Julia trapped by an angry mob at the Tent Embassy?

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

I just can’t see how race alone makes one person more or less disadvantaged than another. Is there some sort of automatic shift on the needy scale depending on the colour of your skin?

You can’t ignore ‘race’ or ‘aboriginality’ when addressing the disadvantage. It’s not race alone – it’s the culture and history that is inseparable from it.

I’ll take that as a yes answer. Thanks.

We can’t know what part “culture and history” plays in someone else’s life. We barely understand it in our own. I can’t speak the languages of all my ancestors even a few generations back, but it bugs me not. For others, it might be everything to them to know the lives, the languages, the histories. Gordon Matthews, for example.

Putting people into pigeonholes isn’t a black and white affair. Far better to treat everyone as an individual, to be loved, to be appreciated on their own merits, not according to whatever stereotype we might conjure up for them.

That includes all of us here – I am sure that every Canberran has at some stage been templated into some laughably inaccurate category.

Jim Jones said :

Ah, accusations of middle class guilt. How very clever of you. And what else have you got in your grab-bag of discredited right-wing talking points? The bootstraps argument, perhaps? Something about ‘personal responsibility’? More whining about ‘my tax dollars’?

To counter that statement, you could always resort to your usual tricks of making things up which people have not said, and putting words into other people’s mouths, Jim. oh, hang about, I see you already have…

Ben_Dover said :

Skyring said :

I just can’t see how race alone makes one person more or less disadvantaged than another. Is there some sort of automatic shift on the needy scale depending on the colour of your skin?

Is there some sort of automatic shift on the white middle class guilt scale depending on the bent of your politics?

Fixed that for you.,/i>

Ah, accusations of middle class guilt. How very clever of you. And what else have you got in your grab-bag of discredited right-wing talking points? The bootstraps argument, perhaps? Something about ‘personal responsibility’? More whining about ‘my tax dollars’?

Skyring said :

I just can’t see how race alone makes one person more or less disadvantaged than another. Is there some sort of automatic shift on the needy scale depending on the colour of your skin?

Is there some sort of automatic shift on the white middle class guilt scale depending on the bent of your politics?

Fixed that for you.,/i>

Skyring said :

johnboy said :

Are you talking the averages or the specifics?

*Some* indigenous australians are doing much better than *most* non-indigenous Australians.

Well, yeeees, but that applies to any group of people, surely? Some Canberrans are doing much better than most non-Canberrans. Most politicians are doing better than some non-politicians. However you define it, there’s always some sort of bell curve.

I just can’t see how race alone makes one person more or less disadvantaged than another. Is there some sort of automatic shift on the needy scale depending on the colour of your skin?

You can’t ignore ‘race’ or ‘aboriginality’ when addressing the disadvantage. It’s not race alone – it’s the culture and history that is inseparable from it. Attempting to ignore facts of race/culture/aboriginality when addressing disadvantage because of some ‘colour blind, we’re all equal’ ideology is starry-eyed idealism riding roughshod over pragmatism.

johnboy said :

Are you talking the averages or the specifics?

*Some* indigenous australians are doing much better than *most* non-indigenous Australians.

Well, yeeees, but that applies to any group of people, surely? Some Canberrans are doing much better than most non-Canberrans. Most politicians are doing better than some non-politicians. However you define it, there’s always some sort of bell curve.

I just can’t see how race alone makes one person more or less disadvantaged than another. Is there some sort of automatic shift on the needy scale depending on the colour of your skin?

poetix said :

Baldy said :

…

Look at the argument between Jim Jones and Skyring to see how a real conversation plays out.

I don’t know if I’d quite call that a conversation… I’m expecting a challenge to a duel at any moment.

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

You think it’s honest to portray conditions in remote camps as equivalent to Gungahlin? Really?

As for the rest of it, you may regard Aboriginal Australians as second class citizens regardless of circumstances or position. I don’t share this view.

And just where did I say any of that?

You’re projecting.

Well, OK. Let’s make it explicit. An Aboriginal Australian living in Gungahlin is as disadvantaged as an Aboriginal Australian living in a remote bush camp? YES/NO
Both are disadvantaged compared to non-Aboriginal Australians in exactly the same conditions? YES/NO

What is this, a census?

It depends on the people involved, obviously. Their conditions will necessarily vary and any assistance should be targetted (as all forms of assistance should be).

Baldy said :

…

Look at the argument between Jim Jones and Skyring to see how a real conversation plays out.

I don’t know if I’d quite call that a conversation… I’m expecting a challenge to a duel at any moment.

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

You think it’s honest to portray conditions in remote camps as equivalent to Gungahlin? Really?

As for the rest of it, you may regard Aboriginal Australians as second class citizens regardless of circumstances or position. I don’t share this view.

And just where did I say any of that?

You’re projecting.

Well, OK. Let’s make it explicit. An Aboriginal Australian living in Gungahlin is as disadvantaged as an Aboriginal Australian living in a remote bush camp? YES/NO
Both are disadvantaged compared to non-Aboriginal Australians in exactly the same conditions? YES/NO

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

Attempting to portray all Aboriginal folk living in desolate conditions of dirt and disease and booze and violence as being equivalent to living in, say, Gungahlin is pretty low on the scale of intellectual honesty.

And yet you want me to believe that merely having an Aboriginal ancestor is a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage, a proof that the community should be supplying assistance and resources at a greater rate than for other Australians in exactly the same circumstances.

Apart from these paragraphs – and here I wonder precisely where I stated that being Aboriginal was “a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage” (methinks there’s more than a tad of projection going on here) – we seem to be in furious agreement.

You think it’s honest to portray conditions in remote camps as equivalent to Gungahlin? Really?

As for the rest of it, you may regard Aboriginal Australians as second class citizens regardless of circumstances or position. I don’t share this view.

And just where did I say any of that?

You’re projecting.

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

Attempting to portray all Aboriginal folk living in desolate conditions of dirt and disease and booze and violence as being equivalent to living in, say, Gungahlin is pretty low on the scale of intellectual honesty.

And yet you want me to believe that merely having an Aboriginal ancestor is a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage, a proof that the community should be supplying assistance and resources at a greater rate than for other Australians in exactly the same circumstances.

Apart from these paragraphs – and here I wonder precisely where I stated that being Aboriginal was “a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage” (methinks there’s more than a tad of projection going on here) – we seem to be in furious agreement.

You think it’s honest to portray conditions in remote camps as equivalent to Gungahlin? Really?

As for the rest of it, you may regard Aboriginal Australians as second class citizens regardless of circumstances or position. I don’t share this view.

Skyring said :

Some Australians need and deserve community assistance. People living in remote conditions, drug addicts, the mentally ill and so on. These people aren’t going to be living long and productive lives or raising families with the same prospects for success as other Australians.

I don’t think that having one Aboriginal great grandparent out of eight means that you are automatically behind the eight ball in terms of social and economic prospects. Nor do I think that being of 100% indigenous ancestry all the way back to 1787 also automatically puts you in a situation of disadvantage.

And yet you want me to believe that merely having an Aboriginal ancestor is a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage, a proof that the community should be supplying assistance and resources at a greater rate than for other Australians in exactly the same circumstances.

Having said all that, and perhaps returning to the original topic, I am grateful to the protestors at the tent embassy for putting the subject of the relationship of Aboriginal Australians to the rest of the nation into the public spotlight. Not just in Canberra, but all over the world. The remote communities that form the focus of the publication you originally referred to are places of national shame and should be improved to the point where living in such a place does not continue the cycle of disadvantage.

And yet, after all the billions spent and the massive bureaucracies devoted to the task and the tens of thousands of government 4WDs purchased to convey white clerks to black camps, we still have these bubbles of despair in our happy land.

Nailed it.

Skyring said :

Attempting to portray all Aboriginal folk living in desolate conditions of dirt and disease and booze and violence as being equivalent to living in, say, Gungahlin is pretty low on the scale of intellectual honesty.

And yet you want me to believe that merely having an Aboriginal ancestor is a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage, a proof that the community should be supplying assistance and resources at a greater rate than for other Australians in exactly the same circumstances.

Apart from these paragraphs – and here I wonder precisely where I stated that being Aboriginal was “a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage” (methinks there’s more than a tad of projection going on here) – we seem to be in furious agreement.

IrishPete said :

Baldy said :

I’m not getting worked up old chap. Your the one writing in capitals.

And I haven’t said that they can’t call themsleves aborigonal at all. Just they can’t rag on the white man if they are 7/8 white themselves without aknowledging that fact. You are the one that is excluding people from cultural events based solely on their race. You seem to have a balck and white view of racial intergration I must say. If you don’t do this then you can’t do that. Not very inclusive are you.

It seems to me that someone wtill hasn’t gotten ver the fact he’s not in Ireland anymore and can’t leave the old troubles behind.

Some people are clearly beyond education…

You haven’t tried to educate t all. You disa greed with something I said and then stated taht anyone not Irish can’t celebrate an Irish holiday. You made no relevent points to back up any of your arguments, just made statements and expected people to take what you say as the truth, most of which just came across as white guilt. And a lot seemed to stem from your experiences in the old country.

You didn’t listen to any of the arguments that were put forward by me or anyone else, and generally came across as black and white – your right and anyone who disagreed with you was wrong.

Education isn’t really your forte and you shouldn’t make broad statements on other ability to learn from structured arguments.

Look at the argument between Jim Jones and Skyring to see how a real conversation plays out.

IrishPete said :

intrigued that no-one has mentioned that the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended to allow the Northern Territory “intervention” to be implemented, and I think it’s still suspended.

See http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/programs/national-policy/indigenous/nt-emergency/suspension.cfm for a bit of explanation.

IP

As far as I’m aware it still is suspended. This was one of the worse acts to date and shows just how shallow we consider race relations in our country.

Jim Jones said :

Here you go, a nice book on the 2006 census and what the numbers actually mean:

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Publications/mono/2007RM28.php

Thanks. Looking at the abstract, it describes remote Australian locations and the sort of Aboriginal Australians who are indeed disadvantaged and living fairly forlorn lifestyles in comparison with the average Canberran.

I wonder how you consider the average Aboriginal Australian living in the major capital cities along with the bulk of the population as disadvantaged, and if so, how?

Attempting to portray all Aboriginal folk living in desolate conditions of dirt and disease and booze and violence as being equivalent to living in, say, Gungahlin is pretty low on the scale of intellectual honesty.

Some Australians need and deserve community assistance. People living in remote conditions, drug addicts, the mentally ill and so on. These people aren’t going to be living long and productive lives or raising families with the same prospects for success as other Australians.

I don’t think that having one Aboriginal great grandparent out of eight means that you are automatically behind the eight ball in terms of social and economic prospects. Nor do I think that being of 100% indigenous ancestry all the way back to 1787 also automatically puts you in a situation of disadvantage.

And yet you want me to believe that merely having an Aboriginal ancestor is a badge of shame, a mark of disadvantage, a proof that the community should be supplying assistance and resources at a greater rate than for other Australians in exactly the same circumstances.

Having said all that, and perhaps returning to the original topic, I am grateful to the protestors at the tent embassy for putting the subject of the relationship of Aboriginal Australians to the rest of the nation into the public spotlight. Not just in Canberra, but all over the world. The remote communities that form the focus of the publication you originally referred to are places of national shame and should be improved to the point where living in such a place does not continue the cycle of disadvantage.

And yet, after all the billions spent and the massive bureaucracies devoted to the task and the tens of thousands of government 4WDs purchased to convey white clerks to black camps, we still have these bubbles of despair in our happy land.

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Any evidence that all these Aboriginal people “didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently”?

“Over the past 20 years, the census count of Indigenous people has doubled from 227,593 in 1986. This high level of growth is a result of natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) and non-demographic factors such as people identifying their Indigenous origin for the first time in the Census.”
—4705.0 – Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 , under “Census Counts”.

Here you go, a nice book on the 2006 census and what the numbers actually mean:

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Publications/mono/2007RM28.php

Nice duck and weave there, Jim.

intrigued that no-one has mentioned that the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended to allow the Northern Territory “intervention” to be implemented, and I think it’s still suspended.

See http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/programs/national-policy/indigenous/nt-emergency/suspension.cfm for a bit of explanation.

IP

Baldy said :

Ben_Dover said :

Hardly. I’m interested as to why you consider Aboriginal people to be inferior to everyone else.

Nicely put. If he didn’t find them inferior, he woudln’t be arguing they need special treatment, extra services, money thrown at them, in fact a whole industry dedicated to supporting them in accessing basic services which all other Australians find quite easy to use.

Though that probably says more about him than it does about them.

Though I don’t want to wade into this discussion, I don’t think he finds them inferior just that they have been held back so long they need a booster to catch up with the rest of sociaty, and that there is justification for doing so due to the large amount of past racist policy, such as listing aborigonies as Australian fauna up to the sixties.

Good comment.

signed
Magnanimous Pete

Baldy said :

I’m not getting worked up old chap. Your the one writing in capitals.

And I haven’t said that they can’t call themsleves aborigonal at all. Just they can’t rag on the white man if they are 7/8 white themselves without aknowledging that fact. You are the one that is excluding people from cultural events based solely on their race. You seem to have a balck and white view of racial intergration I must say. If you don’t do this then you can’t do that. Not very inclusive are you.

It seems to me that someone wtill hasn’t gotten ver the fact he’s not in Ireland anymore and can’t leave the old troubles behind.

Some people are clearly beyond education…

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Here’s the text of a letter I’ve sent to the Canberra Times:

General uninformed nonsense…

IP

Why can’t you check what he said? There is footage and transcripts available and it has been widely reported in most media outlets.

At the time the media whipped up a bit of a frenzy by headlining the riots as being driven by Abbott saying the Tent Embassy should be knocked down. What he actually said was: ‘I think a lot’s changed since then, I think it is probably time to move on from that.’ The distortion of this seems to have come from Gillard’s media team, through Sattler and various folk at the Tent Embassy and emerged as a call to bulldoze the place. The media just reported on what emerged from this vitriolic chinese whisper process, being a call to rip the place down. When the real story emerged, it was much more interesting and the media, with a whiff of Gillard’s blood, changed the story so Abbott came out clean.

No matter how hard you try, Abbott is squeaky clean, even his usually foot in mouth syndrome didn’t rear it’s ugly head in this case.

I can’t check what he said because anything broadcast was probably edited. And I can’t find audio or video of what was broadcast (but I admit I haven’t looked very hard). Transcripts (and is there a complete one available?) don’t give you the nuances – the facial expression, the tone of voice. He definitely wasn’t misquoted – he quite possibly was misrepresented, by headlines and editorialising. How many people read beyond a headline these days?

IP

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Any evidence that all these Aboriginal people “didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently”?

“Over the past 20 years, the census count of Indigenous people has doubled from 227,593 in 1986. This high level of growth is a result of natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) and non-demographic factors such as people identifying their Indigenous origin for the first time in the Census.”
—4705.0 – Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 , under “Census Counts”.

Here you go, a nice book on the 2006 census and what the numbers actually mean:

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Publications/mono/2007RM28.php

NoImRight said :

Baldy said :

As for women being considered whitegoods – is this true or were you just being funny? If it is true I am sooo loking that up on teh internet and sending it around.

It is true. Thats why wedding dresses are white. So the dishwasher matches the other appliances.

ROLF

Baldy said :

As for women being considered whitegoods – is this true or were you just being funny? If it is true I am sooo loking that up on teh internet and sending it around.

It is true. Thats why wedding dresses are white. So the dishwasher matches the other appliances.

Baldy said :

As for women being considered whitegoods – is this true or were you just being funny? If it is true I am sooo loking that up on teh internet and sending it around.

There was a Cabinet decision in 1963, after Mrs Menzies chased Robert around the Lodge with a rolling pin and saying that she was fuckin sick of making fuckin scones.

How times change, eh Tim?

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Any evidence that all these Aboriginal people “didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently”?

“Over the past 20 years, the census count of Indigenous people has doubled from 227,593 in 1986. This high level of growth is a result of natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) and non-demographic factors such as people identifying their Indigenous origin for the first time in the Census.”
—4705.0 – Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 , under “Census Counts”.

That’s census but if you want to receive any of the Government aid to Indigenous Australians don’t you have to qualify under three criteria, one of which includes you need to be recognised by and Indigenous community? I mean you can say anything on census, doesn’t mean it’s true (re: Jedi as a religion).

Special G said :

Baldy said :

Though I don’t want to wade into this discussion, I don’t think he finds them inferior just that they have been held back so long they need a booster to catch up with the rest of sociaty, and that there is justification for doing so due to the large amount of past racist policy, such as listing aborigonies as Australian fauna up to the sixties.

Weren’t women listed as whitegoods and other household appliances until the 60’s as well.

There have been a whole bunch of policies over the years to attempt to ‘bridge the gap’ and make Indigenous Australians more inclusive, improve health, schooling etc.. It seems to be rail against the govt on one hand whilst the other is held out firmly for a dole check.

I remember some policies to help woman catch up to the men as well. So it isn’t all focused on indigounous Australians.

As for women being considered whitegoods – is this true or were you just being funny? If it is true I am sooo loking that up on teh internet and sending it around.

Jim Jones said :

Any evidence that all these Aboriginal people “didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently”?

“Over the past 20 years, the census count of Indigenous people has doubled from 227,593 in 1986. This high level of growth is a result of natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) and non-demographic factors such as people identifying their Indigenous origin for the first time in the Census.”
—4705.0 – Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 , under “Census Counts”.

Special G said :

Weren’t women listed as whitegoods and other household appliances until the 60’s as well.

They were sold on the lay-by plan.

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

The more sober response is to ask exactly what you mean by “indigenous disadvantage”, and why you consider Aboriginal Australians to be inferior to other Australians.

Indigenous disadvantage is appallingly well document – indigenous Australians fall well behind other Australians in every indicator of wellbeing (economic, health, education).

Hmmm. Let me put it another way. Do you consider ALL Aboriginal Australians to be disadvantaged? If so, how do you explain that many Aboriginal Australians live normal suburban lives, having the same standards of living as everyone else and in fact many of them didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently?

Nny evidence that all these Aboriginal people “didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently”?

Sounds suspiciously like the Andrew Bolt ‘white people identify as aboriginal to get ahead’ argument … which, incidently, was so littered with factual errors and full of avarice that he was taken to court for it, and comprehensively lost his case into the bargain.

Jim Jones said :

Oh hang on, they’re not: lets have a look at some basic stats, shall we? http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/

Interesting site. Not a government site, I notice, and nor are any references given. It would be helpful if links to sources and methodology were provided.

As for “basic stats”, I fear that you are sadly misinformed as to what basic statistics look like. Something a fair bit closer to the raw data would be useful.

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

The more sober response is to ask exactly what you mean by “indigenous disadvantage”, and why you consider Aboriginal Australians to be inferior to other Australians.

Indigenous disadvantage is appallingly well document – indigenous Australians fall well behind other Australians in every indicator of wellbeing (economic, health, education).

Hmmm. Let me put it another way. Do you consider ALL Aboriginal Australians to be disadvantaged? If so, how do you explain that many Aboriginal Australians live normal suburban lives, having the same standards of living as everyone else and in fact many of them didn’t bother identifying as Aboriginal until recently?

Baldy said :

Though I don’t want to wade into this discussion, I don’t think he finds them inferior just that they have been held back so long they need a booster to catch up with the rest of sociaty, and that there is justification for doing so due to the large amount of past racist policy, such as listing aborigonies as Australian fauna up to the sixties.

Weren’t women listed as whitegoods and other household appliances until the 60’s as well.

There have been a whole bunch of policies over the years to attempt to ‘bridge the gap’ and make Indigenous Australians more inclusive, improve health, schooling etc.. It seems to be rail against the govt on one hand whilst the other is held out firmly for a dole check.

Ben_Dover said :

Of course I don’t regard those women as inferior! But their access to medical resources is obviously far less extensive and they (and their children) pay an awful price for that.

They have access to the same maternity and medical system as the rest of us.

Oh, hang about..

ABORIGINAL MATERNITY GROUP PRACTICE
ABORIGINAL MATERNITY. GROUP PRACTICE. Illustrations by Kerry-Anne
Winmar 2008. A new initiative in maternity care for Aboriginal families in Western …

WA’s Aboriginal women and babies to benefit from new maternity unit
30 Aug 2011 … The Aboriginal Maternity Services Support Unit (AMSSU),

Closing the Gap’: How maternity services can
contribute to reducing poor maternal infant
health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander women

etc etc etc
Sorry, no they don’t, they have access to all the national systems, plus ones set up specifically to cater to them.

Ben_Dover said :

Of course I don’t regard those women as inferior! But their access to medical resources is obviously far less extensive and they (and their children) pay an awful price for that.

They have access to the same maternity and medical system as the rest of us.

Oh, hang about..

ABORIGINAL MATERNITY GROUP PRACTICE
ABORIGINAL MATERNITY. GROUP PRACTICE. Illustrations by Kerry-Anne
Winmar 2008. A new initiative in maternity care for Aboriginal families in Western …

WA’s Aboriginal women and babies to benefit from new maternity unit
30 Aug 2011 … The Aboriginal Maternity Services Support Unit (AMSSU),

Closing the Gap’: How maternity services can
contribute to reducing poor maternal infant
health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander women

etc etc etc
Sorry, no they don’t, they have access to all the national systems, plus ones set up specifically to cater to them.

Yeah – that’s why they’re soooo much better off than the rest of us.

Oh hang on, they’re not: lets have a look at some basic stats, shall we? http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/

Of course I don’t regard those women as inferior! But their access to medical resources is obviously far less extensive and they (and their children) pay an awful price for that.

They have access to the same maternity and medical system as the rest of us.

Oh, hang about..

ABORIGINAL MATERNITY GROUP PRACTICE
ABORIGINAL MATERNITY. GROUP PRACTICE. Illustrations by Kerry-Anne
Winmar 2008. A new initiative in maternity care for Aboriginal families in Western …

WA’s Aboriginal women and babies to benefit from new maternity unit
30 Aug 2011 … The Aboriginal Maternity Services Support Unit (AMSSU),

Closing the Gap’: How maternity services can
contribute to reducing poor maternal infant
health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander women

etc etc etc
Sorry, no they don’t, they have access to all the national systems, plus ones set up specifically to cater to them.

Skyring said :

Baldy said :

Though I don’t want to wade into this discussion, I don’t think he finds them inferior just that they have been held back so long they need a booster to catch up with the rest of sociaty, and that there is justification for doing so due to the large amount of past racist policy, such as listing aborigonies as Australian fauna up to the sixties.

Mmmm, you’re falling into the same trap of regarding all Aboriginal Australians as disadvantaged (if not inferior). What about those Aboriginal Australians – and there are hundreds of thousands of them – who live lives indistinguishable to the non-Aboriginal people living beside them? They are in no way disadvantaged. In fact many of them didn’t bother to acknowledge their Aboriginal ancestry until it became advantageous to do so.

Not sure about this “Australian fauna” business. I hear a lot of myths being repeated about such things, such as Aborigines not being citizens or having the right to vote until 1967. This is likewise nonsense. Aboriginal Australians became Australian citizens – along with every other Australian – with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1948. Aboriginal Australians voted as per State law in the first Commonwealth elections in 1901. and though their rights were whittled away, Menzies ensured that there was no prohibition under Commonwealth law in 1962. http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/indigenous_vote/aborigin.htm

You must have taken history lessons from Windschuttle.

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

I say that as a community, we are morally bound to help those in need, but that we should provide services based on the need, not the race.

I’d strongly suggest you talk to someone (anyone) who’s had experience dealing with issues of indigenous disadvantage and see how effective they think any action would be that ignored ‘aboriginality’.

The flip answer is that the people with “experience dealing with issues of indigenous disadvantage” are very likely making a very good living from government programs and they aren’t about to derail their personal gravy train.

The more sober response is to ask exactly what you mean by “indigenous disadvantage”, and why you consider Aboriginal Australians to be inferior to other Australians.

Indigenous disadvantage is appallingly well document – indigenous Australians fall well behind other Australians in every indicator of wellbeing (economic, health, education). If you won’t even acknowledge that then you’ve got your head buried in the sand for the sake of some bizarre ideology and there’s no point engaging with you.

Might I also remark on how pleasant it is to discuss something with a person who so quickly resorts to accusations of racism as a rhetorical device and accuses people working towards aboriginal welfare as being on a ‘gravy train’ (which not only demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge of the living conditions and wages of people working in aboriginal welfare, but also demonstrates an absolutely appalling set of personal principals). Honestly: What sort of person accuses people working for the betterment of the disadvantaged of being greedy and self-interested, and labels attempts at reducing the gap in living standards as ‘racist’?

Baldy said :

Though I don’t want to wade into this discussion, I don’t think he finds them inferior just that they have been held back so long they need a booster to catch up with the rest of sociaty, and that there is justification for doing so due to the large amount of past racist policy, such as listing aborigonies as Australian fauna up to the sixties.

Mmmm, you’re falling into the same trap of regarding all Aboriginal Australians as disadvantaged (if not inferior). What about those Aboriginal Australians – and there are hundreds of thousands of them – who live lives indistinguishable to the non-Aboriginal people living beside them? They are in no way disadvantaged. In fact many of them didn’t bother to acknowledge their Aboriginal ancestry until it became advantageous to do so.

Not sure about this “Australian fauna” business. I hear a lot of myths being repeated about such things, such as Aborigines not being citizens or having the right to vote until 1967. This is likewise nonsense. Aboriginal Australians became Australian citizens – along with every other Australian – with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1948. Aboriginal Australians voted as per State law in the first Commonwealth elections in 1901. and though their rights were whittled away, Menzies ensured that there was no prohibition under Commonwealth law in 1962. http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/indigenous_vote/aborigin.htm

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

I say that as a community, we are morally bound to help those in need, but that we should provide services based on the need, not the race.

I’d strongly suggest you talk to someone (anyone) who’s had experience dealing with issues of indigenous disadvantage and see how effective they think any action would be that ignored ‘aboriginality’.

The flip answer is that the people with “experience dealing with issues of indigenous disadvantage” are very likely making a very good living from government programs and they aren’t about to derail their personal gravy train.

The more sober response is to ask exactly what you mean by “indigenous disadvantage”, and why you consider Aboriginal Australians to be inferior to other Australians.

Skyring said :

I say that as a community, we are morally bound to help those in need, but that we should provide services based on the need, not the race.

I’d strongly suggest you talk to someone (anyone) who’s had experience dealing with issues of indigenous disadvantage and see how effective they think any action would be that ignored ‘aboriginality’.

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

If one views the foundation of disadvantage as racial, then that is a very sad way of looking at things indeed.

Aboriginals are profoundly disadvantaged in Australian society – it’s utterly impossible to deny this. They fall well behind in every indicator of wellbeing you could care to name: economic, health, education, etc.

Are you arguing that it’s coincidental? That all these disadvantaged people just *happen* to be Aboriginal?

Hardly. I’m interested as to why you consider Aboriginal people to be inferior to everyone else.

So you’re seriously arguing that it’s completely coincidental that aboriginals have been repeatedly proven to be at a massive disadvantage in Australia be all indicators (health, economics, education, etc.) and that their race has nothing to do with it, and that therefore any special effort to bring aboriginal living standards up to the same standards as the rest of Australia is ‘racist’?

What an amazing coincidence.

PS – I just loved the sophistic squirming you did on ‘maintaining ancient farming rights’. Pity that there is no British (or other) tradition of maintaining ancient rights. It’s yet another amazing coincidence that these rights were all given very late in the 20th Century (Inuits were given whaling rights in 1970, for example) only to indigenous populations.

You’re trying to argue that redressing imbalances between the conditions of indigenous and white populations is ‘racist’, the corollory of which is that you’d be forced to admit that any ‘affirmative action’ is racist (if applied to skin colour) or sexist (if applied to gender).

Ben_Dover said :

Hardly. I’m interested as to why you consider Aboriginal people to be inferior to everyone else.

Nicely put. If he didn’t find them inferior, he woudln’t be arguing they need special treatment, extra services, money thrown at them, in fact a whole industry dedicated to supporting them in accessing basic services which all other Australians find quite easy to use.

Though that probably says more about him than it does about them.

Though I don’t want to wade into this discussion, I don’t think he finds them inferior just that they have been held back so long they need a booster to catch up with the rest of sociaty, and that there is justification for doing so due to the large amount of past racist policy, such as listing aborigonies as Australian fauna up to the sixties.

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

If one views the foundation of disadvantage as racial, then that is a very sad way of looking at things indeed.

Aboriginals are profoundly disadvantaged in Australian society – it’s utterly impossible to deny this. They fall well behind in every indicator of wellbeing you could care to name: economic, health, education, etc.

Are you arguing that it’s coincidental? That all these disadvantaged people just *happen* to be Aboriginal?

Hardly. I’m interested as to why you consider Aboriginal people to be inferior to everyone else.

Ben_Dover said :

Nicely put. If he didn’t find them inferior, he woudln’t be arguing they need special treatment, extra services, money thrown at them, in fact a whole industry dedicated to supporting them in accessing basic services which all other Australians find quite easy to use.

I know Jim Jones doesn’t need anyone riding shotgun for him (to use a nice Mad Max type image) but I just can’t believe the comment about ‘accessing basic services which all other Australians find quite easy to use’ and have to pick you up on that. Just thinking about when I was pregnant; how I rang up a number of obstetricians to find the one who reflected my own ideas. That I saw the one I chose once a week, with my blood pressure etc, closely monitored. That I had several scans done of the baby. That I had a choice of a number of hospitals (private and public). That a paediatrician was on stand-by should the baby need it. That I had a week in hospital where the major threat to my health was eating too much cake/drinking too much wine from the dessert trolley!

You can’t say that an Aboriginal woman in a remote community would have access to the same choices? And that while some of these are not totally essential (cake and wine in particular, and perhaps finding a specialist I could boss around), the overall picture for many Aboriginal women is starkly different. This is reflected in infant mortality rates. Any money spent trying to improve access to health service is money well spent, I think.

Of course I don’t regard those women as inferior! But their access to medical resources is obviously far less extensive and they (and their children) pay an awful price for that.

Ben_Dover said :

…If he didn’t find them inferior, he woudln’t be arguing they need special treatment, extra services, money thrown at them, in fact a whole industry dedicated to supporting them in accessing basic services which all other Australians find quite easy to use.

Well, for a lot of people identifying as Aboriginal Australians, they ARE “all other Australians”. The census generally shows a massive increase in the number of self-identified Aboriginal Australians. 16% every five years or so.

This is not entirely due to birth rate, and it can hardly be immigration, so it must be that people who were previously not identified in any way as Aboriginal decided that the time had come to reveal their ancestry.

People living side by side with non-Aboriginal Australians, enjoying the same standards of living and so on.

Hardly. I’m interested as to why you consider Aboriginal people to be inferior to everyone else.

Nicely put. If he didn’t find them inferior, he woudln’t be arguing they need special treatment, extra services, money thrown at them, in fact a whole industry dedicated to supporting them in accessing basic services which all other Australians find quite easy to use.

Though that probably says more about him than it does about them.

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

The key point about racism is differential treatment based on race.

Utter bollocks.

If you can’t think of instances of differential treatment based on race that aren’t racist (particularly with regards treatment of indigenous peoples), then you’re clearly not thinking.

Clearly I’m not thinking. Could you provide an example of racial discrimination that is not racist? Just to fill my empty mind, you understand.

– In nine different indigenous Alaskan communities, whaling is allowed. It’s denied to the rest of the population.

Whaling. We see the same rights to hunt dugong and turtle and other protected species accorded to traditional Aborigines here. This could be seen as disadvantaging everyone else who does not enjoy these rights. If you see it as race-based, then you must likewise see it as racist.

The underlying principle, however, is a fundamental part of British law, aimed at maintaining ancient rights of hunting and harvesting the natural bounty of land and sea. Traditional rights of way over private land are continued and enforced. It requires specific acts of parliament to make exceptions, such as the various Enclosure Acts of the Nineteenth Century.

If non-Aboriginal people had existed prior to the arrival of European settlement and assumption of sovereignty over the land, then their pre-existing rights would likewise have been protected under existing law. There is a great deal of discussion and information on these common-law rights in the various commentaries on the Mabo case and I urge you to inform yourself on the situation.

Before looking at any other cases, could you just reassure me that you con side racism as a two-way street? That is, it is something that could be directed at races you might consider superior? For example, charging white people a higher price for meals in a restaurant run by non-white folk?

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

If one views the foundation of disadvantage as racial, then that is a very sad way of looking at things indeed.

Aboriginals are profoundly disadvantaged in Australian society – it’s utterly impossible to deny this. They fall well behind in every indicator of wellbeing you could care to name: economic, health, education, etc.

Are you arguing that it’s coincidental? That all these disadvantaged people just *happen* to be Aboriginal?

Hardly. I’m interested as to why you consider Aboriginal people to be inferior to everyone else.

Skyring said :

If one views the foundation of disadvantage as racial, then that is a very sad way of looking at things indeed.

Aboriginals are profoundly disadvantaged in Australian society – it’s utterly impossible to deny this. They fall well behind in every indicator of wellbeing you could care to name: economic, health, education, etc.

Are you arguing that it’s coincidental? That all these disadvantaged people just *happen* to be Aboriginal?

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

The key point about racism is differential treatment based on race.

Utter bollocks.

If you can’t think of instances of differential treatment based on race that aren’t racist (particularly with regards treatment of indigenous peoples), then you’re clearly not thinking.

Clearly I’m not thinking. Could you provide an example of racial discrimination that is not racist? Just to fill my empty mind, you understand.

– In nine different indigenous Alaskan communities, whaling is allowed. It’s denied to the rest of the population.

– Native Americans, Inuits, Australian aborigines and other indigenous groups have ‘reservations’ (or other forms of land title) granted to them purely because of their race.

– The Treaty of Waitagni recognised M?ori ownership of their lands and is used by Maori people for rights and remedies for land loss and unequal treatment (again, on a racial basis).

– In attempt to close the gap between Arab and Jewish education sectors, the Israeli education minister promised that Arabs would be granted 25% of the education budget, more than their proportional share in the population.

– In 1971 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced a program for students from areas which had poor educational facilities due to 200 years purposeful discrimination by British colonialists.

That enough for you?

IrishPete said :

Baldy said :

So now you are saying that even those who are 1/2 Irish can’t join in on St Patricks day because they are not pure Irish and were not born in Ireland so therefore not Irish. What about those who have pure Irish background but were born in Australia? Do they get to join in your little exclusive celebrations? People like you who exclude others in their culture events just based on race alone are generally what is wrong with this world and attempts to get everybody along.

So where does that leave people of my pedigree who has Scottish, Irish, English, Indian and Chinese in their ancestry? Seems I can’t be involved in any celebrations.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be making reconciliations and reparations to the Indigenous population of Australia, just that most should be stating up front that they are not 100% themselves and therefore their ancestors just as much as mine were also responsible for their present condition. Blaming “white man’ when they are whiter than me comes across a false and does not add any weight to their argument at all.

BTW if you look at Irish history at one stage your people replaced the inhabitants of Ireland who in turn replaced the people who were there before. You can’t cry foul of others when your ancestors have done the same.

Isn’t it great when someone gets themselves so worked up about something that another person didn’t say? The people I suggested should be excluded from St Patrick’s Day celebrations are those who think that people who are 1/2, or 1/4 or 1/8th (or less) Aboriginal should not be allowed to call themselves Aboriginal. If that’s you, then I’ll make myself clearer – YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Incidentally, I find joyful celebrations of Irishness somewhat ironic, since the thing we’re known best for, and are best at, is killing each other over perceived differences in ethnicity and/or religion, and perceived (and real) historic injustices. Australia is lucky that Aboriginal Australians are so peaceful – there’s never been an Aboriginal Republican Army bumping off everyone they didn’t like in the name of idiotic political motives (in Ireland’s case, a line on a map). Or even crazier murderous people opposing the IRA. Irish are still doing it, no matter what your news provider tells you.

IP

I’m not getting worked up old chap. Your the one writing in capitals.

And I haven’t said that they can’t call themsleves aborigonal at all. Just they can’t rag on the white man if they are 7/8 white themselves without aknowledging that fact. You are the one that is excluding people from cultural events based solely on their race. You seem to have a balck and white view of racial intergration I must say. If you don’t do this then you can’t do that. Not very inclusive are you.

It seems to me that someone wtill hasn’t gotten ver the fact he’s not in Ireland anymore and can’t leave the old troubles behind.

Erg0 said :

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting someone with 1/8th Aboriginal blood shouldn’t be able to call themselves Aboriginal, the point being made was that it’s difficult for some to accept someone with 7/8th European blood railing against the “white man”. This is probably why they misunderstood your example – you’re talking about two different things.

Thank you. You articulated my point of view on this issue well.

Jim Jones said :

Skyring said :

The key point about racism is differential treatment based on race.

Utter bollocks.

If you can’t think of instances of differential treatment based on race that aren’t racist (particularly with regards treatment of indigenous peoples), then you’re clearly not thinking.

Clearly I’m not thinking. Could you provide an example of racial discrimination that is not racist? Just to fill my empty mind, you understand.

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

Well said Skyring.

There should be no laws or policies either advantaging or disadvantaging people because of their race or ethnicity.

That’s a very simplistic way to look at things. Whether you agree with particular policies or not, the intent of a lot of government action on aboriginal issues attempts to redress fundamental imbalances in health, welfare, income, education, etc. between aboriginals and the rest of the Australian population.

“Fundamental”? If one views the foundation of disadvantage as racial, then that is a very sad way of looking at things indeed.

I have no problem in addressing the disadvantage between sick and healthy people by providing doctors and hospitals. Or of providing shelter for the homeless, jobs or income support for the unemployed, teachers and schools for the ignorant.

Those are measures to balance disadvantage that are effective and widely supported.

The contrary view that people are somehow disadvantaged or inferior because of their race or ethnicity is a harder one to support, but as we see, it has its adherents.

I say that as a community, we are morally bound to help those in need, but that we should provide services based on the need, not the race.

IrishPete said :

Isn’t it great when someone gets themselves so worked up about something that another person didn’t say? The people I suggested should be excluded from St Patrick’s Day celebrations are those who think that people who are 1/2, or 1/4 or 1/8th (or less) Aboriginal should not be allowed to call themselves Aboriginal. If that’s you, then I’ll make myself clearer – YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting someone with 1/8th Aboriginal blood shouldn’t be able to call themselves Aboriginal, the point being made was that it’s difficult for some to accept someone with 7/8th European blood railing against the “white man”. This is probably why they misunderstood your example – you’re talking about two different things.

IrishPete said :

Here’s the text of a letter I’ve sent to the Canberra Times:

General uninformed nonsense…

IP

Why can’t you check what he said? There is footage and transcripts available and it has been widely reported in most media outlets.

At the time the media whipped up a bit of a frenzy by headlining the riots as being driven by Abbott saying the Tent Embassy should be knocked down. What he actually said was: ‘I think a lot’s changed since then, I think it is probably time to move on from that.’ The distortion of this seems to have come from Gillard’s media team, through Sattler and various folk at the Tent Embassy and emerged as a call to bulldoze the place. The media just reported on what emerged from this vitriolic chinese whisper process, being a call to rip the place down. When the real story emerged, it was much more interesting and the media, with a whiff of Gillard’s blood, changed the story so Abbott came out clean.

No matter how hard you try, Abbott is squeaky clean, even his usually foot in mouth syndrome didn’t rear it’s ugly head in this case.

Skyring said :

The key point about racism is differential treatment based on race.

Utter bollocks.

If you can’t think of instances of differential treatment based on race that aren’t racist (particularly with regards treatment of indigenous peoples), then you’re clearly not thinking.

It’s exactly the same spurious argument taken by people who try to argue that any measures aimed at reducing disadvantages faced by women are ‘sexist’.

2604 said :

Well said Skyring.

There should be no laws or policies either advantaging or disadvantaging people because of their race or ethnicity.

That’s a very simplistic way to look at things. Whether you agree with particular policies or not, the intent of a lot of government action on aboriginal issues attempts to redress fundamental imbalances in health, welfare, income, education, etc. between aboriginals and the rest of the Australian population.

Given that the entire Australian State so conclusively disadvantages Aboriginal people, presumably you’re in favour of abolishing it entirely?

IrishPete said :

Here’s the text of a letter I’ve sent to the Canberra Times:

“Writing about the Australia Day unpleasantness at Old Parliament House, Gary Humphries writes “It would be a sad day if [Tony Abbott’s] remarks were deemed too incendiary to be responsibly uttered”. Mr Abbott did in fact choose a day that is sad for many indigenous Australians, whether that be Australia Day or the 40th anniversary of the tent embassy.

Incidentally, a number of major news websites reported Mr Abbott’s remarks, in articles time-stamped before the protest, and headlined “Time for embassy to fold, says Tony Abbott”. “

It looks to me that it was the media who misreported Mr Abbott, and if Hodges or Sattler or anyone else alerted the protestors, all they did was bring it to their attention quicker. And perhaps inform them of Tony Abbott’s (unwise) presence nearby, as the media had already provided the fuel for the fire. In this connected age, I would expect some if not many people at the embassy were monitoring media websites for relevant coverage, and would have seen Abbott’s comments misreported whether or not someone alerted them to their existence. Of course I can’t check what the broadcast media were saying, but it’s likely to have been similar.

Frankly, without being at the doorstep interview and hearing all the questions before and after, I can’t say if Abbott was misreported – his suggestion that it was time to “move on” may have been entirely intended to mean literally not metaphorically. That he now denies it doesn’t tell us anything either. He may even have been deliberately ambiguous so he could claim innocence later.

I wonder why the media has not chosen to report its own role in provoking the incident? Actually, I don’t wonder, I can make a damned accurate guess.

IP

Still doesn’t change the fact that a group of people CHOSE to disturb a ceremony celebrating some of Australia’s finest volunteers in a hostile and ridiculous manner, to the point they held the country’s PM and OL inside a building by screaming “racist” at people who’ve probably helped or saved countless people of multiple races (and likely some indigenous folk too) with little to no thanks. They didn’t have to do what they did – if they wanted to talk to the OL or PM they should’ve waited patiently outside the ceremony.

My thoughts aside of the Tent Embassy itself – they did the wrong thing – and if the people (or ringleaders) responsible for the utter display of arrogance and bigotry on Australia Day and the days following weren’t from the embassy, the embassy should distance itself from them. Their cause won’t go anywhere (whether rightly or wrongly) anytime soon after the distressing scenes a week ago.

IrishPete said :

I wonder why the media has not chosen to report its own role in provoking the incident? Actually, I don’t wonder, I can make a damned accurate guess.

Not a likely candidate for publication. Too long, too wrong, too late.

Here’s the text of a letter I’ve sent to the Canberra Times:

“Writing about the Australia Day unpleasantness at Old Parliament House, Gary Humphries writes “It would be a sad day if [Tony Abbott’s] remarks were deemed too incendiary to be responsibly uttered”. Mr Abbott did in fact choose a day that is sad for many indigenous Australians, whether that be Australia Day or the 40th anniversary of the tent embassy.

Incidentally, a number of major news websites reported Mr Abbott’s remarks, in articles time-stamped before the protest, and headlined “Time for embassy to fold, says Tony Abbott”. “

It looks to me that it was the media who misreported Mr Abbott, and if Hodges or Sattler or anyone else alerted the protestors, all they did was bring it to their attention quicker. And perhaps inform them of Tony Abbott’s (unwise) presence nearby, as the media had already provided the fuel for the fire. In this connected age, I would expect some if not many people at the embassy were monitoring media websites for relevant coverage, and would have seen Abbott’s comments misreported whether or not someone alerted them to their existence. Of course I can’t check what the broadcast media were saying, but it’s likely to have been similar.

Frankly, without being at the doorstep interview and hearing all the questions before and after, I can’t say if Abbott was misreported – his suggestion that it was time to “move on” may have been entirely intended to mean literally not metaphorically. That he now denies it doesn’t tell us anything either. He may even have been deliberately ambiguous so he could claim innocence later.

I wonder why the media has not chosen to report its own role in provoking the incident? Actually, I don’t wonder, I can make a damned accurate guess.

IP

Well said Skyring.

There should be no laws or policies either advantaging or disadvantaging people because of their race or ethnicity.

Jim Jones said :

*Negative* racial discrimination is racist.

Discriminating between races in and of itself isn’t racist. If it was, it would be racist to describe someone as ‘asian’.ain.

The key point about racism is differential treatment based on race. Identifying racial characteristics isn’t racist, no more than calling a woman “Ms” based on your personal gender assessment is sexist. It’s when you treat someone differently because they are of a particular race that you are racist.

Nor do you get out of it by saying that only negative discrimination is racist. What if you are an employer and you only employ people of a certain ethnicity. Isn’t that racist behaviour because the flip side of your positive discrimination is that people of other ethnicities miss out?

If you tilt the balance from a perfect level, then you necessarily create positive and negative effects.

Jim Jones said :

*Negative* racial discrimination is racist.

Discriminating between races in and of itself isn’t racist. If it was, it would be racist to describe someone as ‘asian’.

Anyone who understood racism to include ‘any discrimination between races whatsoever’ would necessarily view the treaty of Waitangi as racist, and be an utter tool into the bargain.

Great comment. Most racism is covert – discussing race openly is very rarely discriminatory. Talk to people about their culture with openness and acceptance, and they’ll never accuse you of being racist. Never talk about it, and they’ll think you’re afraid of talking about it, and wonder why. Obviously there are dishonourable exceptions, i.e. the people who talk about race openly in terms that make clear they think certain groups are superior and others inferior (Pauline Hanson, John Howard and Skinheads being examples come to mind).

IP

Baldy said :

So now you are saying that even those who are 1/2 Irish can’t join in on St Patricks day because they are not pure Irish and were not born in Ireland so therefore not Irish. What about those who have pure Irish background but were born in Australia? Do they get to join in your little exclusive celebrations? People like you who exclude others in their culture events just based on race alone are generally what is wrong with this world and attempts to get everybody along.

So where does that leave people of my pedigree who has Scottish, Irish, English, Indian and Chinese in their ancestry? Seems I can’t be involved in any celebrations.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be making reconciliations and reparations to the Indigenous population of Australia, just that most should be stating up front that they are not 100% themselves and therefore their ancestors just as much as mine were also responsible for their present condition. Blaming “white man’ when they are whiter than me comes across a false and does not add any weight to their argument at all.

BTW if you look at Irish history at one stage your people replaced the inhabitants of Ireland who in turn replaced the people who were there before. You can’t cry foul of others when your ancestors have done the same.

Isn’t it great when someone gets themselves so worked up about something that another person didn’t say? The people I suggested should be excluded from St Patrick’s Day celebrations are those who think that people who are 1/2, or 1/4 or 1/8th (or less) Aboriginal should not be allowed to call themselves Aboriginal. If that’s you, then I’ll make myself clearer – YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Incidentally, I find joyful celebrations of Irishness somewhat ironic, since the thing we’re known best for, and are best at, is killing each other over perceived differences in ethnicity and/or religion, and perceived (and real) historic injustices. Australia is lucky that Aboriginal Australians are so peaceful – there’s never been an Aboriginal Republican Army bumping off everyone they didn’t like in the name of idiotic political motives (in Ireland’s case, a line on a map). Or even crazier murderous people opposing the IRA. Irish are still doing it, no matter what your news provider tells you.

IP

hax said :

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist.

No it’s not.

Look up ‘racism’ in a dictionary FFS

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

.. it’s Racial Discrimination

*Negative* racial discrimination is racist.

Discriminating between races in and of itself isn’t racist. If it was, it would be racist to describe someone as ‘asian’.

Anyone who understood racism to include ‘any discrimination between races whatsoever’ would necessarily view the treaty of Waitangi as racist, and be an utter tool into the bargain.

Stevian said :

Let move on shall we

Please.

Let move on shall we

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist.

No it’s not.

Look up ‘racism’ in a dictionary FFS

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

.. it’s Racial Discrimination

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist.

No it’s not.

Look up ‘racism’ in a dictionary FFS

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

Look up ‘racist’ in a dictionary FFS
Adj. 1. racist – based on racial intolerance; “racist remarks”
2. racist – discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

By definition 2, if something discriminates on the basis of race, it is racist.

Skyring said :

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist.

No it’s not.

Look up ‘racism’ in a dictionary FFS/quote]Isn’t that a different word?

rac·ist
? [rey-sist]
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.

What’s your point?

poetix said :

Skyring said :

… This is because the formation of Bass Strait prevented the mainlanders from crossing over and genociding the Tasmanians. ….

I think that that ‘genociding’ is the ugliest new word I have ever read. Like ‘glassing’, it somehow seems to normalise something disgusting.

I’m glad you think it is ugly. Ugly word for an ugly concept. Kinda fitting, yeah?

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist.

No it’s not.

Look up ‘racism’ in a dictionary FFS/quote]Isn’t that a different word?

Skyring said :

… This is because the formation of Bass Strait prevented the mainlanders from crossing over and genociding the Tasmanians. ….

I think that that ‘genociding’ is the ugliest new word I have ever read. Like ‘glassing’, it somehow seems to normalise something disgusting.

Skyring said :

Baldy said :

BTW if you look at Irish history at one stage your people replaced the inhabitants of Ireland who in turn replaced the people who were there before. You can’t cry foul of others when your ancestors have done the same.

This is the same deal for indigenous Australians, as noted by Manning Clark in the opening chapter of his six volume “History of Australia”. The effect is visible to this day, with blond, blue-eyed Michael Mansell of Tasmania representing a distinctly different “flavour” to the mainland folk. This is because the formation of Bass Strait prevented the mainlanders from crossing over and genociding the Tasmanians. Likewise we see the Torres Strait Islanders moving down Cape York, pushing aside the locals over the past few thousand years.

And, given the ocean-crossing technologies of the Maori, it would have only been a matter of time before they crossed the Tasman. I honestly can’t see Aboriginal Australia remaining intact following that particular contact.

We cannot go back in time and redress all wrongs. Especially when the average Aboriginal Australian represents multiple ethnicities. How could you reconcile the Irish, Pictish, English and Welsh ancestries of the typical Aboriginal? Blame the Romans for everything and sue the Vatican?

The best approach, as a community, is to accept the past but deal with the present. Trying to untangle the deeds and misdeeds of one’s great-great-great-grandparents is a mug’s game.

+1. This is the approach that is needed to solve a lot of the problems.

2604 said :

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist.

No it’s not.

Look up ‘racism’ in a dictionary FFS

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

Baldy said :

BTW if you look at Irish history at one stage your people replaced the inhabitants of Ireland who in turn replaced the people who were there before. You can’t cry foul of others when your ancestors have done the same.

This is the same deal for indigenous Australians, as noted by Manning Clark in the opening chapter of his six volume “History of Australia”. The effect is visible to this day, with blond, blue-eyed Michael Mansell of Tasmania representing a distinctly different “flavour” to the mainland folk. This is because the formation of Bass Strait prevented the mainlanders from crossing over and genociding the Tasmanians. Likewise we see the Torres Strait Islanders moving down Cape York, pushing aside the locals over the past few thousand years.

And, given the ocean-crossing technologies of the Maori, it would have only been a matter of time before they crossed the Tasman. I honestly can’t see Aboriginal Australia remaining intact following that particular contact.

We cannot go back in time and redress all wrongs. Especially when the average Aboriginal Australian represents multiple ethnicities. How could you reconcile the Irish, Pictish, English and Welsh ancestries of the typical Aboriginal? Blame the Romans for everything and sue the Vatican?

The best approach, as a community, is to accept the past but deal with the present. Trying to untangle the deeds and misdeeds of one’s great-great-great-grandparents is a mug’s game.

IrishPete said :

Baldy said :

So are you saying now that if you aren’t from a certain culture then you can’t celebrate with them on their special days? Wow. Exclusive much?

If your not Irish then you can’t celebrate S Patricks day, if your not Chinese you can’t celebrate the Chinese New Year and if you aren’t Indian you can’t celbrate Dwali. Pity. I enjoy them much more then the regular holidays. Much more fun.

I think you will find that the difference between cliaming your 1/8 aborigonal and 1/8 Irish is your claim over soverinty and the utter denial of 7/8 of your heritage.

No, YOU don’t get to choose. It is not your culture to adopt, or celebrate, or claim a connection to. It’s my culture, and if you’re going to be petulant and use fractions of genetic purity to deny or accept someone’s ethnicity, then I choose to disinvite you from celebrating my culture, because simply, you are not worthy. It seems you don’t like it now it affects you rather than someone else.

By the way, no-one is asking anyone to feel guilty for the actions of their ancestors – we’re asking you to accept that you have profited from their actions, and other people have lost as a result of your ancestors’ actions. You don’t have to feel guilty – you just have to be willing to make amends. As an immigrant, from a country also colonised by Britain (England really), I clearly bear no guilt and nor do my ancestors (well, not for dispossession of Australia’s indigenous people anyway). But I am also clearly profiting from the actions of the invaders, and I see the need to make amends.

IP

So now you are saying that even those who are 1/2 Irish can’t join in on St Patricks day because they are not pure Irish and were not born in Ireland so therefore not Irish. What about those who have pure Irish background but were born in Australia? Do they get to join in your little exclusive celebrations? People like you who exclude others in their culture events just based on race alone are generally what is wrong with this world and attempts to get everybody along.

So where does that leave people of my pedigree who has Scottish, Irish, English, Indian and Chinese in their ancestry? Seems I can’t be involved in any celebrations.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be making reconciliations and reparations to the Indigenous population of Australia, just that most should be stating up front that they are not 100% themselves and therefore their ancestors just as much as mine were also responsible for their present condition. Blaming “white man’ when they are whiter than me comes across a false and does not add any weight to their argument at all.

BTW if you look at Irish history at one stage your people replaced the inhabitants of Ireland who in turn replaced the people who were there before. You can’t cry foul of others when your ancestors have done the same.

What about people like me who’s family has only been in Australia for under 100 years? Who came to work as labourers on farms? How do we work out who’s ancestors did or did not contribute? It seems like a moot point to me.

I think we should simply take people as we find them. There are good and bad in all cultures. And if certain groups of humans within our country seem to be suffering then we should, through our government, put in place some programs to help them.

IrishPete said :

Baldy said :

So are you saying now that if you aren’t from a certain culture then you can’t celebrate with them on their special days? Wow. Exclusive much?

If your not Irish then you can’t celebrate S Patricks day, if your not Chinese you can’t celebrate the Chinese New Year and if you aren’t Indian you can’t celbrate Dwali. Pity. I enjoy them much more then the regular holidays. Much more fun.

I think you will find that the difference between cliaming your 1/8 aborigonal and 1/8 Irish is your claim over soverinty and the utter denial of 7/8 of your heritage.

No, YOU don’t get to choose. It is not your culture to adopt, or celebrate, or claim a connection to. It’s my culture, and if you’re going to be petulant and use fractions of genetic purity to deny or accept someone’s ethnicity, then I choose to disinvite you from celebrating my culture, because simply, you are not worthy. It seems you don’t like it now it affects you rather than someone else.

By the way, no-one is asking anyone to feel guilty for the actions of their ancestors – we’re asking you to accept that you have profited from their actions, and other people have lost as a result of your ancestors’ actions. You don’t have to feel guilty – you just have to be willing to make amends. As an immigrant, from a country also colonised by Britain (England really), I clearly bear no guilt and nor do my ancestors (well, not for dispossession of Australia’s indigenous people anyway). But I am also clearly profiting from the actions of the invaders, and I see the need to make amends.

IP

But surely all of us, even Aboriginals have profited from the actions of our ancestors to greater or lesser degrees?
It begs the questions for which acts of our ancestors are we responsible, how far back do we go and to whom are we meant to be paying reparations to?
In your example how do people that are 7/8ths European get to ignore their ancestors actions?
I think this kind of thinking leads to far more problems than it could possibly solve.

IrishPete said :

I clearly bear no guilt and nor do my ancestors (well, not for dispossession of Australia’s indigenous people anyway). But I am also clearly profiting from the actions of the invaders, and I see the need to make amends.

Pete, you and anyone else who feels like he or she is profiting unfairly from the colonisation of Australia and who wants to make amends can do so in an entirely democratic and non-divisive way and without treading on the feet of those who don’t agree with you, by reaching into your own pocket and donating to one of the (literally) hundreds of charities set up to benefit Indigenous Australians.

Jim Jones said :

Sadly, govenrment (and other) action taken to redress the imbalance and give aboriginal people the skills and opportunities necessary to jump into a stable, productive job/lifestyle is viewed by parts of the Australian population as ‘special treatment’. Hence all the whinging about ‘my tax dollars blah blah its racist that they get this stuff and I don’t blah blah’. Honestly, it’s hard to think of anything quite so horribly ironic as some middle-class white dude whinging that the Aborigines ‘get it easy’.

By definition, a law or program that gives benefits to, or confers obligations on, a particular group within the community based upon that group’s race is racist. I agree with you that middle class whites shouldn’t be envious of the benefits given to Aborigines in lower socio-economic groups, but think that people of Anglo or other non-Aboriginal descent in those same low socio-economic groups would be justifiably resentful. As others have pointed out, plenty of whites are born into poverty and spend their whole lives there.

To the extent that government aid, training, opportunities, benefits etc should be given out, they should be given to whomever has the greatest need, regardless of their race.

Baldy said :

So are you saying now that if you aren’t from a certain culture then you can’t celebrate with them on their special days? Wow. Exclusive much?

If your not Irish then you can’t celebrate S Patricks day, if your not Chinese you can’t celebrate the Chinese New Year and if you aren’t Indian you can’t celbrate Dwali. Pity. I enjoy them much more then the regular holidays. Much more fun.

I think you will find that the difference between cliaming your 1/8 aborigonal and 1/8 Irish is your claim over soverinty and the utter denial of 7/8 of your heritage.

No, YOU don’t get to choose. It is not your culture to adopt, or celebrate, or claim a connection to. It’s my culture, and if you’re going to be petulant and use fractions of genetic purity to deny or accept someone’s ethnicity, then I choose to disinvite you from celebrating my culture, because simply, you are not worthy. It seems you don’t like it now it affects you rather than someone else.

By the way, no-one is asking anyone to feel guilty for the actions of their ancestors – we’re asking you to accept that you have profited from their actions, and other people have lost as a result of your ancestors’ actions. You don’t have to feel guilty – you just have to be willing to make amends. As an immigrant, from a country also colonised by Britain (England really), I clearly bear no guilt and nor do my ancestors (well, not for dispossession of Australia’s indigenous people anyway). But I am also clearly profiting from the actions of the invaders, and I see the need to make amends.

IP

I-filed said :

poetix said :

Hey, if we keep this up this cruel and unusual punishment non-stop for the next 10 hours we could win the Mully for this thread ourselves, and pull victory from the jaws of affordability.

See my much earlier post re Mully – Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Barbara Ward, Chris Bourke, Michael Thinggy, Ms Sattler et al have all been nominated ! … nb there are several threads on this topic and hopefully they will be counted put together – pretty sure they would equal or outstrip the affordability thread …. : )

Yes, to date I make it 276 affordability to 286 all the embassy ‘riot’ stories. Or 287 if this comment isn’t moderated. But I stopped maths in year 9, so any further addition would be good…

poetix said :

Hey, if we keep this up this cruel and unusual punishment non-stop for the next 10 hours we could win the Mully for this thread ourselves, and pull victory from the jaws of affordability.

See my much earlier post re Mully – Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Barbara Ward, Chris Bourke, Michael Thinggy, Ms Sattler et al have all been nominated ! … nb there are several threads on this topic and hopefully they will be counted put together – pretty sure they would equal or outstrip the affordability thread …. : )

poetix said :

astrojax said :

poetix said: Surely we’re not so boring that a real estate thread beats a nearly significant window-banging shoe-shedding incident such as this? Have we no sole? Or just the one?

i feel such a heel for suggesting julia gets jb a mully – i’ll just shuffle off and lace my coffee with something while i boot out the trainer and hope the sand’ll rinse out of my thong [euw, too much information…]

You got yourself into a sticky situation there…Almost tongue-tied.

Hey, if we keep this up this cruel and unusual punishment non-stop for the next 10 hours we could win the Mully for this thread ourselves, and pull victory from the jaws of affordability. I don’t see how the Immoderator would get the Mully either; he didn’t start the riot (in the sense of this incident). So Far As We Know. Wouldn’t it go to the people who tipped off the embassy? (Note pathetic and obvious attempt to bring comment back to the actual topic.)

I’d be interested to know if there is any more information floating around about how the mob found out, and what they were actually told.

Seeing Mr Rabbit on the news last night he almost seemed to be grinning as he was bundled into the car.

astrojax said :

poetix said: Surely we’re not so boring that a real estate thread beats a nearly significant window-banging shoe-shedding incident such as this? Have we no sole? Or just the one?

i feel such a heel for suggesting julia gets jb a mully – i’ll just shuffle off and lace my coffee with something while i boot out the trainer and hope the sand’ll rinse out of my thong [euw, too much information…]

You got yourself into a sticky situation there…Almost tongue-tied.

Hey, if we keep this up this cruel and unusual punishment non-stop for the next 10 hours we could win the Mully for this thread ourselves, and pull victory from the jaws of affordability. I don’t see how the Immoderator would get the Mully either; he didn’t start the riot (in the sense of this incident). So Far As We Know. Wouldn’t it go to the people who tipped off the embassy? (Note pathetic and obvious attempt to bring comment back to the actual topic.)

Jim Jones said :

Troof.

Sadly, govenrment (and other) action taken to redress the imbalance and give aboriginal people the skills and opportunities necessary to jump into a stable, productive job/lifestyle is viewed by parts of the Australian population as ‘special treatment’. Hence all the whinging about ‘my tax dollars blah blah its racist that they get this stuff and I don’t blah blah’. Honestly, it’s hard to think of anything quite so horribly ironic as some middle-class white dude whinging that the Aborigines ‘get it easy’.

I have heard it best described like running a race between a white person and an indigenous person with a ball attached to their ankle. Half way the ball is taken off and he is expected to immediately keep up with the white person.
In other words while white’s get a head start Indigenous are expected to act the same. We shouldn’t have this attitude at all and do our best to help them keep pace. Personally I believe that we are approaching it all wrong. We are designing programs based on European culture and expectations and not those of the culture of Indigenous nations.

poetix said: Surely we’re not so boring that a real estate thread beats a nearly significant window-banging shoe-shedding incident such as this? Have we no sole? Or just the one?

i feel such a heel for suggesting julia gets jb a mully – i’ll just shuffle off and lace my coffee with something while i boot out the trainer and hope the sand’ll rinse out of my thong [euw, too much information…]

It’s probably safe to say that everyone is at least 1/10000 indigenous.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Fundamentally, most people who grow up in situations where their role models behave in a manner most would consider anti-social will behave the same way as adults. A few climb out of the pit, and my experience with people who have managed this is that race and skin colour are irrelevant.

I think that is the biggest determinant for disadvantage. Family situation. Children of drug addicts have a hard time right from the start. Infant health problems, discrimination at school, learning difficulties, malnutrition, violence and abuse.

Drug addicts have a hard time keeping their children, and rightly so.

But for Aboriginal children in similar circumstances of disadvantage, official policy seems to be to let them keep suffering.

johnboy said :

aceofspades said :

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

Pretty sure if you’re 1/10000th indigenous and being treated like crap it’s because you’re acting like crap.

Nah, those pure white people are like sharks – instead of smelling a drop of blood in the sea, they can smell a tiny handful of Aboriginal genes, even if the person is blond and blue eyed and has to wear SPF 100+ every time the sun comes out. Trufax.

astrojax said :

this thread is certainly giving the affordability a run for the mully – go, you good thing; julia might win something this year after all!

I hope it pulls itself up by its bootstraps into first place too. Surely we’re not so boring that a real estate thread beats a nearly significant window-banging shoe-shedding incident such as this? Have we no sole? Or just the one?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

aceofspades said :

Why is it that many aboriginals live in poverty?

An interesting question.

A large part of the answer would surely have to be the way in which many (most?) Aboriginals were pushed to the margins over the past 200 or so years. I genuinely believe that many (most?) Australians would like to see Aboriginals find a balance between settled modern life and yet retaining the interesting parts of their culture. It’s pretty difficult though when you only need to look a couple of generations back (or even less) to see deliberate exclusion of Aboriginals from mainstream life.

It’s not reasonable to expect people (and I’m referring to individuals here, of all backgrounds) who have grown up marginalised and in poverty to magically develop the skills necessary to jump into stable, productive jobs and lifestyles.

Troof.

Sadly, govenrment (and other) action taken to redress the imbalance and give aboriginal people the skills and opportunities necessary to jump into a stable, productive job/lifestyle is viewed by parts of the Australian population as ‘special treatment’. Hence all the whinging about ‘my tax dollars blah blah its racist that they get this stuff and I don’t blah blah’. Honestly, it’s hard to think of anything quite so horribly ironic as some middle-class white dude whinging that the Aborigines ‘get it easy’.

aceofspades said :

Why is it that many aboriginals live in poverty?

An interesting question.

A large part of the answer would surely have to be the way in which many (most?) Aboriginals were pushed to the margins over the past 200 or so years. I genuinely believe that many (most?) Australians would like to see Aboriginals find a balance between settled modern life and yet retaining the interesting parts of their culture. It’s pretty difficult though when you only need to look a couple of generations back (or even less) to see deliberate exclusion of Aboriginals from mainstream life.

It’s not reasonable to expect people (and I’m referring to individuals here, of all backgrounds) who have grown up marginalised and in poverty to magically develop the skills necessary to jump into stable, productive jobs and lifestyles.

this thread is certainly giving the affordability a run for the mully – go, you good thing; julia might win something this year after all!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

aceofspades said :

It stems from their childhood, they might not look aboriginal but their family does. They are the first to be blamed if something gets stolen, perceptions and generalisations are made before they even open their mouths. It comes from a life of discrimination. Unless you have experienced or witnessed it yourself you will never understand. To say racism no longer exists in this country is such a naive statement.

It definitely stems from childhood, but I think it’s more to do with the fact that many Aboriginals live in poverty, and have the problems that stem from that. White kids who grow up in poverty have pretty much the same problems.

Fundamentally, most people who grow up in situations where their role models behave in a manner most would consider anti-social will behave the same way as adults. A few climb out of the pit, and my experience with people who have managed this is that race and skin colour are irrelevant.

Must admit this is a far better post and argument with more thought than the one from our moderator JB that deserves no reply. Why is it that many aboriginals live in poverty?

Skyring said :

aceofspades said :

It stems from their childhood, they might not look aboriginal but their family does. They are the first to be blamed if something gets stolen, perceptions and generalisations are made before they even open their mouths. It comes from a life of discrimination. Unless you have experienced or witnessed it yourself you will never understand. To say racism no longer exists in this country is such a naive statement.

Why do you describe Aboriginal Australians as “they”? Isn’t this just perpetuating an “us and them” discrimination that guarantees differential treatment?

What a stupid question that completely bypasses the issue. I say “they” because I am not at all aboriginal and have no right to call myself such.

aceofspades said :

It stems from their childhood, they might not look aboriginal but their family does. They are the first to be blamed if something gets stolen, perceptions and generalisations are made before they even open their mouths. It comes from a life of discrimination. Unless you have experienced or witnessed it yourself you will never understand. To say racism no longer exists in this country is such a naive statement.

It definitely stems from childhood, but I think it’s more to do with the fact that many Aboriginals live in poverty, and have the problems that stem from that. White kids who grow up in poverty have pretty much the same problems.

Fundamentally, most people who grow up in situations where their role models behave in a manner most would consider anti-social will behave the same way as adults. A few climb out of the pit, and my experience with people who have managed this is that race and skin colour are irrelevant.

aceofspades said :

It stems from their childhood, they might not look aboriginal but their family does. They are the first to be blamed if something gets stolen, perceptions and generalisations are made before they even open their mouths. It comes from a life of discrimination. Unless you have experienced or witnessed it yourself you will never understand. To say racism no longer exists in this country is such a naive statement.

Why do you describe Aboriginal Australians as “they”? Isn’t this just perpetuating an “us and them” discrimination that guarantees differential treatment?

EvanJames said :

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

You should be ashamed of what you just wrote. It’s up there with the biggest load of drivel on this thread. Grow up.

I can’t believe this, I’m agreeing with Tooks. I can’t see any valid actual arguments in there either, just the usual sub-text that to criticise anything Aboriginals do is verboten.

As for the claim of a person 1/10000th Aboriginal being treated like crap by whites, WTF? Most Aboriginals have to tell you they’re Aboriginal before you know. I remember a young chap who worked for me, had a massive chip on his shoulder at imagined slights and discriminations for being Aboriginal. I had to break it to him: most of us (all of us?) assumed he was Indian. His whole persona was built around this view of himself as a downtrodden Aboriginal, trouble is no one knew he was Aboriginal.

And he was born and grew up in the city, went to school, got his HSC, and then amused himself getting entry into every law school in the country, and then dropping out. Yes, no doubt that’s the fault of “the whites” too. Or not.

Keep finding excuses and apportioning blame, and in doing so ensure that they never get ahead.

It stems from their childhood, they might not look aboriginal but their family does. They are the first to be blamed if something gets stolen, perceptions and generalisations are made before they even open their mouths. It comes from a life of discrimination. Unless you have experienced or witnessed it yourself you will never understand. To say racism no longer exists in this country is such a naive statement.

Tooks said :

aceofspades said :

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

You should be ashamed of what you just wrote. It’s up there with the biggest load of drivel on this thread. Grow up.

I can’t believe this, I’m agreeing with Tooks. I can’t see any valid actual arguments in there either, just the usual sub-text that to criticise anything Aboriginals do is verboten.

As for the claim of a person 1/10000th Aboriginal being treated like crap by whites, WTF? Most Aboriginals have to tell you they’re Aboriginal before you know. I remember a young chap who worked for me, had a massive chip on his shoulder at imagined slights and discriminations for being Aboriginal. I had to break it to him: most of us (all of us?) assumed he was Indian. His whole persona was built around this view of himself as a downtrodden Aboriginal, trouble is no one knew he was Aboriginal.

And he was born and grew up in the city, went to school, got his HSC, and then amused himself getting entry into every law school in the country, and then dropping out. Yes, no doubt that’s the fault of “the whites” too. Or not.

Keep finding excuses and apportioning blame, and in doing so ensure that they never get ahead.

aceofspades said :

It is not important what part aboriginal you are…

Or Chinese or Greek or American or Lebanese or Somalian.

We’re all Australians, we’re all part of the community. Trying to get special treatment because of your race, whether you are white or yellow or black or red-haired, is racism just as much as is treating other people differently because of their ancestry.

IrishPete said :

I suspect the conditions at the Tent Embassy are luxurious compared to the conditions in the hidden remote communities. (Cue Monty Python references to living in a cardboard box in the middle of a roundabout…)

And I hope all you folks mocking the 1/8th indigenous people and the like, will all butt out on St Patrick’s Day too… By the way, one of the reasons for the relatively small numbers of 100% indigenous people is because the settlers and convicts got their hands on (and other body parts in) the indigenous women. I don’t think Dodson is a traditional Aboriginal name..

Reminds me of the wonderful Phil Lynott (half-black lead singer of 70s Irish rock band Thin Lizzy) line at a concert: “Is there anyone out there with any Irish in them?” Crowd erupts in cheers. “Is there any of the girls would like a bit more Irish in them?”

IP

So are you saying now that if you aren’t from a certain culture then you can’t celebrate with them on their special days? Wow. Exclusive much?

If your not Irish then you can’t celebrate S Patricks day, if your not Chinese you can’t celebrate the Chinese New Year and if you aren’t Indian you can’t celbrate Dwali. Pity. I enjoy them much more then the regular holidays. Much more fun.

I think you will find that the difference between cliaming your 1/8 aborigonal and 1/8 Irish is your claim over soverinty and the utter denial of 7/8 of your heritage.

aceofspades said :

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

I think you will find that most people get annoyed when someone who has more in common with Europeans then pure blood indigenous Australians go on about how bad they are done by white man. It is hypocritical and puts them in a poor light. If they acknowledged that 7/8 of their ancestors were also responsible for the treatment of the 1/8 of their blood line then it would make me respect them more.

As it is all I see is someone who is whiter than me abusing me for perceived guilt of my ancestors, if they were here at the time or not.Guilt by skin colour.

If your overacting white guilt can’t handle people with different views internet forums aren’t for you old chap.

aceofspades said :

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

Pretty sure if you’re 1/10000th indigenous and being treated like crap it’s because you’re acting like crap.

aceofspades said :

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

You should be ashamed of what you just wrote. It’s up there with the biggest load of drivel on this thread. Grow up.

In the mean time this , like last year, and the year before that, the tax-payers will bung in the usual 5 billion plus for all the programs plus all the social security payments for the 70% who don’t work. The same %70 who’ll be doing all the whinging. You won’t hear from the remaining 30% because they’ll be happily going about their business like (most of) the rest of us.

LSWCHP said :

Skyring said :

It doesn’t look like they were running, actually. Somehow in the “rapid but deliberate tactical textbook movement” Julia’s shoe came off and the hunk hauling her didn’t stop to let her get her foot back in.

That’s not how I saw it. The movement from the restaurant to the vehicle didn’t seem to be well conducted at all. It was too fast and not well thought out. One of the commentators in the videos at the top describes the movement as “a mad dash”, which seems accurate enough.

That’s the Channel Nine clip, and there’s a fair bit of hyperbole in there. Julia didn’t look “terrified” to me. Nor was the embassy gathering to mark the anniversary of “the tent city”. The thing’s sensationalised and inaccurate. Incidentally, the other clip is no longer functioning, as YouTube has suspended the account.

The “mad dash” is more from the media people keen to get their cameras into the action. Shots of the backs of burley coppers are all very well, but you really want footage of the PM. Once out of doors the cops at the back are running to get into position, but we see a bit of Tony Abbott being hurried along and he’s not running, just moving fast.

One of the still shots shows Julia at the bottom of the steps, minus her shoe, which must have come off moments earlier, and nobody was running or bounding down the steps. She must have tried to stop to get it back on, but her escort wasn’t stopping, so she stumbled and was dragged, which wouldn’t have helped with the movement to the car.

Just one of those things, I guess. As you say, it goes better in hindsight, and in the moment people do their best while a lot of things are happening very quickly. The main thing is that it worked and nobody got hurt.

Incidentally, major points to Julia for insisting that Tony be included in the exit. It looked like the security chief hadn’t planned for him and would have left him with Kate Lundy and the other VIPs.

I really don’t have the words for the amount of disgust I have for some of the comments in this thread, Bla bla bla!!!! I am white and don’t give a shit, mummy wiped my arse and sent me to a good school so I can crap on about how much better I am than everyone else. What a bunch of idiots. Anybody that does not understand the frustration that aboriginals are going through needs to spend a day as an aboriginal. It is not important what part aboriginal you are, if you are 1/10000th aboriginal and treated like a piece of shit by full white people all your life, is it really a surprise that you are totally embarrassed for being 99999 parts white. Being aboriginal is in their heart and soul not their heritage. I am 100% white and ashamed of it because of most of the comments I read here.

“There were approximately sixty people (maximum) at this stage and one or two gathered around the far side where there had previously not been anyone. This is when a number of police entered the café without incident. They walked in through one of the two open doors.

A few minutes later there was a dramatic fluster of movement on the far side of the café (at the other entrance door). It was the kind of hurried dramatic movement that usually indicates an arrest or attempted arrest of demonstrators in situations like this. Everyone ran around to the side to see what was going on. It was not demonstrators being man-handled this time around – but the PM and opposition leader! It was completely surreal and ridiculously dramatic – they were bundled into a waiting car in the most ridiculously panicked and violent way.

If we had wanted to enter the café we could have at any stage; to our knowledge neither door was locked until police arrived – what were they so afraid of?

In the panic to bundle Gillard and Abbott like rag-dolls into the car Protective Services knocked a well-known and respected Indigenous elder down the stairs. Other people were pushed aside and pushed to the ground as well. Some people were shouting at the police. Some people were shouting at Gillard and Abbott for what they perceived as cowardice. A few people banged on the windows of the two cars (no more than four or five people). One person threw a plastic water bottle and two individuals (that I saw) attempted to stand in front of the two cars.

At this stage – after Gillard and Abbott had departed – the police and Protective Services started (re)acting hyper-aggressively. No one could make sense of this. They tossed people aside and to the ground and shoved people by the throat and began yelling “move back, move back” despite the fact that they themselves were not in any cohesive line. Many assumed they were telling us to “move back” to the Tent Embassy because they had not otherwise made it clear where we were supposed to “move back” to and we were all dispersed in any case.

By this stage there were approximately one hundred of us. Many were shouting at the police to stop pushing, shoving, grabbing and punching people. Yes, the police were punching people, in the face in some cases – I saw this with my own eyes. What was a dispersed crowd became a tight-knit gathering as people came to one another’s defense and told the police to back the f*** off and calm the f*** down.

Things became slightly chaotic at this stage because it was evident that the police were trying to escalate things or scale things up. One particular Indigenous elder from the Tent Embassy tried to calm everyone down and suggested we go back to the Embassy before things get worse – and what happened? He – this one particular elder who was calling for calm and a return to Embassy grounds – was set upon by Protective Services”

Once again the media makes a mountain out of a molehill and tries to blame protesters for Police overreacting.

You got to love the psychosis you Australian’s get whenever you talk about your awful history of genocide and inhumanity, Jesus christ, I still hear from pretty much everyone that the Stolen Generation was a good thing because Aboriginals were educated and put into good homes, totally ignoring the fact the the real reason behind the SG was to try exterminate Aborigines through Eugenics after realizing that simply executing them was probably bad-press.

Got to love that Irony when you hear Australians bemoan the Japanese for selectively forgetting their atrocities during WW2 yet pretty much all of you do the same here.

Skyring said :

LSWCHP said :

I was trained in this sort of stuff a long time ago and I reckon that departing was definitely the right thing to do under the circumstances. But running during the departure was the wrong thing to do. Rapid but deliberate tactical movement would’ve been far more advisable under the circumstances.

It doesn’t look like they were running, actually. Somehow in the “rapid but deliberate tactical textbook movement” Julia’s shoe came off and the hunk hauling her didn’t stop to let her get her foot back in.

That’s not how I saw it. The movement from the restaurant to the vehicle didn’t seem to be well conducted at all. It was too fast and not well thought out. One of the commentators in the videos at the top describes the movement as “a mad dash”, which seems accurate enough.

Having said that, it was a tough gig and I wouldn’t have done any better. This is just my internet opinion, and I hope that lessons are learned and that things turn out better when this happens again. When you’re in those circumstances and outnumbered by a mob the potential to get hurt confronts everybody involved. And at that point, the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley.

Those people made the best decisions they could with the information available to them at the time, and performed to the best of their abilities under very difficult circumstances. In hindsight, it probably could’ve been done better, but that’s something I’ve also said about all of my own work for the past 30 years.

LSWCHP said :

I was trained in this sort of stuff a long time ago and I reckon that departing was definitely the right thing to do under the circumstances. But running during the departure was the wrong thing to do. Rapid but deliberate tactical movement would’ve been far more advisable under the circumstances.

It doesn’t look like they were running, actually. Somehow in the “rapid but deliberate tactical textbook movement” Julia’s shoe came off and the hunk hauling her didn’t stop to let her get her foot back in.

I think if she wants to wear heels in public from now on, she should wear long leather lace up boots.

JB – to defuse some of the angst, how about instigating a reconciliation of sorts by sharing the coveted Mully among Michael Anderson, Kim Sattler, Tony Abbott, Dr Chris Bourke, Julia Gillard, Barbara Shaw and Tony Hodges … : )

I suspect the conditions at the Tent Embassy are luxurious compared to the conditions in the hidden remote communities. (Cue Monty Python references to living in a cardboard box in the middle of a roundabout…)

And I hope all you folks mocking the 1/8th indigenous people and the like, will all butt out on St Patrick’s Day too… By the way, one of the reasons for the relatively small numbers of 100% indigenous people is because the settlers and convicts got their hands on (and other body parts in) the indigenous women. I don’t think Dodson is a traditional Aboriginal name..

Reminds me of the wonderful Phil Lynott (half-black lead singer of 70s Irish rock band Thin Lizzy) line at a concert: “Is there anyone out there with any Irish in them?” Crowd erupts in cheers. “Is there any of the girls would like a bit more Irish in them?”

IP

Tooks said :

johnboy said :

Dunno tooks, people with current cpp tickets I’ve spoken to think running was a mistake.

From my armchair, I thought the same thing, but I know nothing about CPP work, so I don’t know the reasoning behind their decisions.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I mean are you talking about the decision to vacate the scene, or the manner in which is was accomplished?

I was trained in this sort of stuff a long time ago and I reckon that departing was definitely the right thing to do under the circumstances. But running during the departure was the wrong thing to do. Rapid but deliberate tactical movement would’ve been far more advisable under the circumstances.

Surely, all this land rights stuff – hereditary succession (usually oppressively patriarchal) based on land ownership, supported by imaginary friends in the sky – is just a ding dong between rival clans of conservatives.

I’m curious about the demand for sovereignty.

Let’s say we found a decent area that was, as far as possible, unchanged since the whitefellas arrived and said “there you go – it’s all yours. We’ll get out of your hair now”, is that what they’re after? Or do they want the whole country back?

If the latter, well, that’s probably unrealistic. Apart from anything else, we’ve pretty much fucked over the place since we arrived.

If the former, I suppose it’s doable and I’d have some respect for that. It’d be an interesting prospect to pursue.

fgzk said :

Abbott was wrong, nothing has got better. Still the same glib vitriol doing the rounds. Its not the indigenous peoples that have to move on.

Many of them don’t. People like you sure do, though.

fgzk said :

…. nothing has got better. .

What an absolutely ridiculous statement.

fgzk said :

Abbott was wrong, nothing has got better. Still the same glib vitriol doing the rounds. Its not the indigenous peoples that have to move on.

How is the fact that nothing has been achieved in the forty years of its existence an argument FOR keeping the Tent Embassy? Apparently it’s not working.

fgzk said :

Abbott was wrong, nothing has got better. Still the same glib vitriol doing the rounds. Its not the indigenous peoples that have to move on.

Of course it is, at the time they moved there, there was an actual reason why they chose that spot.

Old Parliament House is not where Government sits, people do not hold demonstrations there any more, they use the AAA area of the actual Parliament house.

I think they live there because it is cheap – period.

I have no objection to an embassy, I have no objection as to why Aboriginals are protesting, I have no objection to people having a right to speak, and speaking about what they want to speak about, they have to realise that 99% of the time I don’t agree with them.

What I do have an objection to is the state of the so called “embassy.” If they want their voices to be heard, they should not be doing it from what looks like a homeless person’s camp.

I wasn’t alive when the “embassy” was errected, the meaning of it is lost on me, I think you will find there is a couple of million more people who don’t see a dhingy dirty tent as a stand against the man.

Take it how you will, as I said, I don’t agree with it, I think Abbott is right, it is time the “embassy” was taken down and an actual building erected, there will be a lot more respect given to it.

Abbott was wrong, nothing has got better. Still the same glib vitriol doing the rounds. Its not the indigenous peoples that have to move on.

johnboy said :

Dunno tooks, people with current cpp tickets I’ve spoken to think running was a mistake.

From my armchair, I thought the same thing, but I know nothing about CPP work, so I don’t know the reasoning behind their decisions.

kambahkrawler said :

I’m 1 / 9480th neanderthal, so that means the whole world owes me a favour.

Do you have a neanderthal flag? Can I burn and spit on it.

chewy14 said :

kambahkrawler said :

I’m 1 / 9480th neanderthal, so that means the whole world owes me a favour.

You killed my great^20000 grandfather’s mammoth. I want compensation.[/quote}

It has been found that humans have cells from T-Rex in their hair. Therefore I want to claim my right from my dinosaur ancestors cells as original owners before all you scruffy mammals came on the scene.

Usermane said :

IrishPete said :

* Canadian aborigines don’t enjoy a sufficiently improved standard of living that their treaties should be placed on a pedestal as an example for other countries to follow.

I have always thought that the indigenous population of Australia would fare better if they arranged themselves along the lines of First Nations in Canada though. Your comments make me think I should go back and recheck this though. thank you

I-filed said :

Postalgeek said :

Being 1/48 Saxon, I’ve seen this all before. Still haven’t received an apology from the Normans.

And you’re not getting an apology either.

Harold was a pussy 🙂

You think you were hard done by? Try Pictish ancestry for hardship… pushed into remote Wales & Scotland. The Saxons were not the Indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles!

Neither were the Pictish .

IrishPete said :

For people wondering how indigenous ownership of land might work, consider the system in the ACT, where there is no freehold land, it is all leased from the government. Hand over that ownership and income stream to an indigenous body, while building in protection for existing occupiers (e.g. making the leases perpetual) and voila – problem solved.

For freehold land elsewhere, the same idea would also work, with a little more effort. Freehold would be converted to perpetual lease, and a small rent would be paid as with current leasehold land. The rent wouldn’t need to be high – a few dollars a year would add up, across Australia, to a significant income for the original owners. I’d envisage it being pegged to land value, like rates.

Again, the existing system of pastoral leases would probably be a model.

Would it require another government department? Well maybe, but more likely you’d hand this role over to the existing Aboriginal Lands Councils. Would you lose control over “your” property? Yes, a little, but the extent of loss of control would depend – I expect the day to day impact would be close to zero, except if you want to engage in a big development, e.g. trash an Aboriginal heritage site, or if you’re a miner. Not much different from the myriad of government departments that already regulate what you do with your land, you’d just be adding ne more stakeholder to the many existing ones.

You could do it individually, and I intend to do so with my freehold land – pay rent, and ask for a perpetual lease.

IP

I have a question for you. Will people who are only 1/8 aborigional only get a certain percentage according to their percentage or does the 1/8 of their ancetery completely overule the 7/8? Same withthe others.

I have always wondered about this. It seems when those who only minorly aborigional (and 1/8 is only minor) go on about the evilness of white man, do they relise they are talking about a good part of themselves?

kambahkrawler said :

I’m 1 / 9480th neanderthal, so that means the whole world owes me a favour.

You killed my great^20000 grandfather’s mammoth. I want compensation.

kambahkrawler said :

I’m 1 / 9480th neanderthal, so that means the whole world owes me a favour.

You aint got a chance if us full bloods have our way.

I’m 1 / 9480th neanderthal, so that means the whole world owes me a favour.

poetix said :

So what’s the food like at The Lobby these days? I’ve heard it’s sometimes a little hard to get in.

If you cut up larger objects such as steaks using the cutlery provided, it’s not difficult at all.

Usermane said :

Racist feudalism. Nice.

A few things:

* Feudalism is not the same as council/government controls. Councils and governments in civilised countries derive their authority by the consent of the governed. What you are advocating is much the same as establishment of permanent hereditary lordships with authority deriving from (one of) the land awardees’ ancestors’ skin colour.

* The rent would need to be high. Providing a reasonable passive income of, say, $60,000, to reward people for claiming aboriginal ancestry works out to $1100 for every (white, yellow, bronze, black African, etc) man, woman and child in Australia. So “your share” of the race tax would be more like a few thousand dollars, every year, as well as your council rates.

* What is the government’s authority to blatantly steal freehold land en-masse and simply award the title to another party without compensation – let alone to afterwards generously charge them rent for the land they used to own?

* Canadian aborigines don’t enjoy a sufficiently improved standard of living that their treaties should be placed on a pedestal as an example for other countries to follow.

I almost took this post seriously, until I read the third bullet point, and I realised you were just being subtly ironic. Because obviously we’re talking about the return of stolen land, mostly bought in good faith hence the concession to allow ongoing use.

Incidentally, how much is already spent on indigenous issues, or “race tax” as you call it? Quantify that, then make a comparison. I’d happily pay $1100 a year, or more, but I’d also I’d expect tax cuts from the cessation of most current expenditure on failed indigenous policies. Much of the Land Councils’ income would derive from activities like mining, not the rent.

And who mentioned passive income? How Land Councils spend it would be up to them, but I’d expect they’d spend it on creating jobs, not welfare hand-outs (“sit down money”), which is what current policies mostly achieve.

I presume you also object to the leasehold system in the ACT, and for pastoralists.

IP

Skyring said :

[ Politics hasn’t been this much fun since Hawkey stopped drinking.

Um, Hawkey didn’t stop drinking.

Tooks said :

Brianna said :

What I find difficult to understand is the actions of the security people. Why didn’t they bring the car to Julia instead of having her run the gauntlet? Isn’t the aim of the security people to keep the Prime Minister alive? By ushering her through the seething mass of protesters, they directly put her life in danger. I’m not a fan of either Abbott or Gillard but don’t wish to see either assassinated. Also, like Gillard, I am disgusted by the fact that the protesters hijacked an awards ceremony for heroic actions. Just goes to show who the heroes are and they are not the protesters.

Despite your obvious expertise in close personal protection work, it’s quite possible that the people who do it for a living know better than you. In fact, it was reported in the news that an expert in the field described it as a copybook exercise in close personal protection. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know, but I’ll take it at face value.

They didn’t usher her through a seething mass of protesters, they took her out the side door where there were a small handful of protesters. Let’s get real, her life was never in danger.

Brett the leader of this failed exercise and his band of 45 ‘mates’ from the remainder of the AFP Dad’s Army were obviously out of their depth. I once worked with Brett the leader of this shambles and let’s just say he left it too late. His fumbling moves as seen in all stages of the video record are characteristic even to the extent he’s called Humphrey – says it all. Also they obviously didn’t have a security risk management plan or response to the NSTA – National Security Threat Assessment for that day. Their only (minimal) savings grace is that you wouldn’t expect that some dill in your own team would foment the sort of trouble that would require pretty mundane CPP (Close Personal Protection) measures. To waste taxpayers money and deplete resources better deployed elsewhere in the community or stood down on leave is a disgrace. These cops are paid very substantial composites (up to double their pay ++) for providing a professional service and they didn’t.

johnboy said :

Dunno tooks, people with current cpp tickets I’ve spoken to think running was a mistake.

So were these people actually there at the time, or are they just adding to the ranks of armchair commentators?

So what’s the food like at The Lobby these days? I’ve heard it’s sometimes a little hard to get in.

EvanJames said :

I just noticed the poster/picture that goes with this story. Um, is that Abbott, holding Gillard by the scruff of her neck?!

He is too! Hadn’t noticed that before. Loath as I am to ascribe kind motives to Abbott, maybe he was trying to steady her from being pushed down the stairs and falling again? The other guy beside him looks like he’s trying to do the same.

I don’t get the motivation for tipping off the protesters.

Surely Tony Abbot’s fans would be impressed to see him get a bit of extra tv mileage out of riling up indigenous protesters.

Brianna said :

What I find difficult to understand is the actions of the security people. Why didn’t they bring the car to Julia instead of having her run the gauntlet? Isn’t the aim of the security people to keep the Prime Minister alive? By ushering her through the seething mass of protesters, they directly put her life in danger. I’m not a fan of either Abbott or Gillard but don’t wish to see either assassinated. Also, like Gillard, I am disgusted by the fact that the protesters hijacked an awards ceremony for heroic actions. Just goes to show who the heroes are and they are not the protesters.

Despite your obvious expertise in close personal protection work, it’s quite possible that the people who do it for a living know better than you. In fact, it was reported in the news that an expert in the field described it as a copybook exercise in close personal protection. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know, but I’ll take it at face value.

They didn’t usher her through a seething mass of protesters, they took her out the side door where there were a small handful of protesters. Let’s get real, her life was never in danger.

EvanJames said :

I just noticed the poster/picture that goes with this story. Um, is that Abbott, holding Gillard by the scruff of her neck?!

In his dreams!
Nope, he’s a few paces behind, sauntering along, kicking Julia’s shoe off to the waiting throng. He got in beside the ComCar driver, said, “Geez, I could use a beer right now. How about it Jules?” and she said, “Tony, mate, love a chardy, but I’ve got to get cracking with my PR boys.”

Her day was pretty much shot to pieces – which is exactly what her PR boys had intended for Tony.

Geez, but they are a great pair. Politics hasn’t been this much fun since Hawkey stopped drinking.

Brianna said :

What I find difficult to understand is the actions of the security people. Why didn’t they bring the car to Julia instead of having her run the gauntlet? Isn’t the aim of the security people to keep the Prime Minister alive? By ushering her through the seething mass of protesters, they directly put her life in danger. I’m not a fan of either Abbott or Gillard but don’t wish to see either assassinated. Also, like Gillard, I am disgusted by the fact that the protesters hijacked an awards ceremony for heroic actions. Just goes to show who the heroes are and they are not the protesters.

Do you know how hard it is to drive a Holden Caprice up stairs?

I just noticed the poster/picture that goes with this story. Um, is that Abbott, holding Gillard by the scruff of her neck?!

Postalgeek said :

1/97 of me is Pict. Bloody Romans. What did they ever do for us?

Racist!

Special G said :

Anyone born here has as much claim as anyone else.

Perfect logic!!

What I find difficult to understand is the actions of the security people. Why didn’t they bring the car to Julia instead of having her run the gauntlet? Isn’t the aim of the security people to keep the Prime Minister alive? By ushering her through the seething mass of protesters, they directly put her life in danger. I’m not a fan of either Abbott or Gillard but don’t wish to see either assassinated. Also, like Gillard, I am disgusted by the fact that the protesters hijacked an awards ceremony for heroic actions. Just goes to show who the heroes are and they are not the protesters.

The Australian is reporting that Aboriginal Embassy ‘staff’ have pointed to Kim Sattler (Secretary, Unions ACT) as being the person who told them that Abbott was going to be at The Lobby.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/tent-embassy-officials-name-union-rep-kim-sattler-as-protest-lynch-pin/story-fn3dxity-1226256100439

Anyone born here has as much claim as anyone else.

IrishPete said :

For people wondering how indigenous ownership of land might work, consider the system in the ACT, where there is no freehold land, it is all leased from the government. Hand over that ownership and income stream to an indigenous body, while building in protection for existing occupiers (e.g. making the leases perpetual) and voila – problem solved.

For freehold land elsewhere, the same idea would also work, with a little more effort. Freehold would be converted to perpetual lease, and a small rent would be paid as with current leasehold land. The rent wouldn’t need to be high – a few dollars a year would add up, across Australia, to a significant income for the original owners. I’d envisage it being pegged to land value, like rates.

Again, the existing system of pastoral leases would probably be a model.

Would it require another government department? Well maybe, but more likely you’d hand this role over to the existing Aboriginal Lands Councils. Would you lose control over “your” property? Yes, a little, but the extent of loss of control would depend – I expect the day to day impact would be close to zero, except if you want to engage in a big development, e.g. trash an Aboriginal heritage site, or if you’re a miner. Not much different from the myriad of government departments that already regulate what you do with your land, you’d just be adding ne more stakeholder to the many existing ones.

You could do it individually, and I intend to do so with my freehold land – pay rent, and ask for a perpetual lease.

IP

Racist feudalism. Nice.

A few things:

* Feudalism is not the same as council/government controls. Councils and governments in civilised countries derive their authority by the consent of the governed. What you are advocating is much the same as establishment of permanent hereditary lordships with authority deriving from (one of) the land awardees’ ancestors’ skin colour.

* The rent would need to be high. Providing a reasonable passive income of, say, $60,000, to reward people for claiming aboriginal ancestry works out to $1100 for every (white, yellow, bronze, black African, etc) man, woman and child in Australia. So “your share” of the race tax would be more like a few thousand dollars, every year, as well as your council rates.

* What is the government’s authority to blatantly steal freehold land en-masse and simply award the title to another party without compensation – let alone to afterwards generously charge them rent for the land they used to own?

* Canadian aborigines don’t enjoy a sufficiently improved standard of living that their treaties should be placed on a pedestal as an example for other countries to follow.

My grandmother was into genealogy and I found out we are descended from a Roman emperor who never went anywhere near Britain. I’m also descended from Edward 1 who invaded Scotland and the people who made the Normans’ crossbows.

Now I’m mad about that inflammatory comment inciting hatred of the Romans!

I-filed said :

Postalgeek said :

Being 1/48 Saxon, I’ve seen this all before. Still haven’t received an apology from the Normans.

And you’re not getting an apology either.

Harold was a pussy 🙂

You think you were hard done by? Try Pictish ancestry for hardship… pushed into remote Wales & Scotland. The Saxons were not the Indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles!

Tell me about it. 1/97 of me is Pict. Bloody Romans. What did they ever do for us?

IrishPete said :

For people wondering how indigenous ownership of land might work, consider the system in the ACT, where there is no freehold land, it is all leased from the government. Hand over that ownership and income stream to an indigenous body, while building in protection for existing occupiers (e.g. making the leases perpetual) and voila – problem solved.

For freehold land elsewhere, the same idea would also work, with a little more effort. Freehold would be converted to perpetual lease, and a small rent would be paid as with current leasehold land. The rent wouldn’t need to be high – a few dollars a year would add up, across Australia, to a significant income for the original owners. I’d envisage it being pegged to land value, like rates.

Again, the existing system of pastoral leases would probably be a model.

Would it require another government department? Well maybe, but more likely you’d hand this role over to the existing Aboriginal Lands Councils. Would you lose control over “your” property? Yes, a little, but the extent of loss of control would depend – I expect the day to day impact would be close to zero, except if you want to engage in a big development, e.g. trash an Aboriginal heritage site, or if you’re a miner. Not much different from the myriad of government departments that already regulate what you do with your land, you’d just be adding ne more stakeholder to the many existing ones.

You could do it individually, and I intend to do so with my freehold land – pay rent, and ask for a perpetual lease.

IP

I disagree with this, but good on you for putting up a well though out idea.

I hope ACT police use this (and burning the flag) as a reason to borrow the water cannon from NSW and remove the tent embassy once and for all.

inb4 “ur a racist”.

Skyring said :

IrishPete said :

Skyring said :

[Look at the tent embassy people and you’ll see people of European ancestry. If it wasn’t for European settlement, they wouldn’t be alive at all. The thing is a fantasy.

Having said that, the need to work on things like education, health, life expectancy, respect and so on is critical. Not because of race, but because of humanity. All the treaties in the world won’t put a child in a remote desert camp into university – if they never make it out of infancy.

What a load of cobblers – are you reallly suggesting Indigenous Australians would not exist if invasion and dispossession had not taken place? Re-read what you’re written, cos that’s what you said.

Nope. I’m saying that without European occupation, Aboriginal Australians with European ancestry would not exist. That’s plain common sense.

There were some very pale skinned, light haired ‘indigenous’ people in that protest – I was really hoping one of the reporters would ask how they planned to send 7/8ths of themselves ‘home’ to Europe (or wherever their genetic material happens to have come from) along with the rest of us.

Dr Chris Burke implicated at by Gillard.

Postalgeek said :

Being 1/48 Saxon, I’ve seen this all before. Still haven’t received an apology from the Normans.

And you’re not getting an apology either.

Harold was a pussy 🙂

You think you were hard done by? Try Pictish ancestry for hardship… pushed into remote Wales & Scotland. The Saxons were not the Indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles!

Skyring 3 post Nutbag.

the law recognises to 1/8 Indigenous heritiage.

The commonwealth definintion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is (in no particular order):

1. Identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
2. Be accepted as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
3. Be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent

IrishPete said :

Skyring said :

[Look at the tent embassy people and you’ll see people of European ancestry. If it wasn’t for European settlement, they wouldn’t be alive at all. The thing is a fantasy.

Having said that, the need to work on things like education, health, life expectancy, respect and so on is critical. Not because of race, but because of humanity. All the treaties in the world won’t put a child in a remote desert camp into university – if they never make it out of infancy.

What a load of cobblers – are you reallly suggesting Indigenous Australians would not exist if invasion and dispossession had not taken place? Re-read what you’re written, cos that’s what you said.

Nope. I’m saying that without European occupation, Aboriginal Australians with European ancestry would not exist. That’s plain common sense.

IrishPete said :

Hand over that ownership and income stream to an indigenous body, while building in protection for existing occupiers (e.g. making the leases perpetual) and voila – problem solved.

Um. What problem?

pink little birdie said :

Regardless of which first world Indigenous health and societal (employment and education) outcomes you compare Australia’s Indigenous health and societal outcomes to Australia falls decided behind.

Depends which figures you choose, and the methodology used. For example, if you selectively ignore the urban-dwelling people who identify as Aboriginal on the census and instead count them into the general population when comparing the few thousand poor souls living in fringe and remote camps, then of course you can get really really bad figures.

Being 1/48 Saxon, I’ve seen this all before. Still haven’t received an apology from the Normans.

Wow. So many typos. The touchpad keyboard isn’t the easiest thing to use!

But they aren’t the original owners. Their ancestors were. They are long gone. I understand the idea that you’re putting forth, IP, but I don’t know if I agree that because your ancestors occupied something that you are therefore entitled to it as well. I suppose its hard for me to relate to because I’m not aboriginal. I can’t imagine going back to England and demanding my great, great, great, great, great grandfather’s land back because he was sent out to Australia forcibly. That’s the only thing I can really relate it to from personal experience.

The other issue I don’t understand is where is the line drawn? Apparently being 1/16 aboriginal makes you aboriginal, but being 15/16 white doesn’t make you white. So who would be included in such a treaty? If the overwhelming majority of your ancestry is not indigenous then you should you have any claim to be included in a possible treaty?

I do appreciate your examples, IP. As yet you’re the only person who has been able to show in practical terms how a treaty might work – something a had hoped would have been explored at the tent embassy on Australia day. Even the writings I’ve tracked down haven’t really explained clarified the demands of the tent embassy or the implications of them.

Just a little point Can we please stop making comparisons with Australian Aboriginal people and New Zealand’s Maori peoples. A much more accurate comparison is to the Canadian Aboriginal people.

The Maori was some what unified when the English people arrived. They had a a somewhat common language and culture and some technology in terms of weaponry.
Canada’s Aboriginal people however were a loose group of tribes speaking many different languages and many different cultures. However these people also have a treaty as both England and France were competing for the land (fur trade).

Regardless of which first world Indigenous health and societal (employment and education) outcomes you compare Australia’s Indigenous health and societal outcomes to Australia falls decided behind.

Yeah good idea. Sounds real neat and rosy with dappled sunshine and harmonious afternoon insects in perfect chorus….
You adopt that. Me? I believe that the people I have seen on TV in the last few days supporting the Australia Day farce and resulting follow-up are vindictive racists who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Respect flows both ways and they have shown none of that. not to the elected leaders of this land or the institutions that make it up. What would result would be inter tribe squabbling and the plummeting decline of this country.

For people wondering how indigenous ownership of land might work, consider the system in the ACT, where there is no freehold land, it is all leased from the government. Hand over that ownership and income stream to an indigenous body, while building in protection for existing occupiers (e.g. making the leases perpetual) and voila – problem solved.

For freehold land elsewhere, the same idea would also work, with a little more effort. Freehold would be converted to perpetual lease, and a small rent would be paid as with current leasehold land. The rent wouldn’t need to be high – a few dollars a year would add up, across Australia, to a significant income for the original owners. I’d envisage it being pegged to land value, like rates.

Again, the existing system of pastoral leases would probably be a model.

Would it require another government department? Well maybe, but more likely you’d hand this role over to the existing Aboriginal Lands Councils. Would you lose control over “your” property? Yes, a little, but the extent of loss of control would depend – I expect the day to day impact would be close to zero, except if you want to engage in a big development, e.g. trash an Aboriginal heritage site, or if you’re a miner. Not much different from the myriad of government departments that already regulate what you do with your land, you’d just be adding ne more stakeholder to the many existing ones.

You could do it individually, and I intend to do so with my freehold land – pay rent, and ask for a perpetual lease.

IP

Stevian said :

EvanJames said :

Hopefully this incident will finally see the closing of the squatters’ camp, AKA “tent embassy”. Disgusting.

Your attitude (and your not alone, I’m disgusted to be an Australian and must acknowledge racsist trash like you as a fellow citizen) indicates that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy is needed now more than ever.

Criticising something with Aboriginals associated with it is “racist”? What a strange way to think. Um, you do know what “thinking” is? Don’t you?

Skyring said :

IrishPete said :

Okay, let’s keep it simple. Sovereignty would mean a Treaty (like New Zealand). It might mean paying rent for the stolen land – lots of people already do (pastoralists) but they pay it to the governments, not to the original owners. It might mean giving indigenous peoples say (and that means the right to say yes/no, and negotiate terms) on the use of their land, especially mining. Think of the billions currently paid in welfare payments and provision of essential services, being rebadged as rent – “this isn’t a government handout, this is your compensation for dispossession”. It might make no difference except in terms of pride – but pride, AKA self-esteem, isn’t worthless, and it might just make a difference to the original Australians. It would definitely result in the voluntary dismantling of the tent embassy

Why would we make a treaty with ourselves? Looking at the census figures, the majority of self-identified Aboriginal Australians have European ancestry.

“Sovereignty” isn’t something that comes with genetic material, anyway. It’s about government. The sort of government that enables the people who sign a treaty to pass on the obligations after their death.

The sort of government that New Zealand has, where the Treaty of Waitangi is an honoured and respected binding legal document long after the deaths of all who signed it.

But where is the equivalent Aboriginal government able to trace back a structure, a continuity, a sovereign power from 1788 to the present day? Is government something that exists in genetic material, or does it require something more?

As to the treaty, that’s been around for a while. Search on “makarrata”: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1Vs9CHfU4kwJ:www.aiatsis.gov.au/collections/exhibitions/treaty/docs/nac/m0023749_a.rtf+makarrata+compensation&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=safari

There are various versions around, but they all demand treatment as an equal of the Commonwealth government, billions in compensation as a percentage of the GDP for at least 200 years, freehold title over all land vacant or occupied by Aboriginal Australians – including rental properties – and a body to administer it all.

The Tent Embassy might go, but it would be replaced with a government department about the size of all the others combined – just to untangle the legal difficulties.

And for what? Look at the tent embassy people and you’ll see people of European ancestry. If it wasn’t for European settlement, they wouldn’t be alive at all. The thing is a fantasy.

Having said that, the need to work on things like education, health, life expectancy, respect and so on is critical. Not because of race, but because of humanity. All the treaties in the world won’t put a child in a remote desert camp into university – if they never make it out of infancy.

What a load of cobblers – are you reallly suggesting Indigenous Australians would not exist if invasion and dispossession had not taken place? Re-read what you’re written, cos that’s what you said.

The Treaty of Waitangi was not signed between the British Government and the Maori Government, because there was no unified Maori government – it was signed “by various Maori chiefs” according to Wikipedia. Not much different from the various Indigenous Australian tribes, except that because it’s over 200 years late they’ve almost been wiped out. They idea that they should have to trace some sort of political continuity back to 1788 is the Native Title concept recycled – plain rubbish. And basically rewards non-indigenous Australia for its effectiveness in disposessing and eliminating them.

And I didn’t claim a treaty was my idea or new – it’s obviously been around for decades, in fact 172 years in New Zealand in just a few days from now. Possibly longer in some other colonised countries.

IP

Stevian said :

EvanJames said :

Hopefully this incident will finally see the closing of the squatters’ camp, AKA “tent embassy”. Disgusting.

Your attitude (and your not alone, I’m disgusted to be an Australian and must acknowledge racsist trash like you as a fellow citizen) indicates that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy is needed now more than ever.

And I’m disgusted that people like you label others as racist trash because they have different opinions to you. The fact that you think this somehow legitimises the continued existence of the tent embassy is pure fantasy.

EvanJames said :

Hopefully this incident will finally see the closing of the squatters’ camp, AKA “tent embassy”. Disgusting.

Your attitude (and your not alone, I’m disgusted to be an Australian and must acknowledge racsist trash like you as a fellow citizen) indicates that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy is needed now more than ever.

I-filed said :

He won’t lose his security clearance over this, because politico PR types do this sort of thing all the time – standard practice. It was just a wrong call on the day.

“Just a wrong call”?

If it was that, it was a staggering error of misjudgement to sic the tent embassy mob onto a function where both the Prime Minister and Opposition leader were present. The end result was that Julia was severely embarrassed and when she went looking for heads to kick she didn’t have to go too far.

But was it something more? Was it a deliberate misrepresentation of Tony Abbott’s statement about moving on from the attitudes of 40 years ago? Suggesting that he had called for the tent embassy to be moved when he had said no such thing was inflammatory. It would put Abbott on the defensive all day while Julia handed out awards and smiled for the cameras.

IrishPete said :

Interesting Nine News video footage – the cars appear to be being mobbed by camerapersons, not protesters. In fact, I struggled to spot any protesters near the cars, though there were plenty of uniformed people shouting at thin air and cameras.

Julia and Tony were hustled out of the side entrance to avoid the main entrance where the protesters were hammering on the windows. If there had been any protesters there, then they wouldn’t have gone that way. They would have gone out through the kitchen. Whatever was most secure.

According to statements by the protesters, they were expecting Julia and Tony to be escorted out the front to speak to them as equals.

IrishPete said :

Okay, let’s keep it simple. Sovereignty would mean a Treaty (like New Zealand). It might mean paying rent for the stolen land – lots of people already do (pastoralists) but they pay it to the governments, not to the original owners. It might mean giving indigenous peoples say (and that means the right to say yes/no, and negotiate terms) on the use of their land, especially mining. Think of the billions currently paid in welfare payments and provision of essential services, being rebadged as rent – “this isn’t a government handout, this is your compensation for dispossession”. It might make no difference except in terms of pride – but pride, AKA self-esteem, isn’t worthless, and it might just make a difference to the original Australians. It would definitely result in the voluntary dismantling of the tent embassy

Why would we make a treaty with ourselves? Looking at the census figures, the majority of self-identified Aboriginal Australians have European ancestry.

“Sovereignty” isn’t something that comes with genetic material, anyway. It’s about government. The sort of government that enables the people who sign a treaty to pass on the obligations after their death.

The sort of government that New Zealand has, where the Treaty of Waitangi is an honoured and respected binding legal document long after the deaths of all who signed it.

But where is the equivalent Aboriginal government able to trace back a structure, a continuity, a sovereign power from 1788 to the present day? Is government something that exists in genetic material, or does it require something more?

As to the treaty, that’s been around for a while. Search on “makarrata”: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1Vs9CHfU4kwJ:www.aiatsis.gov.au/collections/exhibitions/treaty/docs/nac/m0023749_a.rtf+makarrata+compensation&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=safari

There are various versions around, but they all demand treatment as an equal of the Commonwealth government, billions in compensation as a percentage of the GDP for at least 200 years, freehold title over all land vacant or occupied by Aboriginal Australians – including rental properties – and a body to administer it all.

The Tent Embassy might go, but it would be replaced with a government department about the size of all the others combined – just to untangle the legal difficulties.

And for what? Look at the tent embassy people and you’ll see people of European ancestry. If it wasn’t for European settlement, they wouldn’t be alive at all. The thing is a fantasy.

Having said that, the need to work on things like education, health, life expectancy, respect and so on is critical. Not because of race, but because of humanity. All the treaties in the world won’t put a child in a remote desert camp into university – if they never make it out of infancy.

pink little birdie said :

I think you’ll find that the main protest is about “the gap” that isn’t getting any smaller (Including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in urban enviroments) and the continuation of the NT intervention that is possibly being extended for another 10 years, Actual land rights not Native Title.

If this is responding to me, then I’d have to ask who mentioned Native Title? Native Title is a term and concept invented to deny land rights, not give them. Well, to give them, but in severely limited form, the exclusions being much more interesting than the inclusions. The media release you quote heavily implies that, with its dig at how Julia Gillard needs to demonstrate her continued ownership of the shoe etc. And Native Title mostly seems to line the pockets of lawyers.

The Tent Embassy has been there much longer than the “intervention” has been around, and much longer than “the gap” has been called that – they may have been the focus of this year’s Australia Day protest, but they’re not the only issues the Embassy is about.

But I suspect we are actually in “furious agreement”.

IP

Mysteryman said :

harvyk1 said :

Now if the question of me “invading” this country comes up, the question I then have is what country would I call my own? I have never lived anywhere else other than Australia, I was born here and unless something happens when I’m holidaying overseas I expect I will die here.

I totally agree. I was born here – I didn’t invade. I’m an Australian as anybody else is.

[nods] And consider the Dreamtime stories – what makes a character in one belong here? *Turning up*. You are here, therefore, you belong here, as far as the stories are concerned, and if Aboriginal culture is to be respected, the rules of these stories should be respected.

Oh, on flag burning: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd042.htm
relevant section:
=================================
“Other criminal offences that may be relevant if a Flag is burned

The absence of flag burning laws from Australian statute books does not mean that, in appropriate cases, no charges are available. For instance, Commonwealth, State and Territory criminal law includes public order offences and offensive or disorderly conduct offences. In answer to a question asked in Parliament in 1989, following an incident where the Flag was burned in the forecourt of Parliament House, Madam Speaker said:

It would appear that the only offences available are as follows: offensive behaviour contrary to section 546a of the Crimes Act 1900 of New South Wales in its application to the Australian Capital Territory; behaving in an offensive or disorderly manner contrary to section 12 of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act; and malicious damage to property by fire under section 128 of the Crimes Act 1900 if it could be established that the flag was burnt without the owner’s consent.

In the context of the above offences, offensive behaviour has been held by the courts to be conduct calculated to wound feelings, or arouse anger, resentment, disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person. While I personally think that the burning of an Australian flag was offensive, the nature of any response in such circumstances must be left to the discretion of the law enforcement officers in attendance, who are always mindful of the need not to provoke confrontation or violence. However, the offences I have just detailed may be of assistance to them if there is a similar occurrence in the future.

When the Flag was burned in Perth early in 2003, a charge of ‘disorderly conduct by creating a disturbance in St Georges Terrace, Perth, contrary to section 54 of the Police Act’ was laid against a youth who participated in setting fire to the flag.”

chow said :

Mysteryman said :

Interesting. Would you feel the same if non-indigenous people went and burnt an Aboriginal flag in front of the tent embassy?

Wouldn’t that be copyright infringement? Or an unauthorised sampling of one artists work to make another. Unlike most flags it is owned by an individual. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/fastfacts/aboriginalflag.html

How does burning something equate to violation of copyright? I’ve never heard of anyone being sued for burning a book or album.

#144 and #146 are probably reasonable assessments of the problems that are being raised by the saner members of the aboriginal community, but this particular group seem to think that grabbing the limelight in order to make provocative statements is a better approach. They should probably take a look at how that worked out for the Occupy movement, the Convoy of No Confidence, the G8 and G20 protesters, etc.

Hopefully this incident will finally see the closing of the squatters’ camp, AKA “tent embassy”. Disgusting.

I think you’ll find that the main protest is about “the gap” that isn’t getting any smaller (Including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in urban enviroments) and the continuation of the NT intervention that is possibly being extended for another 10 years, Actual land rights not Native Title.

Also this was on the Tent Embassies facebook page.

e Tent Embassy page: Announcement: Stolen shoe apology. A very formal handback ceremony due to the great importance, will be held to return the stolen shoe in return for the stolen land. In the meantime, julia will be provided a voucher for replacement footage only at specified shops. Footage from SBS and the ABC will not be acceptable as these providers may be too difficult to manipulate. No further mileage from the incident is to be made. Julia will be eligible to make a shoe title claim which will take approximately twenty years or more before this is seriously considered. This will be dependant on Julia being able to show continuous connection with the shoe. This may be difficult to prove as she will not have had the shoe for 20 years. Julia will also have to provide evidence she is a full-blooded shoe owner. Well aware of the mileage he would get out of this footage incident, Tony was willing cede sovereignty of the shoe without resistance, proving he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. In the spirit of reconciliation, Tony is offered a voucher to assist in costs to cover his crutch. Jamms Shoe Title Collective

Has the Win news footage been posted here yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_6J7Ayzu

Dilandach said :

So apparently one of the PM advisers has admitted to making the call to someone and letting them know where abbott was. He’s resigned.

I wonder how someone comes back from something like that. They’ll lose their security clearance and be unlikely to get it ever again. A job in the public service is probably unlikely.

Presumably they’d have to get a job in the private sector… oh the horror!

fabforty said :

I’m still not entirely sure what the Aboriginal protesters actually want.

Really, what is “sovereignty” anyway, and what would they get out of it that they don’t already have ? If someone sat down with them and said “OK, tell us what you want and we will give it to you” I doubt they would know where to begin. If they said “all the whiteys out” I think that most of the protesters I just saw would also disappear. There would be nothing but a few thousand people left in the country all looking at themselves in confusion and hearing nothing but the sound of crickets.

If we suddenly handed them the keys to Parliament House and said “it’s all yours, knock yourselves out” – what would they do with it ? They want land rights – but what do they want to do with them ?

Until this “mob” comes up with some valid demands, they cannot possibly be taken seriously.

Okay, let’s keep it simple. Sovereignty would mean a Treaty (like New Zealand). It might mean paying rent for the stolen land – lots of people already do (pastoralists) but they pay it to the governments, not to the original owners. It might mean giving indigenous peoples say (and that means the right to say yes/no, and negotiate terms) on the use of their land, especially mining. Think of the billions currently paid in welfare payments and provision of essential services, being rebadged as rent – “this isn’t a government handout, this is your compensation for dispossession”. It might make no difference except in terms of pride – but pride, AKA self-esteem, isn’t worthless, and it might just make a difference to the original Australians. It would definitely result in the voluntary dismantling of the tent embassy.

Or we can continue with failed racist policies and wonder why nothing changes. (Yes, current policy is racist – if a policy requires suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, then it is, by definition, racist).

IP

Dilandach said :

… They’ll lose their security clearance and be unlikely to get it ever again. A job in the public service is probably unlikely.

He won’t lose his security clearance over this, because politico PR types do this sort of thing all the time – standard practice. It was just a wrong call on the day.

Interesting Nine News video footage – the cars appear to be being mobbed by camerapersons, not protesters. In fact, I struggled to spot any protesters near the cars, though there were plenty of uniformed people shouting at thin air and cameras.

IP

PantsMan said :

gazket said :

212 years later they are still stealing people shoes.

Some of them have also graduated from university and know what possessive apostrophes and are plural pronouns are.

He could talking about people shoes as opposed to non-people shoes.

PantsMan said :

gazket said :

212 years later they are still stealing people shoes.

Some of them have also graduated from university and know what possessive apostrophes and are plural pronouns are.

Perhaps they better get busy educating their people if that’s the case. That is unless stealing shoes, threatening pollies and punching on with each other is a more pressing use of their time.

Funky1 said :

johnboy said :

And Canberra’s made the Wall Street Journal’s photo of the day.

I prefer the Bucket Head pic myself 🙂

Me too – presumably the kids are wearing them to protect their heads from Israeli Settler snipers…

IP

gazket said :

212 years later they are still stealing people shoes.

Some of them have also graduated from university and know what possessive apostrophes and are plural pronouns are.

Mysteryman said :

TheObserver said :

It is only a flag, and if you are prepared to tolerate the trivialisation of it on Australia Day as a form of chest beating faux national pride, then you have no right to complain if someone exercises their democratic right to burn it in protest. Perhaps if the Australian flag was treated with the respect it deserves by the boganesque chattering classes on the commercial event that has become Australia Day then others might give it more respect also. Burning a flag = freedom of speech. Is that not what Alan Jones and the rest of the Depends Brigade say they dont have?

Interesting. Would you feel the same if non-indigenous people went and burnt an Aboriginal flag in front of the tent embassy?

Wouldn’t that be copyright infringement? Or an unauthorised sampling of one artists work to make another. Unlike most flags it is owned by an individual. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/fastfacts/aboriginalflag.html

212 years later they are still stealing people shoes.

So apparently one of the PM advisers has admitted to making the call to someone and letting them know where abbott was. He’s resigned.

I wonder how someone comes back from something like that. They’ll lose their security clearance and be unlikely to get it ever again. A job in the public service is probably unlikely.

I’m still not entirely sure what the Aboriginal protesters actually want.

Really, what is “sovereignty” anyway, and what would they get out of it that they don’t already have ? If someone sat down with them and said “OK, tell us what you want and we will give it to you” I doubt they would know where to begin. If they said “all the whiteys out” I think that most of the protesters I just saw would also disappear. There would be nothing but a few thousand people left in the country all looking at themselves in confusion and hearing nothing but the sound of crickets.

If we suddenly handed them the keys to Parliament House and said “it’s all yours, knock yourselves out” – what would they do with it ? They want land rights – but what do they want to do with them ?

Until this “mob” comes up with some valid demands, they cannot possibly be taken seriously.

Mysteryman said :

TheObserver said :

For ffs. Burning a flag is not an offence – and for mine it is no less a desecration than draping a puke and booze stained one like a cape and chanting racist epithets, or wearing it all over your damn body and all over the car in a display of Oi Oi Oi shallowness.

It is only a flag, and if you are prepared to tolerate the trivialisation of it on Australia Day as a form of chest beating faux national pride, then you have no right to complain if someone exercises their democratic right to burn it in protest. Perhaps if the Australian flag was treated with the respect it deserves by the boganesque chattering classes on the commercial event that has become Australia Day then others might give it more respect also. Burning a flag = freedom of speech. Is that not what Alan Jones and the rest of the Depends Brigade say they dont have?

Interesting. Would you feel the same if non-indigenous people went and burnt an Aboriginal flag in front of the tent embassy?

You’re both right in the points you make. It is not a crime and it is possible to ignore it and not take offense when it occurs.

However, the offense that is taken when it occurs is real because it is a very strong symbol. Burning the flag might not be a crime, but it certainly isn’t going to help fix the anger that has flared up between sectors of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.

I agree with TheObserver’s comment that if we are going to take offence at flag burning we should also take offence at wearing the flag as a cape or using it to sow intolerance. You don’t see the Yanks wearing their flag as a cape because they respect it too much.

Mysteryman said :

TheObserver said :

For ffs. Burning a flag is not an offence – and for mine it is no less a desecration than draping a puke and booze stained one like a cape and chanting racist epithets, or wearing it all over your damn body and all over the car in a display of Oi Oi Oi shallowness.

It is only a flag, and if you are prepared to tolerate the trivialisation of it on Australia Day as a form of chest beating faux national pride, then you have no right to complain if someone exercises their democratic right to burn it in protest. Perhaps if the Australian flag was treated with the respect it deserves by the boganesque chattering classes on the commercial event that has become Australia Day then others might give it more respect also. Burning a flag = freedom of speech. Is that not what Alan Jones and the rest of the Depends Brigade say they dont have?

Interesting. Would you feel the same if non-indigenous people went and burnt an Aboriginal flag in front of the tent embassy?

Exactly.

Respect for these protesters: zero. They should shut the hell up before they do any more damage to the Aboriginal cause.

Yes. I would feel the same. There is no respect for flags in Australia. Sure, they should not be burned. Either should they be worn as apparel – draped across your shoulders, on a T-shirt etc – read the US Flag Code if you want to know about how a flag ought be respected. But if the bogans are not prepared to respect the Australian Flag – why should the Kooris?

What I don’t understand and what makes me a trifle confused is that if the crowd was angry with Abbott why didn’t the security just remove Abbott first. It would have been easier and should have dissapated the tension. Then it should have been easier enough and safer to remove Gillard later. It may even have been possible for the event they were attending to continue sans Abbott.

Could be an interesting night.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/aboriginal-protesters–torch-australian-flag-outside-parliament-20120127-1ql0z.html

Arsehats. To hell with the lot of them.

TheObserver said :

For ffs. Burning a flag is not an offence – and for mine it is no less a desecration than draping a puke and booze stained one like a cape and chanting racist epithets, or wearing it all over your damn body and all over the car in a display of Oi Oi Oi shallowness.

It is only a flag, and if you are prepared to tolerate the trivialisation of it on Australia Day as a form of chest beating faux national pride, then you have no right to complain if someone exercises their democratic right to burn it in protest. Perhaps if the Australian flag was treated with the respect it deserves by the boganesque chattering classes on the commercial event that has become Australia Day then others might give it more respect also. Burning a flag = freedom of speech. Is that not what Alan Jones and the rest of the Depends Brigade say they dont have?

Interesting. Would you feel the same if non-indigenous people went and burnt an Aboriginal flag in front of the tent embassy?

For ffs. Burning a flag is not an offence – and for mine it is no less a desecration than draping a puke and booze stained one like a cape and chanting racist epithets, or wearing it all over your damn body and all over the car in a display of Oi Oi Oi shallowness.

It is only a flag, and if you are prepared to tolerate the trivialisation of it on Australia Day as a form of chest beating faux national pride, then you have no right to complain if someone exercises their democratic right to burn it in protest. Perhaps if the Australian flag was treated with the respect it deserves by the boganesque chattering classes on the commercial event that has become Australia Day then others might give it more respect also. Burning a flag = freedom of speech. Is that not what Alan Jones and the rest of the Depends Brigade say they dont have?

awj said :

I think they are lucky they are in australia.

In most other countries threatening behaviour that close to the countries leader would get you shot.

Interesting point.

I imagine that a gang of protesters who attempted to run up to Vladimir Putin’s car and give it a good thumping would have severely reduced lifespan expectations.

And even in The Land Of the Free, do you think a guy in a loincloth carrying a spear would get within 50 yards of Obama without the secret service bringing out the firepower? Really, what was that dude thinking? Would a gang of idiots be able to bang on his car without any consequences?

Weirdly, it appears that the only good thing to come out of this sorry debacle is the tolerance shown by the cops and those in power.

harvyk1 said :

matt31221 said :

I am sick of this BS. This is AUSTRALIAN LAND now. We all are Australian citizens.

This one group of indigenous protesters are more racist then ever. They call ‘the whites’ the invaders instead of pulling us all together in unity they make division.

I do sort of have to agree, the events of 1788 was not something I was personally involved in (and the people who are complaining either for that matter), and I’ve lived here all my life as have my parents.

Now if the question of me “invading” this country comes up, the question I then have is what country would I call my own? I have never lived anywhere else other than Australia, I was born here and unless something happens when I’m holidaying overseas I expect I will die here.

I’m not going to state that Australia’s history with the aboriginal people has been perfect. But I consider myself as equally Australian as them (and no, I shouldn’t need to be using that word). This notation that we can’t be one people, with different histories but all with a common country is complete BS…

I totally agree. I was born here – I didn’t invade. I’m an Australian as anybody else is.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/aboriginal-protesters–torch-australian-flag-outside-parliament-20120127-1ql0z.html

This is just frigging great (not). All we need now is a bunch of hoons seeing this, taking offence at the buring of the Australian flag, and rip down past the Tent Embassy in a car festooned with Australian flags and an ATSI flag burning.

They’d better have a bunch of police at Old Parliament House, not to arrest anyone, but to make sure there won’t be any tit for tat attacks.

This has put back the cause of indigenous rights by 50 years and created a lot of sympathy for the PM, Government and Opposition. We are one lunatic with a gun away from a Gabrielle Giffens situation, though I hope to God that never happens.

matt31221 said :

I am sick of this BS. This is AUSTRALIAN LAND now. We all are Australian citizens.

This one group of indigenous protesters are more racist then ever. They call ‘the whites’ the invaders instead of pulling us all together in unity they make division.

I do sort of have to agree, the events of 1788 was not something I was personally involved in (and the people who are complaining either for that matter), and I’ve lived here all my life as have my parents.

Now if the question of me “invading” this country comes up, the question I then have is what country would I call my own? I have never lived anywhere else other than Australia, I was born here and unless something happens when I’m holidaying overseas I expect I will die here.

I’m not going to state that Australia’s history with the aboriginal people has been perfect. But I consider myself as equally Australian as them (and no, I shouldn’t need to be using that word). This notation that we can’t be one people, with different histories but all with a common country is complete BS…

I think they are lucky they are in australia.

In most other countries threatening behaviour that close to the countries leader would get you shot.

some of those lads in Nash’s photo don’t look like specimens of good health….

I am sick of this BS. This is AUSTRALIAN LAND now. We all are Australian citizens.

This one group of indigenous protesters are more racist then ever. They call ‘the whites’ the invaders instead of pulling us all together in unity they make division.

According to the news.com.au mob, the protestors say that Julia can submit a title claim for her shoe.

But that could take 20 years…

The prized shoe.
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/01/27/2919286/shoe729.jpg

I personally think the police acted badly not making an example and arresting someone. A few fired up Indiginous representatives have inadvertantly caused other people to look at indiginous australians in a different light. I’m thinking not the best move for the cause. They should have at least detained and shamed someone. Possibly the guy in the red cap. (See photo)

It gets better:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-27/protesters-march-on-parliament-house/3796988

All this “us” and “them” talk means this “me” won’t be voting for “them”. When “they” do something about the chronic kiddie diddling and substance abuse and take some responsibilty for the welfare dependent nature of the thrid world outback outposts I will re-evaluate.

Dilandach said :

NoImRight said :

After you Master of Vague Innuendo.

Fair enough if you want me to spell it out.

Would we have taken action if it was a bunch of bogans/yobos? Absolutely, we have repeatedly in the past.

Whenever it comes to any ‘minority’ they don’t seem to be held to or hold themselves to the same standard.

You dont want to add anymore heresay and conjecture to this? Im a little let down. Your last two paras on the previous post suggested an enticing world of conspiracy and closed ranks based on darn furriners being so gosh darned furrin.I especially liked your double standards over the Cronulla rioters first being provoked, then hunted by Middle Easterners but then hurrah the Upstanding Community dobs them in.A Good Thing even they they Arent To Blame.The use of vague examples that can neither be proven nor disproven to back up the furriness of furriners had some real potential.Never mind…

So who won the shoe ?
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/01/27/2919864/art-gillardebay.jpg

Looks to me they worship the shoe of Gillard!!!
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/01/27/2919286/shoe729-420×0.jpg

astrojax said :

RegGrundies said :

Bulldoze it and chuck a plaque there “commemorating it” (should’ve been done decades ago)

The Ngunnawal people themselves have been trying to get rid of it for yonks sparking fueds amongst the Aboriginals themselves

it isn’t about local indigenous politics, situated as it is in the parliamentary – not ‘act’ – triangle, so it isn’t at all surprising the ngunnawal haven’t had much influence in shifting the tent embassy.

as for today’s events – wasn’t there, haven’t really heard about the ‘facts’, but suggest that as it is the 40th anniversary and lots of extra tents up and people about, don’t necessarily imagine it was the general staffers of the embassy at fault but indigenous factions there for the day’s events. so not necessarily an indictment on the embassy. as i said, said from an uninformed pov…

Was talking to a woman last night who was there and she seemed to be of the opinion that “rent-a-crowd” and an “occupy” group that had come up from Melbourne were the main offenders.

NoImRight said :

After you Master of Vague Innuendo.

Fair enough if you want me to spell it out.

Would we have taken action if it was a bunch of bogans/yobos? Absolutely, we have repeatedly in the past.

Whenever it comes to any ‘minority’ they don’t seem to be held to or hold themselves to the same standard.

Muttsybignuts said :

Do you reckon they snuck a quick kiss in the back of the car?

had been wondering that – over-zealous [wo]man-handling of the pm to get his hands on her..? maybe jules likes it rough?

as for the pm’s and abbott’s scheduling, who was the goose who allowed them both to be within 50m of a celebration on australia day of a significant anniversary of an institution protesting white settlement and the subsequent ramifications thereof..? does no-one in these places think??

Dilandach said :

NoImRight said :

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

TheObserver said :

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted. IMHO Australia Day is pretty much a waste of time and has been ‘branded’ to the point of having the approximate depth of a car park puddle and seems to stem from a deeply held fear amongst the bogan elites – the true chattering classes that the rest of the world might not have heard we’re good at sport or fighting other people’s wars.

This is a good point. The question we need to ask is whether such hypothetical protesters would have been arrested.

In my example, the wider community helped identify a lot of those at the cronulla riots. A lot were arrested and charged. So yes, if it were a bunch of yobos they would be identified and arrested based on past events.

The middle eastern community wasn’t as forth coming with the identifications though for those in their community who participated in the retributions.

Says it all really.

Yes your post does say something all right.

Well go ahead and say it then.

After you Master of Vague Innuendo.

fgzk said :

Jethro….. Merle has worked out what the Tent Embassy has been about for the last 40 years. Sovereignty.

Merle “Did you see their little media conference? They’re ‘asserting sovereignty’ *eye roll*

I don’t see that the Tent Embassy has been about anything for at least the last ten years. What has it achieved recently? Not the indigenous community – the Tent Embassy itself.

fgzk said :

Jethro….. Merle has worked out what the Tent Embassy has been about for the last 40 years. Sovereignty.

Merle “Did you see their little media conference? They’re ‘asserting sovereignty’ *eye roll*

You obviously seem to be pretty down with the Tent Embassy. Can you explain to me what they mean by “sovereignty” in practical terms? What exactly is it that they want, and how does that look in their mind in terms of legal and policital implications, or even day-to-day implications?

I attended the event hoping to learn some more about what those involved believe and what it is they are campaigning for. What I witnessed and heard led me to believe that most of them don’t really know themselves.

NoImRight said :

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

TheObserver said :

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted. IMHO Australia Day is pretty much a waste of time and has been ‘branded’ to the point of having the approximate depth of a car park puddle and seems to stem from a deeply held fear amongst the bogan elites – the true chattering classes that the rest of the world might not have heard we’re good at sport or fighting other people’s wars.

This is a good point. The question we need to ask is whether such hypothetical protesters would have been arrested.

In my example, the wider community helped identify a lot of those at the cronulla riots. A lot were arrested and charged. So yes, if it were a bunch of yobos they would be identified and arrested based on past events.

The middle eastern community wasn’t as forth coming with the identifications though for those in their community who participated in the retributions.

Says it all really.

Yes your post does say something all right.

Well go ahead and say it then.

Jethro….. Merle has worked out what the Tent Embassy has been about for the last 40 years. Sovereignty.

Merle “Did you see their little media conference? They’re ‘asserting sovereignty’ *eye roll*

johnboy said :

And Canberra’s made the Wall Street Journal’s photo of the day.

I prefer the Bucket Head pic myself 🙂

All of the kerfuffle could have been avoided if the AFP had waved dole cheques and longnecks at the protesters.

And they could have burned down the tent embassy too.

Skyring said :

yellowsnow said :

I’ll bet that right now they aren’t bemoaning a public relations failure. They are congratulating themselves on having successfully defended their land and planning some stunt to capture the attention of the media crews who will now show up looking for follow up stories and soundbites. Burn a flag or take a collective dump on the steps of the High Court or something equally productive.

Did you see their little media conference? They’re ‘asserting sovereignty’ *eye roll*

Do you reckon they snuck a quick kiss in the back of the car?

For mine it never seems to be Australia Day without there being a controversy, an inflamation in the media inciting some sort of us and them tripe – although how the majority anglo population react to it is very different. The issue is one of race and the seemingly impossible task of convincing everyone, whiteys, blacks, yellows, browns and all other permuatations and variations in between there is only one race – the human race. Odds on in either what happened yesterday or in my hypothetical arrests would not be made in the real public interest of not inflaming the matter further – but you’d get the usual tarring of everyone with the same brush horseshit that passes for public discourse these days. What happened at the Lobby was an utter disgrace – but it was utterly avoidable with some forward planning. And as usual it has turned out to be a media circus and the usually sensible debate on the Riot Act descending to the subterranean intellect of an Andrew Bolt blog. Oi, oi, oi. I really couldnt give a stuff whether the embassy stays or goes. In neither circumstance will it lead to any improvement in the lot of those of our fellow Australians who live in Third World conditions, with Third World mortality rates and the best we seem to be able to do is chuck money at it in the hope it will all go away or advocate that because the money has been thrown at it they somehow should be grateful, and it should all go away. Australian Aboriginal Policy: Epic Fail since 27 January 1788.

Did the security people do the right thing? How would I know, I was not present doing the initial risk assessment, and for all I know they followed their evacuation plan to the letter, the fact that both protected persons are ok is testament to that.

I personally think that someone who does such things for a living is in a much better position to make calls on that sort of thing than a bunch of pretty much anonymous forum entries.

As for the actions of the protesters, we have a right to peaceful protest, however the actions from yesterday’s protest hardly fit the profile of peaceful. I somewhat expect that race is playing a big part in the polices decision to not press charges. I expect that had I done the same thing as a white male, I would be spending at least a night in the lockup.

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

TheObserver said :

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted. IMHO Australia Day is pretty much a waste of time and has been ‘branded’ to the point of having the approximate depth of a car park puddle and seems to stem from a deeply held fear amongst the bogan elites – the true chattering classes that the rest of the world might not have heard we’re good at sport or fighting other people’s wars.

This is a good point. The question we need to ask is whether such hypothetical protesters would have been arrested.

In my example, the wider community helped identify a lot of those at the cronulla riots. A lot were arrested and charged. So yes, if it were a bunch of yobos they would be identified and arrested based on past events.

The middle eastern community wasn’t as forth coming with the identifications though for those in their community who participated in the retributions.

Says it all really.

Yes your post does say something all right.

G-Fresh said :

The eBay user posting her shoe for sale should be charged for public nuisance

Actually they should be charged with selling stolen property…

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

TheObserver said :

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted. IMHO Australia Day is pretty much a waste of time and has been ‘branded’ to the point of having the approximate depth of a car park puddle and seems to stem from a deeply held fear amongst the bogan elites – the true chattering classes that the rest of the world might not have heard we’re good at sport or fighting other people’s wars.

This is a good point. The question we need to ask is whether such hypothetical protesters would have been arrested.

In my example, the wider community helped identify a lot of those at the cronulla riots. A lot were arrested and charged. So yes, if it were a bunch of yobos they would be identified and arrested based on past events.

The middle eastern community wasn’t as forth coming with the identifications though for those in their community who participated in the retributions.

Says it all really.

G-Fresh said :

The eBay user posting her shoe for sale should be charged for public nuisance

I reckon theft, they know who owns it, they are not making any attempts to return and have stated point blank they will not return it, even if she (Gillard) ask’s for it back.

Buzz

RoyBatty said :

NoImRight said :

Since we a number of experts here on crowd control and protective security measures Im wondering if they could perhaps share what their background is in this field that provides this expertise and where they were on the scene to make these sorts of informed judgements?

What’s your field of expertise other than grammar and punctuation? there seems to be a few groups:
1. Police over reacted – a minority and seemingly deluded about how to protest in a modern democracy
2. Police should have bunkered down in a glass walled restaurant with many entrances dragging the attendees of the award ceremony into the fracas
3. Police took the best option and exited before any more ring ins turned up and escalated the farce into a potential tragedy.

I hold the latter position although I believe some baton wielding was justified.

I dont claim to have any in this field so Im not sure how your question relates? I was more curious at those that were decrying the supposed stupid decisons made by AFP et al. Im always reluctant to criticise an expert in their particular area without strong reasons (very easy to look stupid otherwise) so was eager to know on what basis the critics were making their decisions.

In my completely inexpert opinion I agree with you. Option 3 makes sense to me. 😉

TheObserver said :

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted.

Actually taking the Cronulla riots as an example, it was made out that it was the nasty white man who were picking on minorities and had just decided to protest for no particular reason. Very few acknowledge what the catalyst was middle eastern youths assaulting life guards (I mean who does that?) nor the aftermath where the retribution far exceeded what was dished out during the riots.

But of course, only whitey can be racist. Only whitey can perpetuate hate crimes.

Its time to drop this one law for some and one law for others, we all live in the same country and we should all be expected to follow the same rules.

TheObserver said :

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted. IMHO Australia Day is pretty much a waste of time and has been ‘branded’ to the point of having the approximate depth of a car park puddle and seems to stem from a deeply held fear amongst the bogan elites – the true chattering classes that the rest of the world might not have heard we’re good at sport or fighting other people’s wars.

This is a good point. The question we need to ask is whether such hypothetical protesters would have been arrested.

The eBay user posting her shoe for sale should be charged for public nuisance

I suppose if it had been a pack of drunken yobbos emblazoned in Aussie Flags (all made in China) yelling Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi outside a mosque because of something Hilaly had said we might not be so affronted. IMHO Australia Day is pretty much a waste of time and has been ‘branded’ to the point of having the approximate depth of a car park puddle and seems to stem from a deeply held fear amongst the bogan elites – the true chattering classes that the rest of the world might not have heard we’re good at sport or fighting other people’s wars.

NoImRight said :

Since we a number of experts here on crowd control and protective security measures Im wondering if they could perhaps share what their background is in this field that provides this expertise and where they were on the scene to make these sorts of informed judgements?

What’s your field of expertise other than grammar and punctuation? there seems to be a few groups:
1. Police over reacted – a minority and seemingly deluded about how to protest in a modern democracy
2. Police should have bunkered down in a glass walled restaurant with many entrances dragging the attendees of the award ceremony into the fracas
3. Police took the best option and exited before any more ring ins turned up and escalated the farce into a potential tragedy.

I hold the latter position although I believe some baton wielding was justified.

Haw of Babble-On said :

The folk who live at the tent embassy are pretty quiet, keep to themselves and keep it (fairly) tidy

Not sure about that – last week there was an ACT Government ute there and a govt employee in fluoro cleaning up a big pile of rubbish from next to one of the tents.

Since we a number of experts here on crowd control and protective security measures Im wondering if they could perhaps share what their background is in this field that provides this expertise and where they were on the scene to make these sorts of informed judgements?

wow what a disgrace. Bulldoze the slum. I can’t believe I am agreeing with Abbott on anything but it is time to move on an address the chronic self-inflicted systemic health and abuse issues that occur on land owned and operated by Indigenous people. The Tents do nothing for this nor do the white trash that seemed to be making up a large percentage of people banging on the windows.

Funniest thing for me was seeing the spearman smashed 3 feet backwards after spitting on the Fed. You idiot.

DermottBanana said :

Look Canberra, I’ma gunna let you finish, but I gotta say that EVERYWHERE had a better riot than this….

In which country anywhere does banging on windows and yelling constitute a riot? Our media are, as always, making a mountain out of a molehill.

LOL too true!

Apparently there was a large crowd, but only a small group of window-bangers at the front. Julia’s security obviously went into overdrive and they’re clearly very poorly trained. What kind of security officer actually manages to trip up the person they’re supposed to be protecting?

Not much of a riot, but a helpful dry run nonetheless. At least it’s highlighted the weaknesses in security, and they might get some training in securing the prime minister’s person in an upright condition in case she’s ever genuinely threatened.

Shadow boxer nice try at stretching this to a possible political assassination attempt. “What if” a protester suddenly decided he wanted to be a gunman and reached into the police lines too liberate a Glock. Well I suppose another gunman would have shot him dead. Its what gunman do, shoot each other and anyone that gets in the way. Protesters shout and bang things for the media.

I-filed said :

Mysteryman said :

I was at the tent embassy meeting and I can say without doubt that the comments made by the organisers/speakers were far more inflammatory, aggressive and controversial than anything said by our elected officials. I’m not surprised that a mob surrounded/attacked the building that the PM and opposition leader were in, considering the tone of the meeting and some of the things being said.

I went to an Australian Government Arts Office funded festival in a regional town near Canberra a couple of years ago. I paid to attend a govt- funded “Indigenous culture walk” run by an Indigenous man from northern Victoria. He in all seriousness and at length described all white Australians as “all just weeds on the Australian landscape who should be got rid of”. The leftie rainbow group that made up the rest of the walkers meekly accepted this and didn’t protest. I saw the same man among the rabble on the TV footage.

dont you know its only racist when a white person is speaking?

The folk who live at the tent embassy are pretty quiet, keep to themselves and keep it (fairly) tidy, it’s the groupies and hangers-on who seem to cause all the trouble. There’s a lot of flash cars parked all over and through the Rose Gardens today and plenty of rainbow hippy types no doubt wondering whether you can smoke dried up rose petals while they wait for the next opportunity to get hysterical about something. I do think the tent embassy is past its prime, but it’s the blow-ins who do the worst PR damage.

Wonder if they’ll let me on the bouncy castle they have there though.

shadow boxer said :

Deary me,

Do they not have an advance party for these sort of functions, you know someone that might have recce’d the area and said whats that over there ? a large group of people with a grudge against our politicians having a party with lots of hangers on in town and drinking heavily. Maybe we should set up a perimiter

We are probably lucky this was a bunch of drunken idiots and not someone set on serious harm. What was the plan if someone walked up to the window and drew a gun.

there must be some very embarressed security staff around today.

I can’t speak for yesterday, I wasn’t there.

But I have been to a number of other functions at the tent embassy and they are *very* strict about their no booze policy.

Looks like the angry mob is planning to sell Julia’s sole on eBay: http://www.news.com.au/national/mob-sinks-slipper-into-nations-day/story-e6frfkvr-1226254820835

Kevin Rudd is a sure bidder, but he wants the other one to step into as well.

And Canberra’s made the Wall Street Journal’s photo of the day.

buzz819 said :

I’m gonna say, the photo with the PM close to her “body guard” with the riot shield next to her is set off beautifully by Abott’s funny look in the background, he looks like he is about to get thrown over backwards by his body guard.

I’m just waiting for someone to put the appalling song from the Bodyguard movie to the footage. Julia being dragged down the stairs to the droning of “And IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII will always love youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu” would be hilarious.

And Mt Rabbit seemed to be enjoying himself.

Deary me,

Do they not have an advance party for these sort of functions, you know someone that might have recce’d the area and said whats that over there ? a large group of people with a grudge against our politicians having a party with lots of hangers on in town and drinking heavily. Maybe we should set up a perimiter

We are probably lucky this was a bunch of drunken idiots and not someone set on serious harm. What was the plan if someone walked up to the window and drew a gun.

there must be some very embarressed security staff around today.

I’m gonna say, the photo with the PM close to her “body guard” with the riot shield next to her is set off beautifully by Abott’s funny look in the background, he looks like he is about to get thrown over backwards by his body guard.

Look Canberra, I’ma gunna let you finish, but I gotta say that EVERYWHERE had a better riot than this….

In which country anywhere does banging on windows and yelling constitute a riot? Our media are, as always, making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ahh Australia. Perfect one day Riotous the next.

Merle said :

Postalgeek said :

Yeeah, let’s get the full story first.

And from what I understand, having a bite to eat at the Lobby after making a controversial suggestion to move the embassy on the day extra crowds come to the Embassy to mark it turning 40 takes a special kind of smarts.

They weren’t having a bite to eat, they were at an awards ceremony. I doubt someone got up in the morning, heard Abbott’s interview and made the impromptu decision that they really felt like having the ceremony at the Lobby today.

And quite frankly, this is a civillised country. Politicians should be allowed to express reasonable opinions (you might not agree with what he said, but it wasn’t unreasonable) and not have to go into hiding for fear of riots.

Abbott’s statement didn’t phase me. I said it was controversial, which it was.

And I too also doubt ‘someone got up in the morning, heard Abbott’s interview and made the impromptu decision that they really felt like having the ceremony at the Lobby today’.

On the other hand, someone might’ve got up weeks ago, realised they were sticking the PM and the Opposition Leader less than a hundred meters away from an innundated tent embassy on its 40th anniversary, and made an impromptu decision.

As for ‘Politicians should be allowed to express reasonable opinions’, well, children shouldn’t be bullied and people shouldn’t dump stuff at charity bins, but sadly that’s not the way of the world.

Mr Abbott said he understood why the tent embassy was set up “all those years ago”.

“I think a lot has changed for the better since then,” he told reporters.

“I think the indigenous people of Australia can be very proud of the respect in which they are held by every Australian.

“I think a lot has changed since then, and I think it probably is time to move on from that.”

If the leader of the opposition cannot make a simple, non-threatening, and measured comment like that, then in what value do we hold democracy in this country?

yellowsnow said :

As for Protective Services – who in their right mind decided to take the PM through the mob? Staying in the restaurant surely would have been the better solution from a tactical perspective. If these are the same people protecting the PM from would-be-terrorists, I’m seriously worried.

Staying in the restaurant? For how long? An hour, two? a day? Would the rabble have left or grown in numbers while becoming more volatile? How long until some drongo had broken one of the many and large windows both upping the ante and providing the crowd with lots of stabby bits?

So protective services should have kept her in there until things boiled over and the rabble gathered up the numbers/temper to storm inside? What then? Out come the guns and clubs and no matter how violent the protesters you could guarantee that it would be twisted to be called a massacre (even if one person died) and used in full effect against the police, protective services, both sides of politics and Australia as a whole.

Protective services made the right call, you don’t keep someone in a besieged location just waiting for something to go down.

yellowsnow said :

As for Protective Services – who in their right mind decided to take the PM through the mob? Staying in the restaurant surely would have been the better solution from a tactical perspective. If these are the same people protecting the PM from would-be-terrorists, I’m seriously worried.

Apparently they were worried that the people outside were pushing on the windows hard enough that they were likely to shatter. The situation would then have become very difficult, not least for the protesters. If the hero with the spear had looked like he was going to use it on Julia or Tony, he would have found himself the focus of immediate attention from “the gunmen”.

My beef here is twofold. First is the disruption to public events of community and celebration. Not just the function for the emergency services, but events such as concerts, art displays, weddings and even picnics on the grass. It’s prime public land and should be enjoyed by all. In other places it wouldn’t be open parkland, it would be government buildings or car parks. Instead we have a beautiful vista intended for events of national importance and general community use.

Secondly, public political protests are usually over in a few days. After a week, everyone has heard the message, the media has written their stories, the thing is old hat, time to move on and give someone else a go. Why don’t the activists take their show on the road? A new city each week, a new set of media, a new chance to engage community debate.

But no, they are stuck in the past, protesting against the McMahon government’s policies, wedded to a site that they can never hope to own in any legal sense, unwilling to admit defeat.

I’ll bet that right now they aren’t bemoaning a public relations failure. They are congratulating themselves on having successfully defended their land and planning some stunt to capture the attention of the media crews who will now show up looking for follow up stories and soundbites. Burn a flag or take a collective dump on the steps of the High Court or something equally productive.

[blinks]
So – our opposition leader suggests “moving on” – and gets a riot for it…
Our PM is told by security that she needs to be extracted – and makes sure that her biggest political enemy is gotten to safety as well.
[grins]
I haven’t been proud of both a PM and OL on the same day in..oh, not since last century. Good stuff both of them!
Still, given the rants about ‘invasion day’, parhaps there is a need for ‘respecting’ of Aboriginal customs – how about allowing Walgulu, Ngarigo and Wirradjuri(Ngunnawal) tribes to spear tresspassers from other tribes? It’s a bit rich going on about ‘this is our land’ when they’re on a different tribe’s land, after all.

Mysteryman said :

I was at the tent embassy meeting and I can say without doubt that the comments made by the organisers/speakers were far more inflammatory, aggressive and controversial than anything said by our elected officials. I’m not surprised that a mob surrounded/attacked the building that the PM and opposition leader were in, considering the tone of the meeting and some of the things being said.

I went to an Australian Government Arts Office funded festival in a regional town near Canberra a couple of years ago. I paid to attend a govt- funded “Indigenous culture walk” run by an Indigenous man from northern Victoria. He in all seriousness and at length described all white Australians as “all just weeds on the Australian landscape who should be got rid of”. The leftie rainbow group that made up the rest of the walkers meekly accepted this and didn’t protest. I saw the same man among the rabble on the TV footage.

There was talk about closing the scum down a few weeks ago after a mini siege at the tent embassy. No body rioted then. It’s the blowins causing trouble. The Government should have the balls to evict them once and for all. The occupy Sydney protest got moved on by the riot squad people were even beaten by the police and arrested . So how is the embassy any different from that. How were there no arrests today I will never know. Get in there and kick there arses and lock’em up.

If a mob from a real embassy attacked the PM the entire embassy staff would be kicked out, our embassy in their country would be emptied and everyone brought home and there would be talk of military retaliation. There might even be rioters detained by the military as prisoners of war.

It would be serious shizznat.

But yeah the trent embassy people are misunderstood and still being treated badly. Why must security officers have guns?

yellowsnow said :

As for Protective Services – who in their right mind decided to take the PM through the mob? Staying in the restaurant surely would have been the better solution from a tactical perspective. If these are the same people protecting the PM from would-be-terrorists, I’m seriously worried.

Nope. Have a look at the footage of the cops talking to Julia. They were concerned about the crowd getting inside, either by breaking down the windows or through the door. If that had happened, as I said in an earlier post, it would’ve been very bad for everybody involved.

This is terrible. As a result of this riot the bulldozers will now surely move in, raze the embassy to the ground and then sell the land to the highest bidder. Perfect spot for glitzy McMansions or apartments or offices for high flying advisors and lobbyists.

I bet that’s the first thing that went threw Andrew Barr’s mind – he’s probably rubbing his hands and courting developers as we speak. His secret vision to turn Canberra into an overdeveloped distopia without schools, green spaces or a newspaper (with all news reported via twitter and cleared through him) is one step closer to reality.

One a more serious note – unbelievable how many people (incl journos) are attempting to justify clearly inexcusable (not to mention criminal) behaviour by the protesters by blaming, as they always do, Tony Abbott. Geez. Stop making excuses for a bunch of loser thugs and their professional leftist activist mates (hey, i used to be one of them and in the 90s involved in some similarly ugly protests/riots, so i know how it works and the kind of people involved and their motivations).

As for Protective Services – who in their right mind decided to take the PM through the mob? Staying in the restaurant surely would have been the better solution from a tactical perspective. If these are the same people protecting the PM from would-be-terrorists, I’m seriously worried.

fgzk said :

“Australia day” is the day we celebrate the arrival of gunmen to our shores. Its fitting that we see gunmen man handle our PM and the call goes up to wipe out an Aboriginal camp. Send in the gunman. Does it get any better than that. Australia Day, brought to you by gunman. Compliance is mandatory.

Gun, gun, gun, gunman, gunman, gunman, gunmen, gunmen, gunmen….

Yawn. As Mr Abbott suggested in another context, I think it’s time to move on.

Or to put it another way, I think you really need to work on getting over your unhealthy obsession with guns. If you keep posting stuff like this in a public forum, particularly in a thread related to threats against the two most senior public figures in the country, you’ll have to start keeping an eye out for black helicopters flying over your house.

They really are out there, you know…with their guns…and their probes…

fgzk said :

“Australia day” is the day we celebrate the arrival of gunmen to our shores. Its fitting that we see gunmen man handle our PM and the call goes up to wipe out an Aboriginal camp. Send in the gunman. Does it get any better than that. Australia Day, brought to you by gunman. Compliance is mandatory.

That’s odd. I celebrate all the great things about this country, and the things that make it unique. You should try that instead

I was at the tent embassy meeting and I can say without doubt that the comments made by the organisers/speakers were far more inflammatory, aggressive and controversial than anything said by our elected officials. I’m not surprised that a mob surrounded/attacked the building that the PM and opposition leader were in, considering the tone of the meeting and some of the things being said.

Just when you thought Mully had a “Housing affordability problem”, along comes the Tent Embassy.

Although the “keep posting folks” seems to negate my rant.

I-filed said :

Keep posting folks – it will be very interesting to see whether JB has the chops to award the Mully to the Tent Embassy! : )

Seriously.. why can’t people understand what the Mully is?

It’s simple… most discussion in the month gets warded the Mully. It’s not about stupidity, or ignorance, or anger in the community. It’s what gets the comments flowing on the website.

Learn the rules people!!!

fgzk said :

“Australia day” is the day we celebrate the arrival of gunmen to our shores. Its fitting that we see gunmen man handle our PM and the call goes up to wipe out an Aboriginal camp. Send in the gunman. Does it get any better than that. Australia Day, brought to you by gunman. Compliance is mandatory.

You aren’t helping your cause.

Our Prime Minister & the Leader of the Opposition were virtually held hostage and rescued by AFP security having to run a gauntlet to escape. The demagogue who incited the mob to go to The Lobby should be charged with an offence such as inciting a riot. Both parties could jointly request this charge as the incident was an affront to the dignity of both offices.
I congratulate the AFP & security on a very difficult task & hope they receive recognition next year.

Keep posting folks – it will be very interesting to see whether JB has the chops to award the Mully to the Tent Embassy! : )

RegGrundies said :

Bulldoze it and chuck a plaque there “commemorating it” (should’ve been done decades ago)

Yeh, I’ve always hated The Lobby.

What I liked is Gillard and Abbott shared the same car! (Would have been funny if Gillard had pushed him out and told him to get his own car) I wonder if they broke out the brandy to ‘steady their nerves’.

I have to say Abbott comments were actually quite balanced, and made sense (surprisingly). More often than not he says something stupid. He also managed to keep his cool amoungst it all.

A shame that those few (in the grand scheme of things) chose to tarnish the 40th anniversary of the tent embassy with this behaviour. Sent their cause back decades.

Postalgeek said :

Yeeah, let’s get the full story first.

And from what I understand, having a bite to eat at the Lobby after making a controversial suggestion to move the embassy on the day extra crowds come to the Embassy to mark it turning 40 takes a special kind of smarts.

They weren’t having a bite to eat, they were at an awards ceremony. I doubt someone got up in the morning, heard Abbott’s interview and made the impromptu decision that they really felt like having the ceremony at the Lobby today.

And quite frankly, this is a civillised country. Politicians should be allowed to express reasonable opinions (you might not agree with what he said, but it wasn’t unreasonable) and not have to go into hiding for fear of riots.

“Australia day” is the day we celebrate the arrival of gunmen to our shores. Its fitting that we see gunmen man handle our PM and the call goes up to wipe out an Aboriginal camp. Send in the gunman. Does it get any better than that. Australia Day, brought to you by gunman. Compliance is mandatory.

Why isn’t anyone being charged? Disgraceful.

As to the “embassy” – bulldoze it.

DrKoresh said :

So your suggestion to get rid of the ‘blight’ that is the tent embassy is to blight the ground it’s on? :facepalm:

For as long as necessary.

RegGrundies said :

Bulldoze it and chuck a plaque there “commemorating it” (should’ve been done decades ago)

The Ngunnawal people themselves have been trying to get rid of it for yonks sparking fueds amongst the Aboriginals themselves

it isn’t about local indigenous politics, situated as it is in the parliamentary – not ‘act’ – triangle, so it isn’t at all surprising the ngunnawal haven’t had much influence in shifting the tent embassy.

as for today’s events – wasn’t there, haven’t really heard about the ‘facts’, but suggest that as it is the 40th anniversary and lots of extra tents up and people about, don’t necessarily imagine it was the general staffers of the embassy at fault but indigenous factions there for the day’s events. so not necessarily an indictment on the embassy. as i said, said from an uninformed pov…

androo said :

when you read Abbott’s comments in context, there is nothing in there at all to trigger this kind of thing. What a disgrace to the protestors.

Spot on. His comments were measured and in no way an attack on Aboriginal people. From what has transpired today and in view of the general commentary we read around the traps Abbott was pretty right in saying the embassy has run its course. The forthcoming referendum (if it happens) doesn’t have much chance and hopefully won’t get up. This episode by the embassy yobs is one good reason why. They do nothing for Aboriginal people who without a shadow of doubt need a fair go. The embassy should go the way of ATSIC and its parasites. They have run their course. They’re living in Australia now.

I saw on tonight’s news people yelling and banging on the windows. The event taking place was the inaugural National Emergency Medals ceremony. How disgusting to disrupt an event honouring people who helped their fellow Aussies during recent crises like the floods and fires. If they had a problem with something one of the politicians attending had said there are ways of expressing that in a civilised democracy. Disgusting behaviour!

Dilandach said :

If it were up to me I’d wait for a couple of months until things died down and the tent reverted back to the couple of tents instead of the shanty town it is now. In the middle of the night, arrest all on the grounds. Pull down all the tents, move the shipping container and lock down the surrounding areas until further notice. Anyone breaching the area to be arrested.

Where the tent embassy once stood, some general ‘works’ to take place including bulldozers and large piles of dirt and other obstacles which would make re-establishing the tent embassy both difficult and unpleasant.

The tent embassy is nothing more than a blight, it doesn’t live up to the ideals it was once established under. For that, its time to go.

So your suggestion to get rid of the ‘blight’ that is the tent embassy is to blight the ground it’s on? :facepalm:

androo said :

when you read Abbott’s comments in context, there is nothing in there at all to trigger this kind of thing. What a disgrace to the protestors.

Mr Abbots comments frequently make me want to riot and smash things. But this does seem slightly overboard.

I think the best bit (of this whole shitty event) was the footage that shows her protection people telling her they were going to escort her out for her safety… she looks around the room and is like (paraphrasing here…) ‘where’s Tony, I suppose we should get him out too’ LOL

Postalgeek said :

Yeeah, let’s get the full story first.

And from what I understand, having a bite to eat at the Lobby after making a controversial suggestion to move the embassy on the day extra crowds come to the Embassy to mark it turning 40 takes a special kind of smarts.

Yeah, why not cancel your attendance at the very last minute at an awards ceremony for emergency workers, just in case… If Abbott refused to attend places where there might be people he has offended, he wouldnt go to very many places

Nice bit of PR work by the Aboriginal ‘Embassy’ hangers-on, fans and their cheer squad. This will really do wonders for them and their cause. They really thought this one through, didn’t they……….

And as to Tony Abbott’s comments, I don’t think they were inflamatory at all – and as others have said, he only said it was time to move on as a lot had changed in Australia since 1972.

After today’s effort, it’s definitely time to get rid of this ’embassy’ eyesore and all the idiots who hang out there – they’re not doing themselves any favours now, and are an embarrassment to their own people.

Don’t these protestors understand that true social change is effected by writing stern letters to the editor and banging on anonymously on the internet? I mean, honestly, what WERE they thinking?

Biggest shame about this is the disruption of an event recognising emergency service personnel. But put that down to the genius who decided to hold it in a floor-to-ceiling glass building in that particular area on Australia Day/Invasion Day [delete one]. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Did they rescue her?

Here’s an indication of just how powerless the Indigenous rabble are who did this – police simply aren’t bothering to press any charges.

fgzk said :

Ive watched the footage a couple of times. What I saw was a gunman dragging our PM down the steps. I saw other gunmen punching on. I saw gunmen driving through a crowded road. Way to go gunman.

Curioser and curioser…

fgzk said :

Ive watched the footage couple of times. What I saw was a gunman dragging our PM down the steps. I saw other gunmen punching on. I saw gunmen driving through a crowded road. Way to go gunman.

Keep trolling, you are clearly a sympathiser. The idea that our PM should be held ransom by this lot is a joke, cops should have smashed them and not been so reserved in my book. No head of government should ever be subject to that crap.

ABC News has a police spokesman saying that no charges nor action will be taken.

fgzk said :

Ive watched the footage a couple of times. What I saw was a gunman dragging our PM down the steps. I saw other gunmen punching on. I saw gunmen driving through a crowded road. Way to go gunman.

WTF?

fgzk said :

Ive watched the footage a couple of times. What I saw was a gunman dragging our PM down the steps. I saw other gunmen punching on. I saw gunmen driving through a crowded road. Way to go gunman.

Gunman… Oooooh!

fgzk said :

Jethro …are you sure you have stood up for the Tent Embassy. You seem to have a deluded opinion of what they are about.

Reread the previous threads regarding the embassy.

I’ve had a look at the available videos. I’d say the police were taken by surprise at the size and heat of the protest, and they appear to be substantially outnumbered. It looks like they were unable to contain the protesters, with the result that they were able to get up close to the restaurant and start pounding on the windows.

After the fact it may look like it was a mistake to evacuate Gillard and Abbott, but the guys on the scene at the time probably made the reasonable call that an invasion of the premises was imminent. If the demonstrators had tried that, there’s no way the cops on hand would’ve been able to keep them out without resorting to batons at least, and perhaps firearms.

Under those circumstances, Getting Out of Dodge would definitely be safer than going hand to hand inside the restaurant with a bunch of rioters equipped with knives, glassware and other improvised weapons. “PM Glassed in Restaurant Riot” would not be a good headline.

I also saw some footage of a young bloke carrying a bloody spear! He abused and spat on a police officer, and when the cop went after him he threatened the cop with the spear, raising it as though he intended to stick him with it.

None of what I could see happening was OK. If these people really are the representatives of the tent embassy, then all I can say is that I don’t like them, or the way they behave, and the tent embassy should be shut down tomorrow.

Looks like the police are fending photographers and the media off rather than protesters.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=711695&vId=3017608&cId=Top+Stories&play=true

Ive watched the footage a couple of times. What I saw was a gunman dragging our PM down the steps. I saw other gunmen punching on. I saw gunmen driving through a crowded road. Way to go gunman.

This was the ABC News piece that was broadcast last night.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-26/tent-embassy-is-40-today/3793998

If it were up to me I’d wait for a couple of months until things died down and the tent reverted back to the couple of tents instead of the shanty town it is now. In the middle of the night, arrest all on the grounds. Pull down all the tents, move the shipping container and lock down the surrounding areas until further notice. Anyone breaching the area to be arrested.

Where the tent embassy once stood, some general ‘works’ to take place including bulldozers and large piles of dirt and other obstacles which would make re-establishing the tent embassy both difficult and unpleasant.

The tent embassy is nothing more than a blight, it doesn’t live up to the ideals it was once established under. For that, its time to go.

Right on Thumper. The man handling of our Prime Minister was outrageous. I noticed Mr Abbot was smiling.

If the Tent Embassy was involved, it needs to go.

Yeeah, let’s get the full story first.

And from what I understand, having a bite to eat at the Lobby after making a controversial suggestion to move the embassy on the day extra crowds come to the Embassy to mark it turning 40 takes a special kind of smarts.

fgzk said :

Jethro …are you sure you have stood up for the Tent Embassy. You seem to have a deluded opinion of what they are about.

What they are “about” is rent-seeking and black exceptionalism, particularly from the rule of law.

The government’s policy towards issues of race should be one of benign neglect. Indigenous Australians should be subject to the same rules and laws as the rest of us and should receive neither preferential nor prejudicial treatment on racial grounds.

Bulldoze it and chuck a plaque there “commemorating it” (should’ve been done decades ago)

The Ngunnawal people themselves have been trying to get rid of it for yonks sparking fueds amongst the Aboriginals themselves

milkman said :

jonquil14 said :

This is from Fairfax photographer Alex Ellinghausen, posted on twitter by 3AW in Melbourne https://twitter.com/#!/3AW693/status/162395257428914178/photo/1

Any chance we could put the details up for the non-twitterers?

If you follow the link you can see it, you don’t need an account, but there are more and better pics at the SMH here http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm—dragged-away-after-being-trapped-by–protesters-20120126-1qj1c.html

Re #1 simsim – I heard Tony Abbott speaking and I do not recall hearing him say – “…statements that the Tent Embassy needs to be moved…”.
I thought I heard him use the expression “time to move on” – a different thing.

Having such a meeting within a few metres of the tent embassy at the best of times is a dumb move. Dad’s Army obviously over-reacted and at least one suited CPP person from the army was more intent on not spoiling his suit. But he’s well known for not being much good for anything but telling lame jokes. Good onya BD.

when you read Abbott’s comments in context, there is nothing in there at all to trigger this kind of thing. What a disgrace to the protestors.

Disgraceful and unacceptable.
They have set their cause back 20 years.
Why have no arrests been made?

This is a tragedy.

How could anybody involved have possibly thought it would be a good idea. “I know…lets have a bit of a riot and attack both the PM and the opposition leader, thus garnering sympathy from both sides of poitics!”. If a bunch of white supremacists had tried to come up with a way to generate hostility towards indigenous people, this would be at the top of the list.

All Australians have a right to peaceful protest, but what happened here was well out of order. The PM was obviously frightened and humiliated. Nobody in public life (or any life really) should feel threatened as they go about their business.

I never thought I’d say this, but Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott both have my sympathy.

The video footage shows the Prime ministers cars driving back through the protest. Smart move……….

Thugs and losers.

A bloody disgrace. I had some sympathy for the tent embassy, but no more. Bulldoze it.

spicoli said :

That pathetic example of pandering called “The Tent Embassy” must go. This is the final straw. what a disgrace.

+1 What an absolute disgrace! There is no excuse for violence – just a further example of why it’s time to shut them down. Demanding the Oz Govt sign a treat of Sovereignty granting ownership of Australian land to the Aboriginal people – what a joke… I hope no one was injured; and hats off to the Police that had to deal with this scum.

Jethro …are you sure you have stood up for the Tent Embassy. You seem to have a deluded opinion of what they are about.

Well, I have stood up for the Tent Embassy for a long time, but if this is true and if its members did indeed launch an attack on our Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, I have little to say other than it’s time is clearly up.

The Tent Embassy was meant to be a way for our indigenous citizens to promote their people and their place in Australia. When they fail to achieve this because they choose to promote violence against our political leaders, they can longer stand by their original mission.

jonquil14 said :

This is from Fairfax photographer Alex Ellinghausen, posted on twitter by 3AW in Melbourne https://twitter.com/#!/3AW693/status/162395257428914178/photo/1

Any chance we could put the details up for the non-twitterers?

This is from Fairfax photographer Alex Ellinghausen, posted on twitter by 3AW in Melbourne https://twitter.com/#!/3AW693/status/162395257428914178/photo/1

That pathetic example of pandering called “The Tent Embassy” must go. This is the final straw. what a disgrace.

Taken it to the gunman. Good show.

Correction, please. The Prime Minister AND the Opposition Leader. And it doesn’t take blind freddy to notice the connection between the Opposition Leader deciding, on the 40th Anniversery of the Tent Embassy, to make statements that the Tent Embassy needs to be moved, and the subsequent protest and attack on the Lobby restraunt right net to the Tent Embassy.