Unbeleivable. Imagine trying to address the ingrained prejudice that lies
at the bottom of such a statement?! Might start to get it done by NEXT
century. I was thinking though that maybe the only way to address it is in
kind. At the risk of being presumptuous, I jotted down some thoughts -
may
The Pilger article is accurate from all accounts. It also appears on Znet,
a pretty reliable leftist site. There is a huge section there about this
question at: http://www.lbbs.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
Follow the Iraq link (under 'crisis sections') if this doesn't take you
straight to the pa
>About the interpreter service Burke on TV last night: "It's like
>providing a wheelchair for someone who doesn't want to walk."
>
>Trudy
What a line, eh, Trudy? The King of Capricornia (great line, Jim) speaketh.
On the subject of the Burke - can someone explain to me the effect of the
Neil,
You make some really good points, ones I'm not really disagreeing with, just
trying to nut out.
Neil wrote:
>
>My own personal opinion is that only considering individuals as racist
>does nothing to help or solve the whole racial problem.
I don't see how we can deal with it except it
I enter this discussion tentatively, and with a hope to learn. It's
confusing to me on the whole. So...
Laurie wrote:
>I think that as a general description of "white European society" the Mike
>Carlton passage selected by Neil is accurate.
Maybe. My suspicion is that such 'general' descrip
Does anyone have an electronic source for the infamous Herron denial
document? Is it available in hard-copy somehow? Does anyone know how to
get hold of it? Would love to read it.
Jim's point about the role of the IPA is correct, and if Herron/Howard used
Brunton's IPA 'backgrounder' as a sour
Thanks for that, Peter - an excellent post.
So come on Karen, here's an opportunity. If you are going to have anything
to say to Peter's post take your time, quote relevant sections, and respond
to the points he has made - point by point. Don't get side-tracked, and
don't try to ignore the thin
Trudy, these are great questions and answers to them, over time, might
provide a sensible way forward. Here's some brief thoughts, plus a set of
guidelines (below) from another list I'm on that seem to work pretty well
for it - might be some ideas we could use?
The idea that we should boot off a
Thanks, Sandy. Unfortunately they edited out my closing line calling Howard
a moral gnome. In fear of action from the gnome lobby, I guess, over being
associated with the PM. Thanks again.
Tim
--
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.a
>
>
>Is John Howard a
>racist?
Does Liz Taylor know the wedding march?
--
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscri
Laurie,
I heard Herron this morning too and think Fran kelly did a pretty good job
of showing him up. One minute he was 'just presenting the facts' the next
he was conceding 'the facts' were quite rubbery. His argument boiled down
to something of the order of, if three families lost a single c
Trudy wrote:
>Tim,
>
>I meant to tell you earlier that these are very funny although, they
>also make you want to cry.
>They are so perceptive - maybe you can develop a handbook for journos to
>that they can ask the right questions instead of buying everything
>Howard says as gospel. ;-)
>I think
Laurie,
Howardspeak is gathering quite a vocabulary. It's a
simple formula: take a well-known concept, add an adjective, change (reverse?)
the meaning.
'core promise' = promise you happen to keep (as opposed to a
promise, which you break)
'not a racist' = a racist
'australian multicultu
You're welcome, Ian. But I made a mistake in
transcription - 'glow' should be 'glory' in the 3rd last line. I've
changed it below. Sorry about that.
Tim
Jack Davis
Aboriginal Australia
to the others
You once smiled a friendly smile,Said we were kin to one
another,Th
All the best Jim. I've included one of my favourite Jack Davis poems,
one of his most powerful, I think, as an act of remembrance.
Tim
Jack Davis
Aboriginal Australia
to the others
You once smiled a friendly smile,Said we were kin to one
another,Thus with guile for a
>Tim,
>
>I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that they are not just my
>reasons. There are others on this list who have no trouble with the
>rules and expect them to be followed. They were there from the
>beginning.
True enough, and nothing I said was designed to suggest that we shouldn't
I'd just like to put in a request for the re-admission of Laurie, if she is
interested. I'm sympathetic to your reasons, Trudy, but calling racists
racists seems a reasonable thing to do. So while I agree we should try and
keep discussion above slanging match level, some sort of defacto
speech/m
Trudy wrote:
>When I heard him say that last night, I thought it was a Howard inspired
cop-out. This is just the sort of
>thing Howard would say to confuse the issue and misdirect the focus of what
was really being discussed.
>IF, and it's a big 'if', politicians really behaved like that, there
Trudy is basically right - on the surface it does seem as if the 'Liberal
Nine' have put careers ahead of principle. Still, it might be too early to
tell (as she has suggested) whether they have just beaten a tactical retreat
or if they are in fact 'Howard's Cowards'. It's one thing to vote to
Thanks a lot Trudy, really appreciate it.
I was also interested in the article with Brendan Nelson's comments that you
posted. Even allowing for the rationalisation involved in his comments he
still raises an interesting point when he says:
"If I or any of my colleagues were on every issue
that
Hi Karen,
My feeling about your answer is that you're not
talking about reconciliation but about something less specific like living in
a fair country, judging by your comments below. Reconciliation is about
that too, but it refers to a particular relationship, namely, that
KAREN SAYS: In refernce to the above first para - to
which you were talking about - he does not actually say that Tim. So you are
interpreting it the way you want. He never actually got quoted as saying he
doesn't believe in reconciliation.
Hi again Karen - you're right about t
Karen wrote:
>
Tim,
>Just because he doesn't believe in saying sorry
doesn't mean he doesn't believe in people living as >a nation
united!!
Hi Karen - I'm not quite sure how you got this from what I
wrote - my point was that in one statement he says he beleives
Trudy wrote:
Howard is saying nothing new but I think the time has come for
people to ask him to prove his 'commitment'. So far, all his actions
have proved the opposite. --- Trudy
Trudy,
Not just his actions, but his words. I can't believe
anyone at all can take him seriously on this
Hi Karen,
Thanks for your reply. I don't think you really responded to most of the
stuff I asked but you've certainly added plenty of other comments. You
raise a few points so I've got a few questions. Maybe we can sort of start
the conversation again, more or less from the beginning? Maybe t
This is a link to a piece about mandatory sentencing on the Australian
Institute of Criminology site and includes a defintion, from memory. The
person would have to download the article.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi138.html
But I lifted this (below) from a US website, Families
Here is a federal Liberal MP - I can hardly beleive it!
- arguing publicly, not only for an end to mandatory sentencing but that
it tends to discriminate on the basis of 'race'. Although he calls
it 'indirect' discrimination, it is clear that in the appli
Karen wrote:
>I will not apologise for my thoughts because as it is obvious, everyone has
>different opinions and different encounters. You know nothing about me.
You don't have to apologise for your thoughts, Karen, you just have to
substantiate them. As you say, people have different opinions
Trudy,
Mightn't be exactly what you want but there a few quotes on
the topic by Justice Maurice in this transcript.
Tim
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s103127.htm
Karen,
There were a number of things in your post that would probably be worth
following up, but maybe you could just explain one for the time being. I
refer to this comment and your response to it:
>
>GC-"...police are more ready to judge Indigenous guilty than non-Indigenous
>ones."
>
>KAREN:
Thanks for this article, Trudy. Despite what the headline and the opening
para suggest, it seems to me that the quote here from the govt lawyer in the
Cubillo case suggests something of a reversal in the govt position.
Previously they had been arguing that the policy of removal was always done
w
Thanks, Trudy, for the clarification. Thanks Don, too.
I wonder though whether we should be so dismissive of the gains we have
made? While I accept Trudy's and Don's point about deaths in custody being
a sort of de-facto 'death penalty' it is still important to distinguish
between this sort of
Trudy,
I'm not quite sure what your comment above this news article
means exactly, but it prompts a comment. The fact that Australia doesn't
actually have a death penalty is in large part thanks to academics and students
who led protests against it in the sixties - wrote articles, organise
Just a quick note to wish everybody the best for the season
and to thank Trudy for running the most enlightening list on the net! And
also to thank her for her work in maintaining the newsclip service
which I find invaluable. Looking forward to next year.
Cheers
Tim
Forwarding this for people's interest.
Tim
===
>I would like to inform you of a special event happening on the ABC Online
>Open day event.
>
>Friday 26th November from 10 am until 5 pm there will an open forum to
>discuss the Draft Document for Reconciliation. "Finding
Try this, Liam
http://www.atsic.gov.au/default_ie.asp
Tim
-Original Message-
>does anyone know what happened to the ATSIC website?
>
>The URL I have is: http://www.atsic.gov.au/
>
>peace
>
---
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.gree
I don't think anyone should be surprised that intemperate language is used
when people feel betrayed and are upset over something like the loss of the
Republic. Good on Laurie for being passionate in public - we need more
passion in public debate in general. As others have pointed out, it is eas
I guess I'll bite ;-)
What a lot of direct electionists don't seem to realise is that many people
who voted Yes yesterday did so because they thought that what was on offer
was a better - or at least, as good a model - as any that might involve
direct election. They weren't - as was directly and
As our current head of state might say: "we are amused"! :-)
Thanks for the thanks, Deb
Tim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: - *[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 11:43 PM
Subject: [recoznet2] head of state question et
I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer your questions but I'll have a go.
Tim
susanne wrote:
>i started my journey by reading posts to the list - thanks to all who took
>the time to explain to me and others
>now i am looking at the current constitution because what is on the table
>is not the cons
Sorry again for the confusing he said/she said format, but the
points needed to be addressed in turn. I hope it's reasonably
straightforward.
Tim
tim/trudy
>A lot of people don't like the model on offer because it doesn't allow
>a direct election for the President - (very few people
At the risk, Susanne, of adding more confusion rather than clearing it up
and of going over ground already covered.
Why there is a President AND a PM:
Under the Australian system of govt. inherited from Britain, power is
divided between the legislative, executive and judicial powers of
Trudy wrote:
>
>>Where it says that all laws made under the constitution by the
>Parliament shall be binding on the courts, judges...does this include
>the High Court?
Yes it does - and this is no different to the current situation. This is
why Howard was able introduce legislation that dimishe
For those interested, I've just tracked down a website for the group who ran
the deliberative poll -
http://www.i-d-a.com.au/presentations.htm
Gives quite a bit of info and might be a good starting point for people
trying to judge it as a process. One thing it indicates is that WA's were
includ
If the deliberative poll is unrepresentative, then so is every other poll in
the country as the methods of choosing participants are identical - in fact
it was done by one of the major polling companies, Newspoll, I think.
So if its results are deemed unrepresentative then so are the results of
Hi all,
As people could probably guess, I agree with Rod on these issues, though the
overall debate within this forum has been really helpful. So I just wanted
to add a couple more comments in response.
Trudy wrote:
>Rod,
>I can't let this go by without a few comments. I have said that I want
The below is a Press Release from the PM. I notice he didn't run this line
when he was guaranteeing that his ten point plan would bring certainty to
Australia's "land management" system. More shame from this shameful prime
minister.
Tim
--
Thanks, Laurie for the clarification you offered of the "Section 25" post.
I know there is some rhetorical flourish in sweeping statements like, "Any
Australian of whom it might be said that they are NOT racist
must make a conscious decision to spoil their vote," but I don't think they
do much go
This is a really interesting post, but I wasn't sure what was being said
towards the end. Was it being said that we are racist if we vote yes to the
preamble or that we are racist if we vote yes to the republic? It seems to
say that we should destroy the ballot paper (ie, make it informal, neith
Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I tried to keep the context
throughout and it starts to get a bit unwieldy! Anyway, it's good to have a
forum for such discussions.
>
>tdunlop wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the response, Trudy. Here's some further thoughts.
&
Thanks for the response, Trudy. Here's some further thoughts.
Trudy wrote
>A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the
*legitimate third arm* of government
>(why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests
constitutional
>and other matters now. There woul
'm certainly open to further
constitutional change, including to direct election.
Trudy wrote:
>And it illustrates very clearly why we need a Bill of Rights. If the
republic gets up there will be no
>'convention' to put a brake on a PM with his own agenda. I find it very
scary
I couldn't put my hands on it last night, but the full quote from the
Kingston book is as follows:
"When the stakes are high the politicians get heavy, and John Howard
personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, alleging pro-black bias by
myself in particular and the paper in general. Some
Trudy wrote:
"The biggest change I've seen is in the Fairfax press. They
used to carry a lot of indigenous newsbut now do so hardly at all. When they
do, it is not posted online and not available to the wider audience.They
have not carried one item about the Stolen Generations case. I can't
Thanks for this, Trudy - I had missed it in today's paper. This response is
spot on, capturing the insidious, hidden racism of the McGuinness piece.
Much better than anything I could've written, though I have decided to
approach him directly.
Actually, if people can stomach it, next month's Quad
Trudy wrote:
Luckily, Paddy McGuinness lists his email address at the end
of his opinion piece so he can be debated. Whether this does any good is
another question. ---
Trudy===
Trudy,
I've written to PP three times at his email address and ha
This is a truly brilliant and moving speech - thanks for sending it around!
Tim
>For those who asked about more Ngarrindjeri commentary:
>
>Another speech of Tom's that may be helpful
>
>KUMARANGK
>KNOWN TO MANY AS HINDMARSH ISLAND
>
>Am I liar, fabricator or a hindrance if I say th
Well said, Laurie! This is too big a chance to
miss. I cannot believe people (other than actual monarchists, all six of
them) will wake up feeling good on Sunday if this vote is lost.
See you in the Republic of Australia on Sunday!
Tim
If whether or not we become a
Republic
>>
>> Ah, but the net effect is that the Queen (and Howard and her other
>> supporters) win. Really can't see them letting go of their victory
lightly
>> (or quickly).
>
>Wasn't it the 'yes' side who discounted 'in effect' when Howard used it?
Can't have it both ways...
>
>> (Sorry, couldn't hel
Maybe enough of all those
>> republicans out there will find it just too hard to vote for the Queen
once
>> they're in the booth? We'll see I guess
>
>If that was the problem then the result would be different. Most are not
voting 'for' the Queen but against
>the model...
>
>Trudy
Ah, but
Thought this might be of interest to people.
>Seize the Time - says respected Aboriginal Rights activist Terry O'Shane
>
>On the eve of the referendum, Terry O'Shane, one of the most senior and
>respected activists for Aboriginal and human rights for more than
was not about a republic but about leadership...
>
>Trudy
>
>tdunlop wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Trudy - just presumed because it was with the article.
>>
>> BTW Any chance of a last-minute conversion? Only one more sleep to go!
>>
>> Tim
>> ===
Sorry, Trudy - just presumed because it was with the article.
BTW Any chance of a last-minute conversion? Only one more sleep to go!
Tim
>It wasn't Rob Sitch but me;-)
>
>Trudy
>
>tdunlop wrote:
>
>> Interesting that Rob Sitch quotes Ghandi in t
Interesting that Rob Sitch quotes Ghandi in the article below, India being
one of the countries that appoints rather than directly elects its
Presidents.
Tim
===
>"There go my people, I am their leader - I must follow." -- Mahatma
>Gandhi
>
>THE AGE
>Reflections on a referendum
> ROB
64 matches
Mail list logo
