By ray jackson, president, indigenous social justice association
the law council of australia recently sent out the attached draft constitutional reform document (http://indymedia.org.au/2010/11/08/constitutional-recognition-of-indigen...) to allow proper discussions to be held by the people of good will rather than just hear from the usual parrots from the right-wing think-tanks.
that is not to denigrate those who see little of value in changing the constitution but are able to do so without the racist taunts from such as johns, brough, abbott and so on. george vilallor had an interesting approach in his letter to the editor of the act press.
some are restricting themselves to a preamble change whilst others, like me, believe it must be in the body of the constitution.
at least we have a document to consider what level of change may or may not be required. the time frame for discussion is unknown but a referendum will be held at the next election. in my view abbott has a mean and hungry look so that election could be at any time.
the referendum however is merely to ascertain if the populace will agree to any change being made. what form of words will be used if and when agreement is granted to go ahead is anybody's guess.
but we must think positive on the acceptance of change and suitable words found. my views are in the previous post.
happy reading. i am in agreement with the position put by mick dodson, s30 p14, but only as a fallback position.
let the debate begin!
another message from my bete noire, gary johns
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/referendum-must-not-be-used...
he is, of course, not the only one as he is joined by too many self-appointed and self-anointed as pundits on the world as they would like it.
gary opines that any change to the australian constitution must be minimal and only in the preamble of the constitution. activists are warned off as he stresses that only integration or assimilation is possible as the previous 40 years of separate development has shown that to be a complete failure.
well, with no respect to johns, he is off on another of his ranting tantrums and when in this mode he becomes very loose with the truth and facts of matters aboriginal.
separate development is an apartheid term from south africa and there is much history in this country of resistance to that situation there. an important part of that resistance came from the aboriginal and tsi peoples. we were living in a similar but different system of apartheid in this country and had a good understanding of the issues involved.
why would we seek to practice such an inhumane system upon ourselves? what we sought then, and what we seek still, is self-management. this has never been granted to us. always is the menacing shadow of changing governments and unaffected bureaucrats whereby the rules are continually changed and no notice is taken of our wants, needs and, more importantly, input.
the government's nefarious and anti-human rights nt intervention is merely the latest example of our being ignored.
johns' attempt to introduce the fear of racism by strongly suggesting that "activists" would attempt "to settle old scores" is really over the top. our people would need a whole aboriginal constitution to ourselves to right the wrongs of the past 222-odd years.
he then attempts to build upon the racist thoughts of that other pundit of dross, andrew bolt, by raising the issue of black aborigines versus white aborigines. what such racists can never accept is that after some 222 years of the use and abuse of our aboriginal women it is a real wonder that there is any colour left among our peoples.
like bolt and the other pathetics, johns absolutely believes that he and they are the expert arbiters of aboriginal culture and, more importantly, what it is not. the pundits argument on any positive discrimination that is crumbed out to aborigines, work, employment, health, among others, is sneered at as some form of 'special treatment'. when one considers any improvements that may have occurred over the last 20 or 30 years, it is more than obvious that any such discrimination of the positive kind has been an abject failure. on the other hand, racist discrimination is alive and well and thriving. and johns and the others will do all in their power to make certain that such standards continue.
the puerile words that johns suggests, "recognise that this land was first settled by aboriginal people" is as insulting to us as most 'motherhood' statements are. it means nothing, it changes nothing but it sounds good.
this land was not settled, the lands were stolen.
there was no peaceful handover of our lands, there were wars and massacres of aborigines. the state of war still exists to the present day. our deepest and sincerest wish is to end that state of war.
the governments and the non-aboriginal people have, finally, the absolute opportunity to address the historic wrongs perpetrated against us since the invasion. we require more than just recognition that we were here first. we must have the human rights of ownership (or compensation) for our traditional lands. we must have the human rights of our culture, our languages and our self-determination.
the wording to be added to the body of the constitution is, to my mind, has already been done for us. any added words must fully reflect, both in the spirit and the actual wording, that the federal government and the people of australia, regardless of colour, race, religion, etc. is all in the un declaration of indigenous peoples. that declaration will cover all contingencies and will only be opposed by johns, bolt and the rest of their ilk.
the federal government, on behalf of the australian people, has already accepted the un declaration so cannot have any problem in putting it into the constitution.
then, and only then, can we give any real credence to the often called for reconciliation.
rights and responsibilities is a two-way street and must be dealt with as such.
one thing i do not wish to see in the constitution is designated parliamentary seats. self-determination will take care of that.