By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Fighting the Uluru Statement By Ian Wilson LL.B
For your future reference, here is the text of the Uluru statement which will be worked into the coming Aboriginal constitutional referendum:
ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link Is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”
I disagree with the whole spirit of this statement, especially its victimology. The high incarceration rates and domestic violence seem to be blamed on the Whites not including Aboriginals in civil society, when these problems are not caused by Whites: http://www.news.com.au/national/violence-against-aboriginal-women-80-times-worse/news-story/1185e7c359058b4f1af4dc8c30836e5c. How exactly are Whites making the DV rate so high? It assumes a thesis of mechanical determinism of absurd proportions, where Aboriginal actors have no agency. If Whites said this, they would be shouted down as racist: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/; https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2008/11/the-cultural-roots-of-aboriginal-violence/.
The problems with Aboriginal society cannot be cured by constitutional change.
How would enshrining a first nations voice, a Makarrata treaty commission and a truth and reconciliation process aid in any way dealing with these social problems? What it will create though as the deputy Prime Minster correctly noted, will be a “third chamber” of parliament, where every law becomes subject to the scrutiny of politically correct Aboriginalist elites: http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2017/05/30/barnaby-joyce-claims-he-misheard-indigenous-plea-be-heard, although he seems to have backed away from that correct position now.
Greg Sheridan in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-sheridan/liberals-must-join-barnaby-joyces-uluru-rejection/news-story/d6b357b8204ae4f260656adae10eb371), adequately summed up the conservative critique of the Aboriginalist position nicely:
“The Uluru gathering recommended a new consultative body for Aborigines be guaranteed in the Constitution, a new process heading towards a treaty, and a species of truth and reconciliation commissions such that Australia’s historic crimes against Aborigines can be run through time and again.
All these proposals are wrong in principle and would be profoundly damaging in practice.
Five years ago I would have supported recognition in a constitutional preamble, so long as it was inclusive and non-divisive, of the Aboriginal presence in Australia before European settlement. But as I have reflected on the matter more deeply, I see now that any departure from the single treatment of all Australians as citizens is bad in principle and would be damaging in the real world.
Tony Abbott promoted the preamble recognition idea as “completing the Constitution”. This meant it was a one-off symbolic gesture. But it’s clear that this process will never end. Not only has the Aboriginal leadership rejected such recognition, it has repudiated the idea that the Constitution can ever be completed. Instead there is an endless series of demands, all of which compromise national sovereignty and create different classes of Australian citizens.
If Liberals cannot oppose this in principle, it is difficult to know why they exist at all as a political party.”
Here, Here! In my opinion the Liberals, and Labor should not exist as political parties and must be buried as soon as possible by One Nation and anyone beyond them.
I also like the comments of one lady on the Sheridan article:
“Australia as a nation is dead - what was an Australian nation is now a myriad of ethnic silos each of which demands a right to have its belief system, culture, laws..... replace those of what was supposed to be a cohesive, secular nation of one people - people with a primary allegiance to what was the nation of Australia and everything that it stood for/represented but people who had different ancestries, faiths, interests etc. that would meld together to create a culturally and economically richer and brighter future for all of the people who live on this continent.
The Uluru demands must be rejected out of hand. There is nothing new in that list of demands. It is a list of demands by professional-claimants-of-aboriginality for even more trillions of ‘whitey’ money to fund their demands for a rerun of all of the failed projects, services etc. of the past - and that includes the corrupt ATSIC disaster.
Those claiming aboriginality already have disproportionate representation in state and federal parliaments, greater access to political ears of all sizes and colours than do those who do not claim aboriginality - especially if the latter live in rural areas. They have been given trillions of dollars of whitey money, more than half of the landmass of this continent, all mineral rights in the NT and have extracted billions from mining companies. From now on, they have to fund their own ethnic specific wish lists and their own ethnic representative bodies.”
All in all, very insightful comments which readers should mediate upon, then get into action promoting the “No” case.
Don’t think that New Zealand with its treaty offers an example for Australia to follow. As another critic points out in the comments to the Sheridan article:
“Be warned. Some advocates are trying to cite the New Zealand experience as a reason for accepting a Treaty. Now the New Zealand politicians and academics may paint a rosy picture but some of the consequences have been less than attractive to the ordinary citizens who is not consulted.
1. There are race based seats in Parliament just for Maori. (This was meant to be a temporary arrangement when voting depended on property owned.)
2. Activist groups are continually demanding special treatment and more money even though billions of dollars have been given to Maori to settle real or imagined grievances.
3. The same activists talk about a “Partnership” between Maori and the other citizens even though this was not part of the original Treaty.
4. “Maori perspectives and values” have been inserted into the school curriculum and especially into the Teacher Training organizations.
If you want to teach you had better pretend to go along with it.
5. There is a push to make the teaching of the Maori language compulsory in schools.
6. Formal ceremonies are expected to have a Maori component. The spiritual values of Maori are to be respected but the same cannot be said of traditional Christian values.
Both main New Zealand parties have pushed or tolerated this agenda but the parties of the left are certainly more enthusiastic.
So, Australian citizens be warned. Allow any racial preference at all and you will find that the activist groups will come back demanding more.
“One law for all and all equal under the law” is surely the principle to hold fast to.”
More food for thought – and action!
The Aboriginalist proposals will end any form of representative democracy in Australia. And to argue, as the new class do, that this will not create racial divisions in Australia, is beyond me, when all of the changes since Mabo, have done precisely that. The Left new class, after all, cannot see any Islam problem either, and welcome the complete Islamisation of society, which is somehow consistent with multiculturalism. One would have thought that it would create a new post-white monoculturalism.
Work that one out!