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!