One chance to strengthen the rights of all of us
I recently questioned whether Australia might be capable of having a mature and honest debate about how best to ensure decent human rights and responsibilities are available to all of us.
These two pieces might suggest not, but we now have a chance to rise above those who try to deliberately mislead the public, and instead have a proper examination of whether a Bill or Charter of Rights is a good idea, and what it might best consist of.
The federal Attorney-General has announced national consultations to “seek the community’s views on human rights in Australia.”
An independent committee chaired by Father Frank Brennan will be conducting the inquiry. The terms of reference are very simple:
• Which human rights (including corresponding responsibilities) should be protected and promoted?
• Are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted?
• How could Australia better protect and promote human rights?
I know Frank Brennan well enough to know that the process will be as thorough as possible given the available resources and timeline (the committee is due to report by the end of July 2009) and more importantly that any findings of the committee will be rigorous and intellectually honesty.
Full details about the process are available at this link.
It is worth noting that the government has tried to head off one big scare campaign about “unelected judges” supposedly superseding Parliament in interpreting our rights by making very clear that the “options will not include a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights.”
A Bill of Rights should be a law, like every other law. Courts interpret laws all the time – that’s their job – and if Parliament doesn’t like an interpretation a Court gives to the Bill of Rights, it can change the law or create an exemption a specific law from certain rights if it believes it necessary.
In my view, a charter along the lines of Victoria’s would barely be worth the effort, particularly given the dishonest misrepresentations and political Molotov cocktails that are likely to be thrown at the process along the way. For a fabulous, very detailed and day examination of how this Charter has worked in practice, I thoroughly recommend this blog.
And to balance the two atrocious pieces I linked in the second paragraph of this piece, here are two pieces which give reasoned outlines of the need for and potential benefits of a well-crafted Bill of Rights.
32 Comments, Comment or Ping
Sam Clifford
I have a stylised version of the UNDHR on my wall and it’s a good read. I think a conversation about rights would be good for us, particularly in light of things like the Intervention, Climate Change and the Clean Feed. Unfortunately, the federal government have shown themselves to be completely devoid of the ability to have a constructive conversation on many of the important issues surrounding rights. The Qld government isn’t any better, particularly with the Stolen Wages issue.
I don’t think rights excite us as a nation. We didn’t fight for ours in a revolution against either the aristocracy or the British. We inherited our rights and I think we tend to take them for granted. It’s only when the government tries to do something really backwards like cancelling a doctor’s visa on shaky evidence, mandatorily filtering the internet or taking away our rights as workers that people tend to speak up.
We don’t think we can have more, on the whole, we just don’t like the idea of having less than what we currently do.
Dec 10th, 2008
A NON FARMER
The Charter of Rights will happen sometime soon.
If we get it wrong we are doomed.
If we create a document that protects us as a herd – that is, it spruiks drivel about supporting the unsupportable common good, then our population will devolve to something like a mob of sheep.
If we take courage and create a document guaranteeing rights for each and every Australian then each Australian might learn that every other Australian is indeed their equal.
If that means we have to let every Australian buy a product made by Samuel Colt if they decide to – then we might have to accept that too.
But let’s look at Queensland.
We have a joke of legislation called the ‘Legislative Standards Act’.
It has a few flawed clauses plagiarised from the UNDHR guaranteeing that Qld legislation after its adoption will comply with the core principles. It is utterly toothless as one might expect from a unicameral legislature too corrupt to ever countenance establishing an upper house.
It is typically, cynically, Queensland and a perfect example of where NOT to go.
I recommend it, for study, to anyone who has an interest in avoiding error at governance.
Dec 10th, 2008
LORIKEET
I’d like to see human rights that are not dependent upon people’s ability to pay, or hire the best lawyer.
I’d prefer a very tight set of laws which are crystal clear and don’t require interpretation, to eliminate any funny business.
I think a Bill of Rights should also contain specific requirements of respect and responsibility attached to each right.
Dec 12th, 2008
Guy
It’s a promising development. I am hoping for a frank and robust debate on this issue, and it would be really good to see people getting involved with this consultation. It’s a little darkly ironic that most of us will support Australia on the sporting field in the blink of an eye, but by and large most of us don’t give a second thought to something that could have substantial repercussions for the country over the coming centuries.
Let’s all get out and encourage people to make submissions to the consultation process by the end of May 2009 here.
Dec 12th, 2008
Daniel
I think some kind of bill of rights will be invaluable in Australia the real debate will be on its content in this day and age. It will be interesting to see what the conservatives try and insert into it if they agree with it
Dec 12th, 2008
A NON FARMER
My Dear Lorikeet,
You wisely mentioned, amongst other matters -
“I’d like to see human rights that are not dependent upon people’s ability to pay, or hire the best lawyer.”
May I reply to your most succinct views?
I could decide on presenting two courses here.
I could act like a lawyer. The establishment. Here goes.
Be aware, Loriket, that you utter dangerous words. (notice that I couldn’t even bother t’ spell y’r name right).
A person has a perfect right of self-representation – though I warn you that the consequences may be dire and adverse to your interest.
In short it is true. You need my help (as ill defined now as it ever was) or accept the consequences at y’r peril.
As for hiring, My dear Lorkete: we are not hired, but shall decide whether or not your matter has merit and whether we shall choose to relieve you – forgive me – represent your interest.
Then depending upon your bank balance and a few other factors we might decide to exercise our skills aggressively – or just relieve you of what little you are worth, after going so far, then making a ‘forensic decision’ to leave you in the cack.
As a reasonable person, Learkote, I’d expect that you’d understand that it costs heaps to be a member of the ’society’ and as it happens, my clients have to support that generously if they want a positive outcome.
You would therefore realise my Dear Galaah, that the matter is entirely different from how much money you have to spend but rather whether you intend to give, or importantly PLEDGE to give, say as a round figure, most of it to me!
That is the present legal position forced upon us by the practicality of life.
Then there is another view.
Back to Lorikeet -
“I’d prefer a very tight set of laws which are crystal clear and don’t require interpretation, to eliminate any funny business.
I think a Bill of Rights should also contain specific requirements of respect and responsibility attached to each right.”
So succinct once again – but
Dec 12th, 2008
A NON FARMER
To continue -
but once again, my downy one, fails in practicality since your idealism ill matches the profound beliefs of our oligarchy.
Mind you, a good turn of phrase on your part.
I’ll now dispense with the other side of the coin and perhaps offer you a position at chambers if you can control that aforementioned idealism.
Say What?
Dec 12th, 2008
LORIKEET
A Non Farmer:
I am told I can out-argue a barrister. I even beat one in a foyer before going into the court once. When can I start?
Or perhaps you might like to marry me instead?
Dec 13th, 2008
A NON FARMER
My dear Bartlett,
Re – Lorikeet of the 13/12/08
What gives with this Lorikeet? Do you know the creature?
Lorikeet, addressing yourself -
Did my filthy lawyer talk excite you? I was illustrating my perception of the mentality of a “legal” – the prime motivation and the smarmy statements when one admits being destitute when needing legal advice.
Don’t change the subject. I’m not available. Furthermore, until you send me a pikkie, I don’t even know if you’re a girl!
To continue with your concern – there is no merit in your claim of out-arguing what passes for a barrister here. They ain’t smart – just brutal. Main qualification -Arts/law at uni and a Dad in the Masons.
They’ll pretend you won the argument. Their mate the judge wasn’t present outside their court.
What we peasants need is enough money to have them dealt with en-masse.
What that means is putting some common law aside and creating some civil or statutory law incontrovertibly bound to the Federal constitution.
The justices and their acolytes are scared stiff of that, especially if it was managed well.
A Bill, Bull or Charter of Inalienable rights would scupper about nine tenths of their ill gained income and affectively give the Commonwealth the same powers to dissolve corruption in the states in about the same way the states have been inexorably destroying local governments.
The difference being – the oversight. At the Federal level stuffing with the process just might draw enough of the crabs to make people notice.
Dec 14th, 2008
A NON FARMER
Andrew.
This is what I intended to send the other day before ‘Lorikeet’ spread wings.
There is no hope of fostering ‘rights’ of any sort in Australia when traditional “Common Law” is progressively being subsumed to “Civil Law” without statutory guarantees of rights achieved by -
A – suitably amended Constitution/s with incontrovertible checks and balances indicating and affording individual rights.
B – compliance with one Federal Constitution legislated by the States and Territories as absolutely defining the Federal jurisdiction as predominant: or -
C dissolution of the States and Territories so that a National Constitution may operate unhindered by the existing futility.
Naturally, many will mention referenda as being a forlorn hope – great cost and no change.
Most people wouldn’t have a clue as to what that means.
Most have been told too often that their only right is that forlorn hope vote every few years.
Most would vote ‘Nay’ in any referendum without knowing the original question or being able to assess whichever way it was put – simply because that is how they are built. They fear change and feel inadequate about making decisions themselves.
I believe it amounts to this – Australians are so scared of their own shadows that even if they were offered their ‘rights’ on a platter – they’d never try exercising them until they were taken off them again.
Dec 14th, 2008
LORIKEET
A Non Farmer:
I knew what you were trying to do. It was really quite amusing. I thought you would have realised I was just having a little joke with you.
I definitely beat that lawyer in the foyer. He had to go into the court and withdraw his application, and court costs were awarded to HIS side, not mine. No one tells lies about Lorikeet and gets away with it, to say nothing of months of intimidation.
I think there are quite a few gutsy people around, including some of us girls – also plenty of thinking people who know what a referendum is about. The society is not entirely dumb.
BTW if you’re not available, why would you want a “pikkie”? I can always tell which posters are male or female without any “pikkie” involved.
Dec 14th, 2008
John Greenfield
Unfortunately we are several decades too late, as multiculturalism is incompatible with notions of “human” rights.
Dec 18th, 2008
John Greenfield
In what way/s would a B of R have helped gays in Tasmania? The US had a B of R for yonks and I don’t recall the history of gays being verty nice before the last few decades!
Dec 18th, 2008
A NON FARMER
Lorikeet,
Now, this was a thread about Rights? Right.
Has AB addressed my profound insight yet ?
Nyet.
Instead someone of avian disposition, out of the blue, obliquely suggests something unexpected.
Good God. Were I simple, I could find myself legally bound to a Quarrion!
Well, this thread is about rights.
It approaches a certain person’s birthday, and like him, I enjoy the felicity of parable.
In that sense this family presently has EIGHT prime members. Three human, five feline – all who live here constantly.
We do not keep count of the avian friends because they are free agents – or of the gekkoes and spiders who help us keep the house clear of the less salubrious visitors.
I make this point.
By weight of years I am the Alpha Male here.
Usually what I say happens in this house.
Yet the person who usually occupies the chair at the head of our table is a stringy old Ginger Tomcat 35 years my junior.
Andrew talks about rights – yet the CEO here is a cat.
If that is so impossible to grasp, consider -
Should not the President be impartial, yet respected. Should he not have the wisdom of the ages and be able to direct his opinion with mere presence and few words wasted?
Should not the President refuse to be a rubberstamp – that by force of character stands away from calumny – and has sufficient influence to return a few days later when tempers are drawn to help forge better decision?
Well, there Lorikeet. I speak of rights and I speak of family and I speak both of that cat’s good sense and decision.
Dec 19th, 2008
LORIKEET
A Non Farmer:
What you describe sounds like a dictatorship to me. If the President stood in the way of calumny, he’d be out on his ear very quickly. Like it or not, it’s supposed to be a democratic country – corruption and all.
As for the cat sitting at the head of the table, just pick it up and put it out the door at dinnertime.
I think a person could do much worse than be legally bound to “a Quarrian”. Lorikeet was my Cub Scout Leader’s name. I have an IQ in the top 2% of the population, and am therefore not a “bird brain”.
One moment you say I am too idealistic, and the next, your own idealism is seriously pushing the bounds of realistic possibility.
I think there’s a simple maxim regarding politics and referenda that everyone could easily follow.
“If in doubt – leave it out!”
John Greenfield:
In which ways do you think that multi-culturalism is incompatible with human rights?
Dec 19th, 2008
John Greenfield
LORIKEET
Because multiculti assumes there are many different value systems attending varied cultures, each of which is equally objectively true, even when they are incommensurable. Yet Human Rights reuqires an apex of moral and legal rights to which all others must be subordibate.
How do we decide which of these are at the apex without being ethnocentric/ We can’t.
Dec 21st, 2008
Dolphins
incommensurable? Do you mean incompatable? What do you observe to be incompable with what?
Dec 22nd, 2008
LORIKEET
John Greenfield:
I think the government expects that everyone will become Australian citizens and live by Australian laws, which is excellent. We already have the “apex” in place.
To me, multi-culturalism has more to do with diverse social matters such as diet, religion and crafts. As long as people live within Australian laws, there ought not to be a problem.
If they don’t want to do that, they should not come here. For example, If they want to have a whole harem of wives, Australia is not the place.
Dolphins:
“Incommensurable” means not being the same. I think John means that other countries have different value systems which the people want to bring here with them, instead of accepting Australian values and laws.
Dec 22nd, 2008
philip travers
Having encountered John Greenfield elsewhere,more often than not on a pro-Israeli stance,tonight,I am shattered by Gillard’s lack of criticising the Israelis.As much as I am shattered by some Australians I suppose with passports that are Israeli too, to organise themselves around the right of Israel to defend itself. John makes a couple of good points,but in the weighing up of the arsenal of forces at work from Israel and Hamas,how can anyone in their right mind suggest that Israel is defending itself with this very offensive attack on the Palestinians!?I actually like John Greenfield,because he often essentializes the problem better by non-acceptance, than all out deceit.So the facts are bothersome, for me that, there is no form of equality between Israel and Hamas,and Israel has broken peace conditions before these events,and as these events were beginning to unfold ,Israel was hassling the Palestinians badly,including food and medicine matters,water supply.costs of building materials,further restrictions on the movement of Palestinians.I feel my country,Australia, has lost its plot,if we now have to cohere to these silly people in Melbourne,who, can be a little bit more generous to Israelis,by succintly not protesting for a Right for Israelis when they never use it.They use offense,prefering the old cliche’ the best form of defense is offense.They have cheated the U.S.A. in agreements by selling military equipment to others,and some have traced two passport citizens in high positions in the US of A. being the people overseeing these purchases fraudelently as far as the taxpayer is concerned.This then means as far as human rights matters in Australia,nothing is ever simple,when the mixed ingredients are more than a genuine concern for basic rights within one nation.So I guess I am on the extreme outer,by being really offended by these Melbournites!
Jan 3rd, 2009
LORIKEET
Yes, you make some excellent points, Phil. I don’t think you would be on the “extreme outer” in being offended by these Melbournites. One has to ponder where their principal allegiances lie.
Perhaps John Greenfield’s basic concern is that when enough people come here from other countries, they will have the power to change our laws/values into something we aren’t going to like.
Jan 4th, 2009
Naomi Cartledge
LORIKE “Perhaps John Greenfield’s basic concern is that when enough people come here from other countries, they will have the power to change our laws/values into something we aren’t going to like.ET – ” But that is how Australia is made up! There were at least 23 different nationalities on the 1st fleet; there’s a strong influence or history of people from Afghanistan, China, Europe etc. Those people helped make this country as it is now. There’s at least 25% of the population who were born overseas; in some places, NSW I think it’s 40%. Who are these mythical people who might come here and change our laws etc. They’re part of the people who made them.
Perhaps, if we stopped invading/interfering in their countries, force them into poverty and destitution, without hope, and stopped rampant greed and worshipping money, then there might not be a reason for them to flee. I haven’t read the Bible, but I don’t think it states, that any country or nationality has more rights than another; nor does it condemn other languages/cultures. I could be wrong, but does it mention borders and ownership of goods/minerals etc?
Jan 5th, 2009
LORIKEET
Naomi:
“Who are these mythical people who might come here and change our laws etc?”
The not-so-mythical people would be the tens of thousands of migrants the government has brought here in recent years from diverse locations.
I think it was you who told us there was no longer any spare room to stand on a train station platform.
The Christian bible specifically states that all resources are to be shared equally between the people. It also specifically outlaws moneylenders (banks) from exploiting the poor.
“Sell up all your riches and give the money to the poor.”
“A camel will go through the eye of a needle before a rich man goes to heaven.”
“Thou shalt have no other God before me.”
In the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s chosen people.
The Old Testament also condemns homosexuality and bestiality. It says the descendants of Ham would be black because of something bad he had done – can’t remember what.
I think we all know that it isn’t the poor who get out of some of the war afflicted countries, nor are Australians to blame for the religious conflicts and resultant bloodshed that go on in various places.
Jan 9th, 2009
LORIKEET
Sorry, Naomi, I made a mistake.
The not-so-mythical people include HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of migrants the government has brought here in recent years from diverse locations.
Perhaps John thinks that having such a huge intake of migrants in a short space of time could change the social dynamics regarding laws/values much more markedly and quickly.
Jan 10th, 2009
Tony
Naomi:
Naomi Says: LORIKE “Perhaps John Greenfield’s basic concern is that when enough people come here from other countries, they will have the power to change our laws/values into something we aren’t going to like.ET – ” But that is how Australia is made up! There were at least 23 different nationalities on the 1st fleet; there’s a strong influence or history of people from Afghanistan, China, Europe etc. Those people helped make this country as it is now
Prevously Australia promoted a mult-inational but single culture society. Multiculturalism is the promotion and maintainenance of the new arrivals culture, thereby creating division and tension within the established Australian Society. (Many cultures have beliefs totally unacceptable to our beliefs)
The idea and practice of multi-national countries (like Australia and the US) has proved most successfull, while the risks and dangers of a multicultural nations have proved over 100’s of years, somewhat of a disaster. General Tito held the balkans together with an iron fist for many years, before the nation succumed to the enventual colapse.
The protection of Australia’s heritage, it’s Judeo Christian background and common Law should not be taken lightly. It has served us well and every effort should be taken not to duplicate the errors of other nations when looking to our future.
Tony
Jan 11th, 2009
Naomi Cartledge
TONY – “Prevously Australia promoted a mult-inational but single culture society. Multiculturalism is the promotion and maintainenance of the new arrivals culture, thereby creating division and tension within the established Australian Society. (Many cultures have beliefs totally unacceptable to our beliefs)” What utter rubbish! I’ve known and seen people anglo-saxon people (I assume you think they’re the yard stick to judge other Australians by?) who are foul mouthed revolting racists for example, and people from other lands who are kind, loving, hard working people. There are many ‘white’ Australians whose attitudes and ‘cultures’ are absolutely contrary to mine. They cover all areas of life, from priests, ministers to people without formal education. The reverse is also true. I have nothing in common with Cardinal George Pell for instance, but I share many values with a young woman who is a Muslim and wears a hijab, or a couple from Central America or ??. It’s your attitudes that cause the problems; and people like you who promote prejudices who are dangerous. I don’t see much difference between the sexist/racist comments of George Pell and one particular representative of the Islamic faith.
I come from a large family, with wonderful extended family members from different cultures and backgrounds. My 3 sons married women from other cultures – only one was born in Australia – to parents born overseas! These people are treasures, and I’m luckly to have them in my life!
LORIKEET – “I think it was you who told us there was no longer any spare room to stand on a train station platform.” I believe that comment was in relation to NSW removing train carriages during peak hour – more about public transport than population. The Old Testament also allowed ?? expoitation of ones children? and death for working on the Sabbath! We don’t embrace those ‘laws’ these days either!
Australia’s population capacity is another issue – unrelated to basic human rights for ALL people
Jan 18th, 2009
LORIKEET
Naomi:
Since lots of people have been forced to work extended hours, including Sundays, the rate of relationship breakdown has risen. Whether people go to church or not, they need some quiet family time.
There are kind, loving, hardworking people of every race, religion and culture. The same applies to mean, nasty, lazy people.
Australia’s “population capacity” and ethnic mix is central to this discussion, and ought not to be dismissed lightly.
I don’t think you can single out George Pell, one lovely muslim woman, or the wives of your 3 sons, and hold any of them up as examples of hundreds of thousands of other people.
The State government removes train carriages during the peak hour, leaving the platforms dangerously overloaded with people, and you think it isn’t a POPULATION issue??????? Sheesh!
This is a perfect example of my contention that it is necessary to use all of the connective building blocks to come up with a comprehensive argument or policy. I hope Ken is reading.
Jan 19th, 2009
Naomi Cartledge
LORIKEET – ” Whether people go to church or not, they need some quiet family time.” Of course, and that’s why I support the 8 hour day – 8 hours work, 8 hours rest and 8 hours family/recreation time. Always have supported this theory, always will. I recall Howard saying during discussion on WorstChoices, that people who had a business had the right to operate it 24 hrs per day, 7 days a week. Of course that didn’t apply to governments, courts etc. Oh no!
“There are kind, loving, hardworking people of every race, religion and culture. The same applies to mean, nasty, lazy people.
Australia’s “population capacity” and ethnic mix is central to this discussion, and ought not to be dismissed lightly.” This is exactly the point I was making. I’m not the one being critical about multiculturalism. On the contrary, I think this country is vibrant, interesting and challenging because of the broad spectrum of people of different colours, religions and ethnicity. I only quoted those things to make an example of this.
“The State government removes train carriages during the peak hour, leaving the platforms dangerously overloaded with people, and you think it isn’t a POPULATION issue??????? Sheesh!” It is very relevant. The NSW State govt sometime last year, removed many train carriages and buses from busy bus routes in PEAK HOUR? The result showed more about the numbers of people wishing to support public transport for various reasons(high fuel costs was one) and instead of the NSW govt (who purport to support ways to combat climate change?) putting on more trains etc, they severely reduced the capacity – which resulted in huge numbers on platforms and overloaded buses and trains. The buses didn’t evaporate, nor did the train carriagesYou could follow this via the Sydney Morning Herald etc). Those who lived the furtherest from the city(Sydney) were the poorest, and needed a viable public transport system. It is possible to meet these demands – reducing services is stupid!
Jan 20th, 2009
Naomi Cartledge
TONY – “The protection of Australia’s heritage, it’s Judeo Christian background and common Law should not be taken lightly. It has served us well and every effort should be taken not to duplicate the errors of other nations when looking to our future.” Oh really? Ask the indigenous peoples of the countries that you probably hold up as a shining example. The US, Britain and Canada for example. They all share one horrific aspect in common. They invaded countries already inhabitated, and committed the most atrocious acts of cruelty etc in order to squash the original inhabitants. These acts took place even though people of good will were against such actions, and realized the true owners of the lands that were stolen. Not much ‘christian’ behaviour there, nor was there any evidence of abiding by Common Law. These countries also shared a despicable policy of depriving these people of the most basic of human rights. What compounds this is successive generations, who refuse to recognise the truth or utter its name, seeking only an agenda of denial and continual acts of discrimination and tyranny! Denying the reality doesn’t change the truth! All this done by peoples purporting to embrace “Judeo Christian” beliefs.
The appalling language during the invasion of the Gaza strip only exaccerbates the abuse and oppression suffered by the Palestinian people. To call the invasion a ‘war’ is ludicrous, and only reinforces the collective lies. Over $6 million per day is given to Israel by the US. The Palestinians had a few rockets and kids throwing stones at the military. Our so-called supporters of “Judeo -Christian’ beliefs chose again, to support the US actions of allowing Israel to use Phosphorus bombs and Depleted Uranium bombs – nuclear evidence in and on the dead & injured. So much for “Judeo-Christian” morals! Nothing of the horrors of occupation/oppression of over 60 yrs, or the hypocrisy of Israel.
Jan 20th, 2009
ken
Naomi said
“They invaded countries already inhabitated, and committed the most atrocious acts of cruelty etc in order to squash the original inhabitants.”
True indeed Naomi, also true of all civilisations and peoples and indeed animals since the dawn of time.
Jan 21st, 2009
LORIKEET
Good one, Ken. And also regardless of race, religion or culture, I might add.
Jan 21st, 2009
Naomi Cartledge
KEN – “True indeed Naomi, also true of all civilisations and peoples and indeed animals since the dawn of time.” Weren’t/aren’t we supposed to learn something about the destruction, death & misery this causes. Why, in 2009 are we still remaining quiet while it happens again for the ??time.
It seems to me, that your comment is an apathetic way of remaining silent, rather than acknowledgeing it, and then doing nothing to right the wrong/s. No wonder the world is in a mess!
I won’t be satisfied until enough people are motivated to educate themselves about the truth, and then stand up and say, ‘you’re not doing this again’! We know where this oppression leads us. Down a one-way road to misery, death and destruction.’ Enough!
Why do Australians march around the country beating their collective chests, thinking ‘we are the greatest’ because they only want to acknowledge or ‘own’ the good stuff.
I don’t and won’t celebrate Australia Day until 1) the Union Jack is removed from the flag, 2) Aboriginal people are publicly acknowledged as the original inhabitants; that they didn’t relinquish their rights to their land and are compensated for this,and 3) they’re treated with the same equality re education, health, housing etc as the rest of the country. If Australia Day is not celebrated on the day they had their land, language and culture stolen violently, and the 3 items are met, then I’ll have something to celebrate! Not now though!
As for culture LORIKEET, if we can’t enjoy our ‘culture’ (whatever it is) unless we hold back or dominate indigenous culture (and others as well) then we’re just reinforcing the oppressive actions of the past – over and over and?
Jan 21st, 2009
LORIKEET
Naomi:
I think Ken and I were both trying to give you the historical view of what human nature is about.
Invaders don’t care who they hurt, displace, overrule or kill in the process of accessing living space and resources.
Condaleeza Rice didn’t even mind appearing on national television last week, bragging about the United States’ personal gains in Iraq.
You, Ken and I might not want dreadful things to happen, but people with true humanitarian natures seldom govern countries.
This is because while they are holding out the hands of acceptance and generosity, opportunistic assholes come along and try to take even further advantage.
I think most of us probably have relatives of similar persuasion.
These are the realities faced by both human beings and animals.
Jan 23rd, 2009
Reply to “One chance to strengthen the rights of all of us”