My first impression is that this 'motion' has the same depth of sincerity
as Howard's description of Michael Hutchins as 'a great Australian product'
was an expression of condolence.
There seems to be an unseemly haste about the whole thing. Could it be that Howard realises he is running out of time before the whole world condemns his racism after the Olympics? Is this another form of government lobbying to save its reputation? I will reserve my judgement. I have a very uneasy feeling that something is not right and we are being duped. Maybe it is paranoia, but then again.... Trudy tim dunlop wrote: Just saw Howard deliver this motion and speech to the Parliament. I'm very confused about the whole thing. He seemed reasonably sincere and given what at is at stake - and given the apparent enthusiasm with which people like Lowitja O'Donahue are embracing his 'change of heart' - I feel inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but still can't help feel there is an emptiness in his words. Beazley's response was sensational I thought, and he was unequivocal about the inadequacy of the motion and moved a couple of amendments. If you can say "sincere regret" surely you are expressing sorrow; and if you are sorrowful, then surely you can say "sorry"? His refusal to use the word 'sorry' smells rotten to me. Anyway, here is the motion and I guess we'll see how it plays out. Tim====================FROM THE PMs OFFICE MOTION OF RECONCILIATION --
|
- [recoznet2] pm or PM? tim dunlop
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Peter Tremain
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Sandy Sanders
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Trudy and Rod Bray
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Rod Hagen
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Laurie Forde
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Rod Hagen
- Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Sandy Sanders