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.