Herald Sun Newspaper
Anyone "blindsided" has not been paying attention and has no clue how ''grievance politics'' works.
As I have often warned, this is precisely what must follow once you accept that dangerous claim that Australian Aborigines have a different legal status and different claim to the land. ( In a land they never accomplished anything of merit for 50,000 years ! )
Constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians has been blindsided by more radical demands, with an official forum in Hobart insisting that plans for a referendum must be accompanied by treaty talks.
The gathering, the first of 12 such invite-only indigenous community meetings nationwide, concluded that all delegates were “firmly committed to pursuing treaty” and that this must deal with “among other things, sovereignty, a land and a financial settlement” as well as an agreed time frame. “A discussion of constitutional recognition (can) only take place simultaneously with a proper consideration of treaty,” states a written communique issued yesterday..
Council co-chair and Lowitja Institute head Pat Anderson, (photo right) who was at the Hobart meeting, told The Australian treaty was “the No 1 topic” in a “very robust” discussion but praised conveners Rodney Gibbons and Wendy Moore, and said perhaps it was “time to have that uncomfortable conversation”. Ms Anderson said a treaty had been “put on the agenda” since the council’s formation last December
The 100-person Hobart summit also resolved that any so-called “minimalist” statement in the Constitution acknowledging the existence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders before European settlement “would be unacceptable” unless it was accompanied by substantive changes. These would include the insertion in the Constitution of a racial non-discrimination clause specific to indigenous Australians and the creation of a constitutionally protected indigenous representative body that would be “stronger than just an advisory body to parliament”.
I warn again: these are unmistakable steps towards apartheid. Once the Left saw this for exactly what it is: racism. Now, astonishingly, it's the goal of people who claim to be "progressive". And note well: this will not improve Aboriginal development or race relations but cripple both.
For anyone claiming that these latest demands come as some surprise, here is what I wrote more than two years ago:
Changing the Constitution to divide Australians between the “first” and the rest — on the basis of the “race” of our ancestors — is not just immoral and an insult to our individuality.
Worse, it is socially dangerous. This will not “reconcile” us but permanently divide. It would do no good to a single Aboriginal in bush camps, but would concede a critical point: that Australians in our most fundamental legal document are now to be divided by “race” But once [Prime Minister Tony Abbott] concedes the principle he concedes everything.
He will not get the “reconciliation” he imagines, some shiny day when we all hug each other in happy tears. He will instead license demands from people, particularly race industry professionals, who will in some cases be satisfied with nothing less than apartheid. Ridiculous !!
Indeed, we already have an “Aboriginal Provisional Government”, led by Michael Mansell, with such a separatist agenda. He wants to form a seventh state for Aborigines in the centre of Australia. So when exactly will we be “reconciled”? When our country is torn apart on ethnic lines, with more recently arrived groups demanding their own customary laws, too?
Stop now ! Say no to racism. Say no to racial division. Say no to changing our Constitution.
The Way I See It.......once the principle of racial division is conceded, there will be no stopping the advocates of this newly tribalised Australia. How can we agree that Aborigines have a "unique" role as "original custodians" - a role entitling them to their own representatives and special constitutional powers - and then insist that nothing much flows from that? How can we then arbitrarily insist that they have no consequent right to their own nations, their own laws, their own compensation?