Boris wrote on Aug 17^th, 2022 at 1:08pm:


Yes.

I get it - we live in a rich country here and all the benefits fall to the white population who have no special Voice but are represented by the Top End Of Town that so munificenctly rewards people for occupying the Bottom End Of town, and somehow there is a descending order going down from Poor Whites, through Sallows rich or poor, to street dogs and stray cats, then Abos?

Am I right so far? So that means that if you are White you are automatically rich, and everyone else is not??

Well - do I look like I'm sitting back at the country club downing a cold one while all them 4A Boos are out there humping the boonies?  There's more of 'em in the clubs than of me!!

Your politics are racist and divisive and frankly ridiculous as well as absurdly naive and unsupported by reality.

Their culture is violence rape and murder

it is their tradition

Geoff Clark was elected ATSIC chairman in December 1999, the organisation set up its own think tank to define what a treaty would look like. Clark was a founding member of the Aboriginal Provisional Government and had been its deputy chairman since 1990. He commissioned another founding member of this group, University of Technology Sydney legal academic Larissa Behrendt, to formu­late the terms and process of a formal treaty between the Aus­tralian government and Aboriginal people. One of the think tank’s first publications Treaty: Let’s Get it Right! asked the rhetorical question:

Q: Is a treaty about setting up a “black state”?

A: Treaties in other countries have provided for indigenous self-government. It is likely that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples would want to negotiate self-government in relation to traditional lands as part of a treaty in Australia.

In short, their answer to a black state was yes. Their case (completely erroneous in my view) was that the foundation of the British colony in 1788 did not extin­guish the sovereignty of the indigenous peoples. Like the native title the High Court’s Mabo judgment found had continued after colonisation, proponents of a treaty claim pre-1788 Abo­riginal government and laws were never legitimately extin­guished either, and should be restored.

And if laws could be revived then so should be Aboriginal governance. They wanted the treaty to complete what they called the “unfinished business” of colonisation.

In short, the logic of the position that indigenous people should be recognised not as just another minority group but as First Nations, leads inexorably to a demand for their own separate nations with their own independent national leaders. Their ultimate ambitions, as Michael Mansell said, would be to take their rightful place among the nations of the world.

In the 1990s, when the working group for the United Nations’ proposed Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was hearing submissions, a major debate emerged over the inclusion of the right of indige­nous peoples to self-determination. The observer from Canada argued that a ref­erence to a right of self-determination would imply a right of secession, and so should be struck out. How­ever, he was over­ruled by the working group, which responded to protests by representatives of various indigenous peoples demanding “the right to self-determination without any limita­tions or qualifica­tions”. Despite continued opposition from Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Australia up to 2007, when the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peo­ples was passed by the UN General Assembly, the right to self-determination remained intact.

In April 2009, Kevin Rudd’s Labor government took Australia down the road proposed by the UN. Rudd formally endorsed the declaration of indigenous rights. Given the enormous sense of grievance expressed by the current Aboriginal establishment and, given the fact that its members are prominent advocates within the international First Nations movement, it would be naïve to imagine that the leaders of Aboriginal states would be satisfied to confine themselves to the provision of municipal services, health reform or welfare payments when they could see a far more ambitious goal within reach.

In Australia, a constitutional amendment would provide a bargaining position for indigenous peoples to exert far more influence over our national government than anyone now imagines. It would also provide a political platform from which to play to a world audience and to make allies who would not necessarily share mainstream Australian concerns.

In its own interests, mainstream Australia has no reason to provide even the slightest leverage for such possibilities, or to leave future generations with their consequences. Aboriginal sovereignty poses long-term risks for Australian sovereignty which are not worth running.

Most Australians today see the creation of the Voice as a constitutional change that would recognise the original inhabitants of this continent as valued citizens of a tolerant and generous Aus­tralia. However, the Aboriginal establishment sees it all quite differently. They don’t want to be just a respected minority group. They see themselves as Australian Aboriginals who retain the rights of the original peo­ple whose lands were invaded and are now illegally occupied. Voters in the proposed referendum need to recognise that its ultimate objective is the establishment of a politically separate race of people, and the potential break-up of Australia.

Boris wrote on Aug 17^th, 2022 at 2:42pm:


Not really, if you read the reports of the early explorers, it seems  they lived in settled  groups  according to certain laws; but indeed: "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe ; HG Wells.

So we have a task in front of us...

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 17^th, 2022 at 4:09pm:


Yep 👍

Guardian Essential poll: most Australians support an Indigenous voice – but they don’t know too much about it

Two-thirds of respondents back constitutional recognition, including 77% of Labor voters and 53% of Coalition voters


A clear majority of Australians are on board with an Indigenous voice to parliament, according to the latest Guardian Essential poll, but a majority of respondents also haven’t heard very much about it.

Asked whether or not they would support a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament to provide advice on policies impacting First Nations people, 65% of 1,075 Guardian Essential poll respondents said yes, and 35% said no.

The majority favour the proposed overhaul, including 77% of Labor voters, 53% of Coalition voters, 81% of Greens voters and 56% of people who vote for someone other than the major parties).


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/09/guardian-essential-poll-m...