority than they do about any other minority. All this reconciliation nonsense is just another example of how out of touch the political class is with the average citizen.

People like Paul and Nathan and even clueless Foxy, have this rather jaundiced view of the issue. To their way of thinking, they are completely in favour of reconciliation even though they have no idea what it is. And since they have the best interests of aboriginals at heart, anyone who doesn't buy their pro-reconciliation rhetoric must be anti-aboriginal. Its really that simple to these people. Agree with me or be proven a racist.

But there's other ways of viewing the aboriginal issue that doesn't require dribbling adherence to their Kumbaya worldview.

Take the example of rampant male violence in aboriginal communities. To address that issue we need to take some hard lessons and some hard measures against the perpetrators of the rampant violence against aboriginal women. But the 'reconciliation' adherents aren't interested in that because it requires confronting an unwanted fact about current and past aboriginal 'culture'. Solving that problem would immeasurably improve life for many aboriginal women, not to mention their kids.

However its a bridge too far for the Kumbaya crowd. How can you show your imagined virtue if you're required to face hard facts. Best avoid them.

_________________________________________________________________

"All they're asking is to have a say in the making of laws that affect them personally.They're not asking for special legislation - just a "voice," to be heard."

You mean like in a democracy?

mhaze,

I seem to be rattling your cage.

LOL.

"I seem to be rattling your cage."

Not really. But I admit that rank sanctimony based on wilful ignorance does get my goat.

mhaze,

If I haven't rattled your cage - why the name
calling?

It's so easy to do that and is usually used by people
who've run out of argument or are on the wrong side.

Surprise us by contributing something more - if you
can, that is.

"Surprise us by contributing something more.."

My contribution has been to provide an antidote to the clueless non-facts perpetrated by you and others. I'm the only one providing actual evidence that the constitution ISN'T racist. Perhaps you missed that.

mhaze,

Good talk!

Keep on believing that and you'll end up
talking to yourself.

cont'd ...

Here in Australia there's a lack of comprehension
about anything to do with the Indigenous people.

" there's a lack of comprehension
about anything to do with the Indigenous people."

That's very true....but hang around and your comprehension might improve.

mhaze,

Why all the vitriol?

Instead of focusing on the pro's and con's of reconciliation, you seem obsessed in attacking others on this topic. I see no value in doing so and will not be. I can only see you as a person not interested in reconciliation. That is your choice if you so want that and if the case, why not just say so?

In terms of Reconciliation, I know what it is. I go by dictionary definitions.

Definition of reconciliation
1: the action of reconciling: the state of being reconciled

and

Definition of reconcile

1a: to restore to friendship or harmony
reconciled the factions

b: SETTLE, RESOLVE
reconcile differences

2: to make consistent or congruous
reconcile an ideal with reality

3: to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant
was reconciled to hardship

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconciliation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconciled

Dictionary definitions though don't always provide strategic directions and outcomes that will lead you to real change, although they are a good starting point in terms of where to begin.

So in that regard, real activity like changing the date and bridging the gap will see lives improve and should be taken on board as a result. What comes from that I cannot say, but reconciliation is a complex issue, more than I, Paul or Foxy can put on this page and reconciliation will take time.

NAthanJ,

My involvement in this thread was simply to point out that Foxy's claims about the racist constitution was factually wrong. Its unsurprising that she tried to hide from that (she always does) but somewhat eyebrow raising that others sat ideally by and let the lie stand.

Part of the problem with the entire aboriginal project has been that it has been mired with lies. A process that is more concerned about virtue signalling than with evidence is doomed to fail. Thinking that people living in shanty towns in the middle of the never-never give a jot about the date of Australia Day is just wishful thinking.

Its not a question of not being interested in Reconciliation. The fact is that its never been defined and therefore its impossible to be honestly pro or anti. That you are all in yet can't define what it means or even what it'll look like when we are 'reconciled' says it all.

In the end I feel that its just a wishy-washy term that puts a happy face on very real claims on the public purse.

So tell me Nathan...I've mentioned the issue of rampant aboriginal domestic violence. Do you see addressing that as part of 'reconciliation'? Do you think the women and kids who would benefit from having it addressed would feel more well-disposed to a society that rescued them from that millennium old scourge? IF not why not? And if so then why isn't it currently seen as part of the 'reconciliation' project. Is it that nothing about 'reconciliation' can involve asking anything of the aboriginals?

While we are in the mode of definitions;
What is the definition of an indigenous person ?

It appears that the left whingers are once again confusing reconciliation with capitulation.

Shadow Minister,

Reconciliation is simply about righting wrongs.
We know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people are legally excluded in the Australian
Constitution the nation's founding legal document
in that their prior existence and survival on
this land for tens of thousands of years is not
acknowledged.

We know that this also resulted in historic
social exclusion and economic disadvantage.

And you claim that righting this wrong is
capitulation?

Seriously?

Foxy,

Cleaning up the constitution and adding recognition to the preamble rights the wrongs, implementing the Uhluru declaration goes way too far and creates a form of apartheid.

Shadow Minister,

You should read the Uluru Statement From The Heart.
What is being asked would not create any sort
of apartheid - it would actually remove it because it
currently exists.

Foxy: "We know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are LEGALLY EXCLUDED* in the Australian Constitution the nation's founding legal document ... "
*capital letter emphasis is added by me

Why do you keep saying stuff like this? Can you cite a single paragraph in the constitution that specifically treats Aboriginals/Torres Strait Islander any different from any other group of people?

When I turned 18, since I was now old enough to vote and thought it my civil duty, I read the Australian Constitution (plus other legal stuff and history) to further my understanding/knowledge. Now that was about 3 decades ago, so my memory is a bit weak on this, but if memory serves me correctly there is no specific mention of the Aborigines. All people who identify with/belong to any race or ethnicity (except Australians of course) are treated exactly the same in our constitution be they European, American Indian, Africa, Australian Aboriginal, etc. in origin.

However, there certainly use to be specific mention of the Aboriginals but all references to them have been removed by referendum (referendum No. 26 in 1967).

In other words our constitution, as it is today, is complete racially non-discriminatory. But it seems to me that you are very keen to contaminate it with racism.

thinkabit,

Read the following link:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-world/constitutional-reform-faqs-why-reform-constitution-needed#reform1

I don't make stuff up.

You need to not "thinkabit" but think a lot!

cont'd ...

I'll try again:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-why-reform-constitution-needed

The legal age to vote in Australia was lowered to 18 in 1973, 48 years ago. The Conservatives had kept the voting age at 21, so the 20 year old's they conscripted as cannon fodder to do their dirty work in Vietnam couldn't vote to kick them out.

Foxy says: "I don't make stuff up."
Well she's got that right. In just about every post I've seen her make all she does is just give links and effectively cut and paste the text of others. Very rarely does she ever create her own valid logical argument. If she's so sure that the Constitution specifically singles out Aborigines and/or Torres Strait Islanders and treats them differently (especially in a negative why) then why can't she just cite the Chapter-Part-Section? If she simply did this then anyone interested could verify her claim and I personally would believe her. She's making the claim so the burden of proof rests on her.

thinkabit,

Go back and read my posts in this discussion.
I have expressed my thoughts quite clearly.
I give links when they are appropriate to
verify what's being claimed. It would do
you some good to do think before you spray.

What is your age thinkabit? I'm 68.

The 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre which took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of White residents, many of them deputized and given weapons by city officials, attacked Black residents and destroyed their homes and businesses. The attacks, carried out on the ground and from private aircraft, burned and destroyed more than 35 square blocks of Tulsa's black neighborhood, at the time it was the wealthiest Black community in the United States, known as the "Black Wall Street". More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals, and as many as 6,000 Black residents were interned and up to 300 died. The massacre was the result of an accusation that Black shoeshine boy Dick Rowland, had assaulted Sarah Page, a White elevator operator girl. About 10,000 Black people were left homeless and property damage amounted to more than $1.5 million in real estate and $750,000 in personal property (equivalent to $32.65 million in 2020 values)

No Foxy you haven't verify your claims! You are claiming that somewhere in the constitution there is at least one section that specifically discriminates against aborigines. It is really, really simple for you to justify this claim- all you have to do is cite the section number.
Here is the constitution: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution. I challenge you to find a single mention of words like "Aborigine" or "Native". But you won't be able to do that: Why? Because (from my memory) the constitution treats ALL races/ethnicities EXACTLY the same. Nowhere is there any mention of any SPECIFIC group of people- be they Australian Native, European, Asia, etc.

Now, I don't know what you think racism is, but you will find that most agree that it is when one race is treated differently from another. So as it stands currently the constitution has NO inherent racism towards any specific group. However what you want to do is contaminate the constitution with it. You wish to specifically mention aborigines which will ADD deliberate directed racism to the document.

Just re-read my previous post. The first line should obviously be "No Foxy you haven't verified your claims", ie. "verified" instead of "verify". There's probably other small mistakes, as I usually make, in there as well.

--=--

Paul1405, I'm closer to 50 years than 40 years old.

Foxy,

It may be an old fashioned concept, but I believe in equality under the law and equality in representation. When you start creating special representation and parliamentary influence based on race, you have the first stages or "separate development" as apartheid was known.

While your intentions are well meant, the solution is worse than the problem.

It's truly bizarre.
It's beyond dispute that the constitution doesn't mention aboriginals or use any of the alternative descriptors of that race. Equally it doesn't mention any other race.

Yet Foxy says and maintains the opposite in the face of all evidence.

It's also true that the constitution does contain a generalised race power and that that power has been used a few times in regards to aboriginals. Equally it's been used for other races as well. Yet Foxy chooses to ignore its use for any race other than aboriginals since she wants it to be just about that race.

It's also true that each time the race power has been used, it has been done for the benefit of the race in question eg the Native Title Act. Yet Foxy says and maintains the opposite in the face of all evidence.

Yep, truly bizarre. She made the original faulty assertion and is incapable of walking it back,relying instead on a linked article that doesn't in any way support those faulty assertions.

Its probably unfair to accuse her of making it up, an accusation I've also made. It seems she's just incapable of seeing the truth of the matter and truly believes the rubbish she spouts. I think we need to factor that into all her posts from now on.

The Races Power in section 51 (xxvi) of the
constitution gives parliament the power to make
laws for:

"the people of any race for whom
it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

It was introduced into the 1901 constitution to
regulate the migration of particular races to
Australia amid concerns about Chinese and other
Asian migrants after the gold rush period of
\the late 19th century.

Retired NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman QC
(and other judges) say - when it was introduced:

" there was no doubt that it was a racist power."

He says the Races Power no longer has a place in the
constitution.

" A power with respect to people is I regard a
very dangerous power to confer on any legislature,
even the Commonwealth Parliament because it can
be focused on particular groups by reason of their
presumed characteristics rather than what their
behaviour is or what their needs are, but just "
because of who they are." he says.

Judges have had discussions on the Races Power and how
it has been used 3 times against the Aboriginal people.

All anybody has to do is their research on the topic.

cont'd ...

More on the subject:

http://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Session-1-Williams.pdf

Foxy, both Mhaze and I have already mentioned section 51. As we've both pointed out it doesn't discriminate SPECIFICALLY against aboriginals but rather can be applied to ANY race (even whites), so it treats ALL races/ethnicities EXACTALY the same. In fact almost always when it is used today in regard to aboriginals it is to give them extra benefits/advantages to the exclusion of others.

I'll copy here what I posted earlier about why the government requires powers like this:

"But only a complete idiot would not grant the government the power to make laws that discriminate on race/ethnic identity. Here are just some examples why the government needs such powers:
1) During wartime- it would be a major impediment to defending our country and us during a war if government couldn't discriminate
2) Special assistance to foreigners who need it based on race/ethnicity- eg: you couldn't provide ethnic/race based asylum for those in other countries who are being persecuted
3) Special assistance to people in Australia- eg: you couldn't give aboriginals ABSTUDY or any other government handout/service aimed specifically at aboriginals
4) Race based health treatment - some people require racially targeted health treatment for better results (eg: some diseases and drugs act differently depending on a person's DNA)
5) This one appears almost self-contradictory at first glance: the government couldn't make laws that outlaw racial discrimination- eg: if the government didn't have the power to make laws concerning race then it wouldn't be able to outlaw racial discrimination in the workplace "

Mhaze also has a similar post after mine high lighting similar points and in addition includes the pertinent remark: "A bit more for the virtue signallers to ponder. High Court justice Michael Kirby held "that the race power did not permit the enactment of laws to the detriment of the people of any race." High Court Justice Gaudron said that "it was difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a law to the disadvantage of a racial minority would be valid."

Dear thinkabit,

I've tried my best to explain about the necessity
of constitutional recognition, - and the changes
that are required to be made, and why, and my views
have not been taken seriously - (putting it politely).

I see no point in continuing this conversation.

Have a nice day and thank you for taking the time and
making the effort to respond. It is appreciated.

Have a nice day.

PS:

One final link:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-world/about-constitutional-recognition

cont'd ...

I forgot to add - you see things one way.
I see them differently. However what either
of us think - won't matter all that much.
It will be up to our governments and the
Australian people as a whole to decide on
these issues and the type of nation they want.

Personally, I'll keep my fingers-crossed for
inclusion.

Foxy,

I am firmly in favour of removing the racially-based clauses that you have highlighted. However, I find it mystifying why you would then want to put in other racially discriminatory clauses?

Shadow Minister,

To include our First Nations people's cultural
authority in matters of law that affect them
and constitutionally guarantee them a say in
their own affairs I don't find as being racist.

And if you don't understand that - it's your
problem, not mine.

I have learned from this (and other) discussions
that to try to defeat or explain away any
irrational suppositions, especially when they are
firmly held by their proponents with rational
explanations - is virtually impossible.

Foxy,

I totally agree with you on this.

"To include our First Nations people's cultural
authority in matters of law that affect them
and constitutionally guarantee them a say in
their own affairs"

These bigots are not concerned with "racism", They embrace racism at every opportunity. What they fear is the lost of authority and their privileged position in Australian society. These bigots have never supported anything positive for Aboriginal people. To them the black fella should "know his place" and be thankful.

p/s Watched David Gulpilil's "Charlie's Country" once again, tells a story which our forum friends could never understand.

Dear Paul,

It's such a small ask.

We'll have to wait and see whether it ever happens.

I hope it will in my lifetime at least.

Foxy,

I'm ignoring the racist and bigoted Pauliar.

Just about every law affects aboriginal people as well as everyone else and the whole point of voting is to give everyone a say over the laws that affect them.

Having a special parliamentary house based solely on race that has a disproportionate influence in parliament is the definition of racism. Unless of course, you "rationally" have one for the Chinese, Afghanis, Europeans etc.

There are aboriginal people in parliament and they have the ability to do just what you claim this 3rd parliamentary chamber will.

Hi Foxy,

18 of the last 20 posts from shonkyminister have been addressed to you, Steele or myself. Most mention shonky's pet obsession these so called pedogreens.

A few years back shonky raved on about the Bolt case, always claiming to have this great insider legal knowledge, probably contained in his little toe. He then made the stunning announcement that an arrest was imminent in the case. I was a little more circumspect, saying there was a possibility 'Beat Up' Bolt may have beat himself up for the publicity, shonky claimed that was preposterous! Its now years later and no such arrest has ever been made.

Then there was Archy Pell, a folk hero of shonky's, I agree that in a 5 minute period of a very long life there is not enough evidence Archy did bugger a pair of choir boys. shonky seen that as some great proof that Pell was not a pedocatholic.

Then along comes 'Cry Baby' Porter, and shonkyminster the man of claimed legal letters, once again claims this great insider legal knowledge. Thundering Porter will get millions in compensation, hundreds of ABC employees will be sacked as a consequence, the ABC will be forced to make a grovelling apology to his dear 'Cry Baby'. Then this folk hero of shnonky's, Porter, will go on to bigger and better things. shonkyminster probably believed 'Cry Baby' was the new conservative messiah and would triumphantly go on to lead the World. It was all in poor shonky's pathetic mind.

WHAT A LOSER!

shonkyminsiter,

Another exaggeration of yours, when did Aboriginal people ask for a separate Parliament House/chamber? You like the rest of the klan would do anything to obstruct Aboriginal justice.

Ignore me please, your pathetic nonsense is so ridiculous. You cant accept I have the wood on you, 'Beat Up' Bolt, Archy Pell, 'Cry Baby' Porter all losers, all folk hero's of yours! .

Pauliar,

You are so stupid at everything that you have to lie continuously to be controversial and as a result, cannot be trusted with anything you say.

I bet that you have spent your life with your hand out jealous of everyone else doing better than you and joined the pedogreens to try and justify your pointless existence. I bet they felt sorry for you and treated you like a mangy pet.

That you have to make up BS to attack me shows how feeble your intellect is. I have asked you many times to show where I ever claimed the arrest of Bolt's attacker was imminent or where I said the ABC would pay Porter $10m and you couldn't because you are too crooked to even try.

I wonder if your kids are as imbecilic as you?

Shadow Minister,

An Advisory Body would sit separately to Parliament
and its advice would not be binding. It would offer
a way to include Indigenous Australians cultural
authority in matters of law that affect them and
constitutionally guarantee them a say in their
own affairs.

The Australian Parliament must amend the Constitution
to allow Parliament to legislate for such a body.
Indigenous people currently in Parliament represent
their entire electorates - not their own people.
Therein lies the difference - surely you can see
that?

Also surely you can see the need to amend
Section 25 and Section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution?

cont'd ...

Also if you read the Uluru Statement you would
have noted that there would be a Commission that
would oversee the agreement making between the
Australian government and the Indigenous people.
Everything would be done correctly by mutual
agreement on both sides.

Well, now that white people are such terrible people we are being
oppressed and abused much more that black, green or brindle people
are these days, I propose we amend the constitution to have a white
people consultative assembly.
What say Foxy, are you keen on that idea ?

Poor shonkyminister,

Unfortunately I am dealing with a delusional dimwit, YOU! "Where I (shonkyminister) said the ABC would pay Porter $10m and you couldn't because you are too crooked to even try.

Several weeks back back you had this to say on the forum;

<<the damages (for Porter) will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.>>

Where is the millions, where is the grovelling apology and where are the 100 sacked ABC employees? All things YOU claimed in the above post. Just as ridiculous as other claims you have made in the past. Can you address the above quote of yours, or are you going to ignore it, like all the others.

No need Bazz, in 1901 a bunch of old white blokes got together and started making laws for everyone, aboriginals, women and non-white folk didn't get a look in. The same bunch of old white blokes also wrote a Constitution, which didn't recognise first nations people at all. Then they went on to instigate laws to exclude non-white folk. They would have come up with laws to exclude aboriginals and women, but they were already here, and no one would take em'. What do you say to that? All looks a bit one sided don't you think. I think you would have been love n' it if you had been around in those days

I agree with Foxy. Let's get rid of that racist section 51 (xxvi), you know the section that has the word aboriginal written in invisible ink.

Once that racist clause is gone then we can also legally get rid of:

* The Native Title Act - ie the laws that give aboriginal special rights to land determinations

* ABStudy - ie the laws that devotes public monies specifically to aboriginals. They won't be valid because the race powers are gone.

* Laws that give special medical funding for aboriginals - how racist is that.

* ABA grants

*Special places in university for aboriginals

* Aboriginal education funding.

And a whole lot more.

I'm sure the virtue signallers will be thrilled with that outcome. Perhaps the aboriginals won't be so happy, but who cares, eh?

Foxy,

I sometimes wonder if you read what you say.

A constitutionally guaranteed say in their own affairs that is non-binding is an oxymoron.

A legal advisory body can be easily established via parliament that will more than serve the purpose required.

I cannot see any logical reason for putting this in the constitution.

Good Morning Shadow Minister,

It is a contentious issue. However, Professor of
Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney
Anne Twomey says that Constitutional recognition
would herald the most change because the idea is
to create a body that has gravitas and authority
to speak for Indigenous people.

"It would have political force and authority and
moral standing. If we create a body that is
sufficiently respected it would be a rare
government that would just ignore its advice."

"There are risks in it, but the fact it's created
by the Constitution - the fact advice will be
tabled in Parliament and is to be considered in
debate, starts if off well."

mhaze,

I love your adherence to democratic principles.

"I love your adherence to democratic principles."

That makes no sense in this or any other dimension. You might have to explain what you meant.

Foxy,

The single greatest issue I have with left whingers is their blindness towards unintended consequences. You dismissively mention that there are risks but you don't care.

There are massive risks that this could all go pear-shaped, and what's worse is that once it's in the constitution it is near impossible to reverse.

The reasons you give for including this "advisory group" in the constitution are best frivolous, and reasons for not doing so are substantial.

Shadow Minister,

The arguments I used were from a Professor of
Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney.
I relied on her knowledge and expertise.
Obviously they are unacceptable to you.
Fair enough.

mhaze,

Sarcasm is like jazz - it's hard to define but
most know it when they hear it.

Foxy,

That's what I thought...you have no idea what you meant.

mhaze,

It's you who asked for an explanation.

LOL.

HUH?

"It's you who asked for an explanation."

And you couldn't provide one meaning you didn't really know what you originally meant.

mhaze,

Ah, but I did provide one.

You didn't get that either.

shonkyminister,

Forgetful are we, no comment on what you said re 'Cry Baby' Porter, let me remind you;

<<the damages (for Porter) will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.>>

Again I ask; Where is the millions, where is the grovelling apology and where are the 100 sacked ABC employees? All things YOU claimed in the above post. Just as ridiculous as other claims you have made in the past. Can you address the above quote of yours, or are you going to ignore it, like all the others.

New name for you shonkyminister; FRANK ZUMBO!

"A senior staffer to FORMER LIBERAL MP Craig Kelly has been granted bail to return to his job and will fight allegations he indecently assaulted and inappropriately touched three women and a teenage girl in Sydney’s south." Lets hope the bail conditions (WHY BAIL) requires him to keep away from UNDER AGE TEENAGE GIRLS!

TEENAGE GIRL shonky! Is this a case of a PEDOLIBERAL?

"You didn't get that either."

Yeah I've always struggled to understand gobbledegook.

mhaze,

Then you need to stop using it old chap.
It explains a lot.

Pauliar,

I have asked you many times to show where I ever claimed the arrest of Bolt's attacker was imminent or where I said the ABC would pay Porter $10m and you still can't.

As for the ABC apology:

"The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged. The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil. However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted."

Suck on that. I wonder if your kids are as imbecilic as you?

shonkyminister,

"I (shonkyminister) have asked you many times to show where I ever claimed the arrest of Bolt's attacker was imminent" At the time Bolt beat himself up your rantings on the subject were peppered with all sorts of claims of "imminent arrest". Its all there way back in your chain of incessant clap trap.

As for your claims about 'Cry Baby' Porter, explain the above post you made several weeks back. here it is once again for the dummy;

<<the damages (for Porter) will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.>>

There was no grovelling apology from the ABC, nothing broadcast to the general public as an open apology to Porter, no 100 employees sacked as you claimed would happen. You did make reference to a payout of $10m plus, not a razoo will be coming Porters way! Victory to the ABC and freedom of the press!

Trying to attack my children is low, even by your standards.

As one who mixes in the rarefied atmosphere of Liberal Party circles are you a friend or associate of this FRANK BOZO character. Fits the description of another one of "YOUR KINDA GUYS". As the conga line gets longer.

Pauliar,

Still no comment on the 2 Paedophile Greens or the criminal pedogreen councillor?

Do you even know what paedophilia is? Clearly many greens don't understand. It doesn't count if a person is 16 or over. Idiot.

Pauliar,

I also said if it goes to court. From the ABC you have an apology and admission that they never had a case.

I wonder if your kids are as imbecilic as you?

The shonkyminister worm dangles on the hook, his latest out for the 53 year old accused Frank Zumbo; "It doesn't count if a person is 16 or over (teenage girl). What's reported; "a teenage girl on multiple occasions during a six-year period." That covers the age of 13 to 19 (teenage girl).

Pauliar,

This staffer Frank Zumbo should be in the pedogreens where he would fit right in.

Foxy:

"I love your adherence to democratic principles."

It used to be Mr O's shtick to write entirely nonsensical remarks and then pretend they were too subtle for mere mortals to understand. Complete rubbish but it seemed to amuse him and feather his ego.

Seems you've learned a lot from him.

Let's face it Foxy, this thread hasn't been your finest hour. First we had you claiming things about the constitution which were demonstrably rubbish and then refusing to see the nose on your face. Now we have you making these nonsensical remarks and refusing to clarify them.

All in all, an education into the Foxy mind that is less than edifying and to be borne in mind in the future.

Wow, what a quick witted reply from the Forums very own Rumpole of the Lavatory. The claimed man of legal letters himself, shonkyminister, how do you do it? I can just see you pompous git prancing around a courtroom firing off your quick-witted repartee in the defence of a 'Beat Up' or a 'Cry Baby'! Your replies are simply amazing. Its a pity you failed to address your own quote about Porter, it made you look rather silly.

End of story.

Pauliar,

I see you as a monkey covered in its own filth throwing faeces at passersby.

Wow, another gem from the repartee of that quick witted dill himself shonkyminister! How do you think them up?