Aussie wrote on Jul 10^th, 2019 at 7:58pm:


Aren't they already AUSTRALIANS? What do they want to be recognised as COONS?

What you propose is legislation which will make them different to everybody else. Im not in favour of discriminatory laws.

We should have:


A statement in the Constitution acknowledging the First Nations as the original inhabitants of Australia.

The establishment of an Aboriginal Voice - advisory group to offer input into the laws of our nation.

The setting in train of a Treaty between the Government of Australia and the First Nations people.

macman wrote on Jul 11^th, 2019 at 8:56am:


Sounds like a good plan. 

87% of Indigenous people do not agree on recognition. You'd know if you listened

Constitutional recognition is a hotly debated issue in Indigenous Australia. @IndigenousX host Celeste Liddle thinks it’s time to put Indigenous voices front and centre in this debate

Quote:



that's a must

Captain Nemo wrote on Jul 11^th, 2019 at 9:14am:

Like Howard's tokenism referendum in 1999? The one to insert a preamble in the Constitution?

How did that go again? It FAILED.

I can predict what will happen, the only inclusion that will get up at referendum will be a motherhood statement that does nothing therefore the agitation will continue.

I hope people realise that if aborigines get a treaty then by law they will own all the land under every Australian's  house.

Aussie wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 11:47am:

Well that's what it is.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 12^th, 2019 at 12:03pm:


Got a Link?

The LAST thing this country needs is MORE division, and that's exactly what this proposal will create. The same goes for the proposal for a "Voice" in federal parliament for the Indigenous population. Having said that, who can really claim to be "Indigenous" these days? The last full-blooded Aboriginal person (William Lanne) died in 1869. The very last ATSIC Commissioner was as white as a loaf of white bread. Most of the genuinely Aboriginal population lives in near-poverty in derelict, remote communities and I very much doubt that being recognised in the Constitution is all that high on their list of priorities. I'm so sick of symbolism I could vomit. That's exactly what this proposal for Constitutional recognition is - symbolism. It won't provide clean drinking water or better education or lower alcoholism and violence rates in Aboriginal communities. It'll make the latte-sipping half-breeds sitting in trendy cafe's in Sydney feel better about themselves but that's basically all. It'll do the same for those Aboriginal communities that Rudd's "apology" for something none of us had any part in whatsoever did - sweet f * * k all. It'll be a costly exercise that won't achieve a thing because every Australian, whether they are descendants of the First Fleet convicts (as I am) or of Chinese or Greek or Italian or Sudanese or any other origin, is protected and represented in our Constitution as it currently stands. What is needed, however, are policies that will address alcoholism and domestic violence in Aboriginal communities. Policies that will raise the standard of living and the level of education for Aboriginal communities. Policies that will materially benefit Indigenous Australians. What they and this country as a whole do not need is more useless symbolism. If there does end up being a referendum on this proposal, I'll be voting no and now you all know why.

A lot of Italians 'married' Aborigines

it's fact, backed by photos and family lore


Aborigines have bred with every nationality to come to Australia

so what's an 'Aborigine' these days ?

Pauline's right.  If an 'aborigine' can't prove they're at least 50% 'pure blood' the chatter about a contract to hold a referendum (which seems to be the main objective ... money for friends) then it's a waste of time

and while we're about it .... why do 'aborigines' cling to their unproven claims of being 1% abo

instead of choosing to identify with their numerous other, non-abo forebears?

is free money, free housing, free education, etc. etc. the motive for pale, red-haired, light eyed people claiming 'aboriginal heritage' ?

most people believe that is the motive

and believe it's the motive also for that INDUSTRY claiming to cater ... in return for massive chunks of OUR money ... to 'aborigines' even if they are more european than the Queen

John Smith wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 9:26am:




LOTS of them, Smith

go look it up

not hard to find

in fact, some of those Italian-Aborigine descendants have penned little books about their family history


lots of Abo-Maoris too

lots of Abo-Lebbos too

lot's of Abo-West Indian too, especially around the South Burnett from back when the Windies toured all through Qld


and you'd never know the difference to look at them

they all claim 'aboriginality'

and we pay for it … we pay a damned fortune


maybe Italy and Lebanon and West Indies and NZ should be throwing in

I would prefer to see all of these:

A voice advisory to Parliament; constitutional recognition of the First Nations and a Treaty ...

However ... I reckon a referendum on the "Voice to Parliament" would (sadly) fail dismally. 

We are still a very, very racist country.

I don't know if I will live long enough to see all three measures come to pass. 

Well, that's a widely held view ... for me: I reckon the fact that a bunch of Europeans conquered this place which was inhabited for 60,000 years by another mob without adequate recognition needs to be addressed.

I look at the NZ example, and see that having a Treaty over there works pretty well.

The Maori culture seems to be better respected over there.

I could be wrong, but perhaps a Treaty here could have a good outcome.

Anyhow, it seems that any push for the "Voice to Parliament" - even though it is not a "third chamber" has already been shot down in the first week of a three year process. 



p.s.

I find those "Welcome to country" events toe-curlingly awful and perhaps having something more substantive would be an improvement?

Captain Nemo wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 10:42am:



I've been engrossed in a bit of google research for the past hour and am astounded at just how many claim 'aboriginality' in this country.  It's massive

something else I discovered is that the West Oz government has been removing 'aboriginal' from birth certificates, suspected of having gone into full gear when records were being digitised

those wishing … for whatever reason … to establish 'aboriginality' for themselves have had to take the issue on, complete with signing documents testifying to their not objecting or basically 'not having their feelings hurt' by  the inclusion of 'aboriginal' in their family  history researches and/or when obtaining birth and other certs. of their forebears

but as to 'racism' within Oz, I don't think that claim can wash any longer, based on claims of aboriginality alone !  Not to mention the innumerable foreign forebears of Aborigines: Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Malay, Indonesian, Scottish, French, American, Irish, English, Welsh, Italian etc.  How can a people be described as 'racist' when virtually every nationality on earth has bred with Australian Aborigines?

And the govt. has spent a fortune with 'Who's Aboriginal ?' promotions

The question is valid.  Who can claim to be Aboriginal when amongst their forebears they can count Irish, Scottish, Italian and French, as just one does

If an 'aboriginal' individual has six or more recent ancestors from norther europe and the Med .... how on earth CAN they claim 'aboriginality' ?  And what justifies their claims to 'aboriginality' when their 'Australian Aboriginal' component is the least of their mixed heritage/ethnic/genetic mix?

No wonder some are fighting now to have the erased 'aborigine' returned to their forebears' official records.  It allows white, non-Aboriginal appearing individuals (because they have minimal aboriginality)  the opportunity to gain paid employment, travel opportunities, educational opportunities and entitlement to lots of freebies and multiple other opportunities

Add to that the surprising numbers of 'mixed marriages' in Australia and the 'racism' issue comes to be seen as a political tool which is not reflected in reality.  If people are choosing mixed marriage is means they are not and cannot be described as 'racist'

and a huge volume of Australian society is either in a mixed marriage, product of a mixed marriage or both.  So .... racist ?

time that word was made redundant

Do we all .. all ... recognise difference?  Yes.  And that's hard-wired

Do we discriminate negatively based on what we perceive as 'different' ?

obviously not.  We're marrying and breeding with them

PZ547 wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 11:49am:


You only have to look around this discussion board site to see some using the very offensive term "Abo" ... yes, this country is still very, very racist. 

Captain Nemo wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 11:16am:

It wasnt occupied by "another mob". It was occupied by a lot of mobs, hundreds of tribes who were in the habit of warring on and spearing each other. The idea that there was some homogenous group of aboriginals here before white settlement is absurd. Lots of different groups migrated to Australia over tens of thousands of years.

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 12:18pm:



Yep, I'll get back to my engrossing research of exactly who contributed to Australian aborigines genes-wise

because it's fascinating, even though google has purged a TON of information of late

looks like it will be time to hit the books written by non-google academics and historians


but one thing's for sure, the Australian aborigine is not 'one tribe' or even one wave of tribes …. and that's long before Europeans and the rest became involved


the Australian aborigine is and was itself multicultural long before colonisation

but the Oz govt. like the NZ and other govts., thinks it can play fast and loose with history

thinks it can lie, conceal, and do as it likes with history

so any time ancient Phoenican or Egyptian or southern pacific or Chinese or Spanish etc. artifacts are uncovered ... in rush that special group, on contract apparently to the govt. for anything concerning Australia's true history -- in order to claim that smelting works, chunks of ore, harbours, etc. 'are the work of aborigines'

we know they're lying but they lie so often and get away with it that they don't care that we know

they burn and destroy evidence of true history and substitute their own claptrap in the belief that if you tell a lie often enough and stridently enough, it will become accepted as truth

and it worked for a while

but internet is bringing their game undone

which is why they're trying to take control of what we say and think and disseminate on ongoing  basis

Australian aborigines are nothing like they're portrayed 'officially'

there's a great big story .. lots of stories ... behind today's Disney corp. version of Aussie aborigines

Ima suspicious.  There is a kite being set to fly.  That being, this suggestion of a 'third chamber,' one for aboriginals only.

I say that is being tossed out there quite deliberately and knowing full well that it will not be supported.  Government never intends that it be part of any proposed question, but I suspect it is being used as the bogey man tactically, one Government will 'save' us from so that we opt for what they have in mind right now, and consider ourselves fortunate that we have such a brave White Knight ("Government") handy to protect us.

Straight out of Goebell's Book of Propaganda Bullshit.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14^th, 2019 at 12:31pm:



The Disney producers like that 75,000 years story

because it provides very lucrative 'employment' for a special group who went to law school and found themselves a job with the Oz govt. which in turn is obedient to overseas powers which demand that Australia and New Zealand (and who knows who else) conform with the overseas-powers story

Keith Windschuttle believes aborigines (formed from many different places of origin) would be lucky to have been in Oz for even ten thousand years

but Keith Windschuttle is an academic and historian and has take the time and trouble to go to the UK and gain permission to access the very first documents penned on Australian soil ... before the usual parasites were in a position to stick their big noses into everything

People regularly turn up artifacts that could in no way be atttributed to aborigines

but archaeologists don't earn much of a living in this country even when they're employed.  Those that manage to gain steady employment toe the line or else.  So what we're told isn't reliable.  And it all conforms to the mythical Australian history as told by those with vested interests

In fact, Windschuttle is so FEARED by this government, it's archaeologists and particularly by that group that's creaming it in via 'aboriginal' law and other advice, not to mention those overseas powers with their envy and hatred of whites, that Windschuttle cannot be found in any library I've approached

Windschuttle had to buy his own publishing house in order to get his books published

ratbags who are cited as 'authorities' on Australian history on the other hand, are given awards, tenures, and are published at our expense by governments for fabricating and distorting Australia's history

and those distorted and plain old fashioned lying tomes are on recommended or mandatory school texbook lists .. in order to misinform Aussies from childhood

brainwashing them for life

'The Power Of Whining'  - by Bryce Courtenay...

Should be interesting to see how this comes out - but I'd like to see precisely what is intended by 'Aboriginal recognition in Constitution'.... and so forth..... like what's in a treaty and so forth...

I think it's about time for a national apology to men for the vile way they've been treated for forty odd years now, and recognition in the Constitution ..... as well as mandatory representation in all the sweet jobs... all this other nonsense has gone far enough in my view....

.. and if 'recognition' means continuing to hand total control of lovely spots used by all to a small and whining group because they feel like it - you can forget it..... nobody's stopping them from enjoying their coastline - but they want to stop others enjoying it too as if by some sacred right...

Bloody Apartheidists...

ScoMo has it all under control as he recognizes the EXTREME DANGER in this proposal.

But didn't Kruddy fix all this up when he said SORRY ?

The referendum would never get up as proposed.

Poor old Ken Wyatt is doing his best to represent a bunch of ratbag people from some fake representative group.
That group should never have done that to Wyatt

https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Referendum-Council-Discu...

"Much of the recent debate over constitutional change has used the word ‘recognition’, but that can mean different things to different people. Recognition might be as basic as acknowledging the existence of people, their history and their culture.  Or it might mean confirming their legal rights and freedoms, or giving them a voice and political representation, or making a treaty or agreement with them—or all of these things. Recognition in one way or another is common around the world in countries with Indigenous populations.  It can happen within a national constitution, or outside it.  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advocacy for constitutional recognition has emphasised the importance of a constitutional guarantee of fairer treatment, because the Constitution is where binding and enduring guarantees can be made.  Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders have sought constitutional recognition to ensure that Australian governments treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples more fairly. "

Pretty wide open - but this is a DISCUSSION PAPER, so it states things in general terms.. for example - what is 'treating XXX more fairly'?  More fairly than anyone else?  Just when it suits?  By a different code of law?

How exactly does one go about 'treating XXX more fairly'?  By whose standards?

What is 'recognition'?  Hi, Jacky-Jacky - thanks for leaving a nice wide open land for Whartey to enter...... 'g'day, mate, good to see ya again, me old Abo cobber'?

What EXACTLY is recognition?

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 15^th, 2019 at 11:08am:



How do YOU define 'recognition' and ' inclusion'?

Which minorities have no voice?  There are countless people who have no voice..... question is do they belong to a specified group and thus receive the title of 'minority'?  If they are not part of some specified 'minority' - they then must be a 'majority' (unspecified) ......

So again - are they included and recognised?  And what is your definition of inclusion and recognition?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 15^th, 2019 at 11:41am:


Jeez, phil - 1967 was a long time ago now - only fifty years ... and 'land rights' were not and are not exclusive use other than in specified circumstances - YOUR problem is that the Kaffirs keep trying to expand on that - time for a total halt to claims - end of argument... jeez - they already hold 15% of the continent and are only 3% of the population.... and every time you give in to the AboNazis and their demands, you lay the foundation for another demand - it never ends, same as the poofs, the sheilas and the whining kids like you these days ...

Go out and earn it.... and let's hear from the 86.5% who currently have no voice..... put ALL of these things to the people.... in a binding vote and then it's FINISHED!  No More!

Quote:


That looks like horseshit.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:
You better investigate a bit more then.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 4:06pm:
What you could have done to avoid looking stupid was just do a simple google yourself. But hey, Im here to help.
Quote:

Source: Aboriginal population in Australia - Creative Spirits, retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-population-...

The whole premise behind this argument is that the aborigines were here first. Considering how a whole bunch of western countries are being racially and culturally altered I thought that was an outdated mode of thought. Getting there first means nothing it seems.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 4:58pm:

Australia is for everybody who is here. Putting one group in the nation before others is a bad idea.

Imagine if the poms altered their constitution claiming that the Celts are the traditional owners of Great Britain because they got there first? Imagine the outcry. The migrants would hate that. The multiculturalists would spoof themselves to death from outrage.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 4:58pm:
And some groups of Aboriginals were here before other groups.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 5:26pm:

Because it's all moving towards aboriginal sovereignty. Those words are a confirmation in Australia Law that they were here first. From those words it will be the start off massive legal proceedings and aborigines could very well  gain sovereignty which will cause massive issues. . The best thing is to add nothing.

Violet Crumble wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:

One things for sure, current aborigines weren't. They've been in Australia as long as they've been alive like everybody else.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 5:39pm:

None of this is symbolic Aussie. The abos and the lefties want sovereignty given to the aborigines. This is what they want. That's why they want the constitution changed because that's how it will happen. Linda Burney even said it on Q&A last night.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

Well that's what they want. Look up the definition of a treaty .

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 5:52pm:


Who said a 'treaty' was being proposed in this Referendum?

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 6:07pm:

Its a proposal, there is no referendum.

Violet Crumble wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:


Verily, this is all about confected outrqge. The British forced famine on people of my racial heritage in the 1850's. I demand restitution.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 7:39pm:


And land rights - my ancestors OWNED Tara as High Kings.... where's my cut?  We only want it for traditional purposes and for sacred site things.... it IS, after all, a sacred site sanctified by Druids and Priests both ....

... and no tourists our outsiders allowed!!

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 4:58pm:


As long as that's all it is.  But we all know that will be the floodgate opening on endless demands and eventually civil war.

Which grievance group offered accredited victim status has EVER stopped at a single demand met?

Feminazis?  Poofnazis?  Indigenazis?  Ethnazis?

We, as  a nation, welcomed them all and opened many a gate for them - and all they ALL do is whine endlessly and demand more and more, and use every 'gain' (at someone else's expense) as a foothold for the next demand .....

Why don't they all just earn their way the same as everyone else has to?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 9:04pm:


A 2016 Paper?????????? 

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 9:18pm:


He has already rejected that which he knows nothing about....I am finished with him!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2019 at 9:25pm:


You are beyond reasoning with - you are the one who sides without any consideration with any demand by our Koons... I pick the eyes out of you and offer responsible rebuttal - you come back with the same empty-headed big mouthed crap.

Grow up...  YOU are the racist, not me...

**yawns.. stretches**

WELL!   A new day has dawned - a partial eclipse of the moon (last one for two years) - I wonder if any of our Resident Anti-White Racists has come up with even an opinion on what constitutes inclusion' and 'recognition' of Aboriginals?

Thus far they avoided the issue like the plague... so it seems that apart from some vague 'feeling' about these 'issues', they have no opinion.... either that or they are afraid to come out with their opinion, so they try to hide behind squid's ink of calling other people names.....

Hmm ... nothing there yet..... might wander up to the point to see if there are any whales about... bit cold though...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 17^th, 2019 at 12:02am:



your link is very interesting grap....thanks for that...

the list at the end gives a small idea how daunting this whole thing will be..it could take years....and so it should the original took years....lets at least do our best to get it right!


for those who havent taken the time to read it....here is the list..


Here are some questions to help you frame your response to this Discussion Paper.
What do you think?
General
1. Do you support constitutional or other legal change to deal with the question of
recognition?
2. If you do, what form do you think change should take?
What about the specific proposals for reform?
Statement of acknowledgement
3. Should we have a statement of acknowledgement in Australian law?
4. To effect an inspiring statement of recognition, should it be within the
Constitution or outside it?
5. If it is to be within the Constitution, is the statement best placed as an
introduction to a head of power to make laws with respect to the people it
acknowledges?
6. What should be included in a statement of acknowledgement?
A federal power to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
7. Should references to ‘race’ be removed from the Constitution?
8. Should the federal Parliament retain a specific power to make laws with respect
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, to enable laws on issues like
native title?
9. Do you have any suggestions about how it is worded or where it is located in the
Constitution?
13
A constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination
10. Do you think that a guarantee against racial discrimination should be inserted in
the Constitution?
11. Do you have any suggestions about how it is worded or where it is located in the
Constitution?
12.Should any racial non-discrimination clause protect all Australians, or
Indigenous Australians only?
13. Are there other ways of preventing racial discrimination in Commonwealth laws
and policies if such a clause does not win support?
An Indigenous voice
14. Do you think Indigenous people should have a say when Parliament and
government make laws and policies about Indigenous affairs?
15.Should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have an advisory role or
body mandated in the Constitution, so they are guaranteed a voice in political
decisions made about them?
16. Given that the proposal is for the body to offer non-binding advice, so it cannot
veto legislation, would it still be worthwhile?
17. Do you have any ideas about the design of such a body?
Deleting section 25
18. What would be achieved by deleting section 25?
19. Is there any point in retaining it?
In conclusion
20. Do you have any other comments?




it isnt for the faint hearted...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 17^th, 2019 at 7:48am:


When a proposal is put forward I will judge it on it's substance and merit....You have rejected any proposal out of hand without even knowing it's contents because you are a racist....You continue to call Aboriginal people koons and then cry like a school girl when challenged about your racist language....You are worthless trash IMO!!!

BTW where have I been racist mate....Where have I made one racist comment for you to make that accusation???

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2019 at 7:54am:


You've merely been asked for an opinion, since you are so dead set in your racist way against anyone who might hold a negative view towards certain Aboriginal 'initiatives' such as banning Whiteys from certain areas and so forth and creating a separate state .. a state without borders just like IS.

Clearly that is racist.....

So now you want to wait until some hard proposal is offered up and feel that, as a citizen of Australia, you bear no obligation to consider avenues in advance and - god forbid - actually offer an opinion?

You want some politician to feed you your views and offer you a loaded referendum (if one is offered at all)?  Naive much?  You trust politicians that much?

I call Abos Koon because you lot call anything that even questions what they think they want 'racist' and attack the holder of the view rather than offer your views for scrutiny ..... your are the ones causing division and conflict anc clearly you oppose any questioning of Aboriginal motives and ideas ....you hand it out, you get it back...... personally I never met a Niggrah I didn't like... some of them are terrific people...

Perhaps, for a start, you could tell us why Whitey should be excluded from enjoying national treasures..... and why such things should be handed over to a tiny group instead of being national treasures .... and while you're at it, tell us why it would be offensive to ban Blackie from other areas that are sacred to Whitey, such as towns and cities...

Goose and gander, innit?

Just think - if you would just ONCE offer an opinion instead of vitriol - you might get a fair hearing.... but you, mothra, Aussie now and others have not offered one opinion - since you are so frightened it will be shot to pieces... in fact, you know it will be since you have no solid answer....

Where is the proposal for a separate State and how the f#$k to you equate Aboriginal recognition with IS....???



You fail to see that no-go zones and exclusive zones create a separate state?  That demands for 'Aboriginal self-government' are demands for a separate state, a 'state without borders' such as IS (an example)?  You want Aboriginals throughout Australia to operate under 'their law' and not yours and everyone else's.... to do whatever they wish under their ideas of right, without consideration of the majority? Such a proposal IS a demand for a separate government within a government = Apartheid (you Nazi Racist you).  Who said it was a firm proposal - YOU are the one proposing it!!?  It's the on-the-ground reality if these things are pushed through.  Get it?

A referendum has already been rejected

So you are happy for a political hand-down and decree from above to fit these demands, without reference to the people as a whole?  Both Fascist and Racist.....

The High Court grants land rights based on the law........You are also conflating Native Title with some bullshit about white people have some sacred right to all towns and cities were black people can be banned....A stupid proposition with no basis in fact or law!!!

The High Court rules on applications for NATIVE title – handouts such as Ayers Rock are direct imposition by the government of the day.  So in your eyes only, Aboriginals have every right to demand exclusion of whites from areas they only hold under Native Title, but any similar move to exclude Aboriginals would be considered nasty?  If Whitey built those towns etc, does he not hold Right to them and can demand exclusion?

The MOST stupid proposition is that ANYONE can exclude others from free use of land not owned – Native Title does not confer absolute ownership, and nor should it.  The idea is that they are free to carry on their traditional pursuits etc... and so are others …...  yet somehow you consider it right and proper for Aboriginals to exclude others, but not for Aboriginals to be similarly excluded.

Racist much?

What you – and others – deliberately miss in your zeal to do nothing positive for the Aboriginals except rant – is that Rights must be equal and work all ways and be open to all, and that to divide a nation by race, as you are seeking to do, is racism pure and simple.... saying NO to that is NOT racism (any more than saying NO to the removal of Robert E Lee's statue was 'racism') – it is rejection of racism.

But I don't expect you and the others to begin to see that.... just to rant and rave on and attack the voices of equality and reason ....