Aboriginal child abuse and the NT Intervention

[Brian Foley]

this is the real problem. the blithe dismissal and the callous disregard.

Good use of words Gustav, very accurate, I will give you an example, of callousness...

On April 2 the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and Oxfam Australia published Close the Gap: Indigenous Health Campaign, a report highlighting the state of Indigenous health in Australia. The report ranked Australia as the worst at improving the health of indigenous people compared with other wealthy nations.

Some of the reports findings...

Aboriginal die 20 years younger than other Australians, In contrast to the US, Canada and New Zealand, where the life expectancy for indigenous people is approximately seven years less than the non-indigenous population.

3 times as many Aboriginal children die before the age of 5 than indigenous children in Canada. Infant mortality rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are more than 50% higher than for indigenous children in the US and New Zealand.


From the 2003 United Nations Human Development Report which found the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians expected to live to the age of 65 is lower than for Third World nations like Bangladesh and Nigeria.

“At what point do we stand up and start shouting? It’s scandalous that in a country as wealthy as Australia we cannot solve a health crisis affecting less than 3% of the population.”

Executive director of Oxfam Australia Andrew Hewett

Ancient history, Gustav. We're in the 21st century now. Get with the programme.

21st Century reality, the Australian government under the auspices of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, that SAMs thread mentions, compulsorily acquired freehold ownership of the Aboriginal town camp of Ilpeye Ilpeye, located in Australia’s Northern Territory. In which the Residents “agreed to pass the title of their land” to the Goverment in return for access to federally-funded infrastructure and the opportunity to own their homes. The Australian government, which you defend and voted for, acquired the Ilpeye Ilpeye land, using the threat of withholding funds for basic services and infrastructure unless Aboriginal owned land was transferred to the Commonwealth for opening up areas presently owned and controlled by Aboriginal communities for unrestrained exploitation by the resource and tourism industries.

 

[James R]

21st Century reality, the Australian government under the auspices of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, that SAMs thread mentions, compulsorily acquired freehold ownership of the Aboriginal town camp of Ilpeye Ilpeye, located in Australia’s Northern Territory. In which the Residents “agreed to pass the title of their land” to the Goverment in return for access to federally-funded infrastructure and the opportunity to own their homes.

I note that the deal was agreed by the indigenous community. Moreover, if you'd read your own article, you would have discovered that native title was retained in this case.

The Australian government, which you defend and voted for, acquired the Ilpeye Ilpeye land, using the threat of withholding funds for basic services and infrastructure unless Aboriginal owned land was transferred to the Commonwealth for opening up areas presently owned and controlled by Aboriginal communities for unrestrained exploitation by the resource and tourism industries.

That doesn't appear in the articles you linked.

 

[Brian Foley]

I note that the deal was agreed by the indigenous community.

I wont bother entertaining this with an answer.

Moreover, if you'd read your own article, you would have discovered that native title was retained in this case.

The Native Title Amendment Act of 1998 and The Native Title Amendment Act of 2007 has made that status little more than a technicality. From the point of view of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the 1998 Native Title Amendments Acts discriminate against Aborigines.

Inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009: Australian Human Right Commission

That doesn't appear in the articles you linked.

I thought it was obvious, seeing the articles mentioned the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, but to clarify...

Northern Territory Intervention
There were two major ways that the government gained access to the land. Firstly they withheld funds to these communities, saying that if the leases were not signed the communities would miss out on their share in $100 million worth of infrastructure funding. Worse still, if the communities refused to sign the leases the government threatened to compulsorily acquire the land. This happened to the Alice Springs town camp Ilpeye Ilpeye.

As a note to those reading this thread, the action was so openly discriminatory against indigenous people that the Australian Goverment had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 to implement the Northern Territory Emergency Response (intervention) laws.

 

[Bells]

I wont bother entertaining this with an answer.

You should learn to read your own article:

Residents of Ilpeye Ilpeye, an Alice Springs town camp, have agreed to pass the title of their land to the commonwealth, allowing it to transfer the land to freehold and clear the way for subdivisions and individual ownership.

In return, the commonwealth will flood the community with new infrastructure as part of a $100 million commitment to clean up the town camps, where some indigenous people have lived in squalor for decades.

--------------------------------------

The community will retain native title and receive yet-to-be-determined "just compensation" for the change, which, for practical purposes, will give the commonwealth freehold ownership.

---------------------------------------

In most indigenous communities, land is owned on a communal basis, with governments providing social housing but individuals unable to buy homes in their own names.

Late last year, housing associations responsible for 17 of 18 towns camps around Alice Springs agreed to hand over 40-year leases to the NT government in exchange for the $100 million infrastructure spending commitment.

But the Ilpiye Ilpiye community residents, who are among the traditional owners of the land around Alice Springs, wanted full ownership, realising that the commonwealth would have a duty of care to them because of native title laws.


(From Brian's link)

​

So you don't wish to entertain the idea that Aboriginals may want to have private and individual ownership of their land as opposed to communal tribal Native Title shares in land?

Why do you want to deny them the right to own their own individual blocks of land Brian?

The Native Title Amendment Act of 1998 and The Native Title Amendment Act of 2007 has made that status little more than a technicality. From the point of view of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the 1998 Native Title Amendments Acts discriminate against Aborigines.

Inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009: Australian Human Right Commission

This gives them greater protection and gives them individual ownership of their land. Native Title is overly clunky and difficult to prove. People have to show a tie and connection to the land, which in most instances cannot be found. It is also a drawn out process that can take years and years as searches are completed and research done to show that connection. And Native Title is not as safe as individual title to land is. As a community, this Alice Springs community elected for individual title to land as opposed to what they had before, which was communal and tribal title to that land. Now they retain their Native Title and individuals are ensured greater protection by owning their own plots of land within that communal land holding. So why is this such a bad thing for you?

The Australian government, which you defend and voted for, acquired the Ilpeye Ilpeye land, using the threat of withholding funds for basic services and infrastructure unless Aboriginal owned land was transferred to the Commonwealth for opening up areas presently owned and controlled by Aboriginal communities for unrestrained exploitation by the resource and tourism industries.

Again, learn to read the article you linked - which states that they retain Native Title and also have the ability to purchase their own individual land plots on that land - which is what they wanted as a group - to own their own land as individuals. You consider this to be a bad thing? Why do you wish to deny them the 'Great Australian Dream' Brian? Why do you want to force them to remain only with Native Title which is not as secure as individual ownership?

 

[Gustav]

This gives them greater protection and gives them individual ownership of their land. Native Title is overly clunky and difficult to prove. People have to show a tie and connection to the land, which in most instances cannot be found.

yeah
the land really was uninhabited..

It is also a drawn out process that can take years and years as searches are completed and research done to show that connection. And Native Title is not as safe as individual title to land is.

sure
shit like that is known as "raising the bar" around these parts

As a community, this Alice Springs community elected for individual title to land as opposed to what they had before, which was communal and tribal title to that land. Now they retain their Native Title and individuals are ensured greater protection by owning their own plots of land within that communal land holding. So why is this such a bad thing for you

you read your precious report, ja? what happens if they say no?

 

[Gustav]

I wont bother entertaining this with an answer.

thank you, comrade foley. Hurricane Compulsory Acquisition will make landfall soon and is expected to devastate the towns of jametry and bellicide

 

[Bells]

yeah
the land really was uninhabited..

That is what you anglos determined it as being.

Which we all know was wrong.

We've been through this repeatedly. Do you really like beating this horse until it bleeds some more Gusgus?

Move on with the debate.

sure
shit like that is known as "raising the bar" around these parts

Actually no. The reasoning behind it is that you can't just have any Indigenous individual putting a NT claim on any land. It offers a protection to those who would qualify. Some go straight through and others do not. Those that are quickly processed are because they can easily prove their claim. Then of course you often have situations where another person from another tribe will try to stymie your claim on the land by putting in their own NT for that same land - so then it has to be determined who has the better right to said land, etc.

Now, the Ilpiye Ilpiye community decided that, as individuals, they wanted freehold title - which means they got to own their plots of land within the native title area - which meant that no one could ever stake a claim on said land. And as a community, that was what they wanted and they got it. They retain NT as a community, but as individuals, they also hold legal and freehold title which offers them as individuals even more protection.

If you support self determination, you respect their wish. It would seem that you and Brian do not support their self determination?

you read your precious report, ja? what happens if they say no?

They continue to hold their NT on the land and have no individual rights over the land. Do try to keep up cherie.

 

[Gustav]

That is what you anglos determined it as being

hmm

........And again I may remind you that it was the British who made the Aborigines suffer as much as they have..........As for the issues regarding the Aborigines in Australia, most rational and normal Australians, black and white know that it was the English who stole their land and forbade them rights to any cultural links to their land.......... it wasn't MY ancestors who stole the land from these wonderful people, but YOURS........the Aborigines in Australia suffered a disastrous fate due to the way the English behaved.........The Aborigines know who made them suffer.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

i like this chick bells. she has balls
yah yah pathetic i know
anyway, a belated welcome
give em hell! (girlfriend)

LOL Wraith.. well said...

And thanks for the welcome Spookz

/puzzled

that was in 03. you must have had another handle?

 

[Gustav]

They continue to hold their NT on the land and have no individual rights over the land. Do try to keep up cherie.

oh
ok

Indigenous academic Mick Dodson has delivered a warning to the WA Premier, describing compulsory acquisition of land for the Kimberley gas hub as theft and an invasion.

The Premier Colin Barnett is expected to start proceedings to acquire the land at James Price Point through the courts this week. He says negotiations between traditional owners and Woodside have dragged on too long, cost too much, and he has run out of patience.

Professor Dodson, who's a Yawuru man from Broome, says it is an appalling path to take. "What I say to the Premier is be very careful about setting precents like this, they can do more damage that you can ever imagine. I think compulsorily acquisition is, in a sense, another act of colonialism, it's another theft of our land, it's another invasion. It should never ever be contemplated at a political level

The Premier has indicated he is frustrated that internal Aboriginal disputes are stalling negotiations and the project.​

Compulsory acquisition 'theft' of land (Sep 2, 2010)

Actually no. The reasoning behind it is that you can't just have any Indigenous individual putting a NT claim on any land. It offers a protection to those who would qualify. Some go straight through and others do not. Those that are quickly processed are because they can easily prove their claim. Then of course you often have situations where another person from another tribe will try to stymie your claim on the land by putting in their own NT for that same land - so then it has to be determined who has the better right to said land, etc.

hmm
that actually makes some sense...

``I cannot do any more, there have been endless meetings, lawyers being paid huge amounts of money,'' Mr Barnett told ABC Radio today. He met with KLC representatives last week, but said he had not heard back from them.

`I don't think they are in a position of being able to conclude this. Their executive officer, Wayne Bergmann, a terrific young fellow, I think that he has done all that he can to bring the Aboriginal people to agreement. But when you just have Aboriginal groups within the KLC taking legal action against each other, suing each other.... I can't deal with it any more,'' Mr Barnett said.

In April 2009, the land council signed a heads of agreement with Woodside and the State and Federal Governments approving the gas hub and $1.5 billion in benefits to flow to indigenous communities over 30 years. But in June this year, the council suspended negotiations over the hub after division emerged within claimant groups.

Earlier this month, traditional owners in the Kimberley voted down native title claimant Joseph Roe, a key opponent of the gas hub, opening the way for renewed negotiations. Mr Roe had sought to prevent the KLC from representing claimants in negotiations over the project, but his legal action was dismissed in the Federal Court on August 3.​

Premier Colin Barnett fed up with Kimberley gas hub talks

it still does not justify what basically amounts to theft and that is what compulsory acquisition is all about. whitey will take the land either way

 

[Bells]

oh
ok

Indigenous academic Mick Dodson has delivered a warning to the WA Premier, describing compulsory acquisition of land for the Kimberley gas hub as theft and an invasion.

The Premier Colin Barnett is expected to start proceedings to acquire the land at James Price Point through the courts this week. He says negotiations between traditional owners and Woodside have dragged on too long, cost too much, and he has run out of patience.

Professor Dodson, who's a Yawuru man from Broome, says it is an appalling path to take. "What I say to the Premier is be very careful about setting precents like this, they can do more damage that you can ever imagine. I think compulsorily acquisition is, in a sense, another act of colonialism, it's another theft of our land, it's another invasion. It should never ever be contemplated at a political level

The Premier has indicated he is frustrated that internal Aboriginal disputes are stalling negotiations and the project.​

Compulsory acquisition 'theft' of land (Sep 2, 2010)




hmm
that actually makes some sense...

``I cannot do any more, there have been endless meetings, lawyers being paid huge amounts of money,'' Mr Barnett told ABC Radio today. He met with KLC representatives last week, but said he had not heard back from them.

`I don't think they are in a position of being able to conclude this. Their executive officer, Wayne Bergmann, a terrific young fellow, I think that he has done all that he can to bring the Aboriginal people to agreement. But when you just have Aboriginal groups within the KLC taking legal action against each other, suing each other.... I can't deal with it any more,'' Mr Barnett said.

In April 2009, the land council signed a heads of agreement with Woodside and the State and Federal Governments approving the gas hub and $1.5 billion in benefits to flow to indigenous communities over 30 years. But in June this year, the council suspended negotiations over the hub after division emerged within claimant groups.

Earlier this month, traditional owners in the Kimberley voted down native title claimant Joseph Roe, a key opponent of the gas hub, opening the way for renewed negotiations. Mr Roe had sought to prevent the KLC from representing claimants in negotiations over the project, but his legal action was dismissed in the Federal Court on August 3.​

Premier Colin Barnett fed up with Kimberley gas hub talks

it still does not justify what basically amounts to theft and that is what compulsory acquisition is all about. whitey will take the land either way

The joys of native title. The majority of the Council agreed to a $1.5 billion deal that would have that money paid to Aboriginals in the area for over a period of 30 years. Some on the Council objected to the proposal and thus, we have a couple of years of infighting and fighting and constant attempts to undermine each other. $15 million of taxpayer dollars spent on just the negotiations alone (money that could have been spent on healthcare for those in the region, for example) and constant court battles between the traditional owners, the State Government has decided enough was enough and have put in place the necessary steps to just acquire the land and stick with the orignal arrangement of $1.5billion going to the Aboriginals.. What this compulsory acquisition does, however, is take away the Aboriginal's right to be a party to any future negotiations...

Is it theft? Yes.

At the end of the day, all are losers. Taxpayers who are footing the every growing bill of the negotiations, the traditional land owners who could have gotten a better deal and other traditional owners who don't want this gas hub to go ahead.


We have similar situations around Australia where NT holders are infighting about development that would benefit them greatly, but also destroy tracts of the environment. So you have two sides - the Government who may want the development and the Environmentalist who fuel the opposition to the development - thereby the Councils are split down the middle and it gets ugly. This is what money does to people. Some traditional owners want the funds and others want to maintain the environment. And both sides are supported by outside sources intent on their own agenda's.

 

[Gustav]

The joys of native title. The majority of the Council agreed to a $1.5 billion deal that would have that money paid to Aboriginals in the area for over a period of 30 years. Some on the Council objected to the proposal and thus, we have a couple of years of infighting and fighting and constant attempts to undermine each other. $15 million of taxpayer dollars spent on just the negotiations alone (money that could have been spent on healthcare for those in the region, for example) and constant court battles between the traditional owners, the State Government has decided enough was enough and have put in place the necessary steps to just acquire the land and stick with the orignal arrangement of $1.5billion going to the Aboriginals.. What this compulsory acquisition does, however, is take away the Aboriginal's right to be a party to any future negotiations...

gee you just paraphrased the article

Is it theft? Yes.

better

At the end of the day, all are losers.

bullshit
woodside petroleum profits

We have similar situations around Australia where NT holders are infighting about development that would benefit them greatly, but also destroy tracts of the environment. So you have two sides - the Government who may want the development and the Environmentalist who fuel the opposition to the development - thereby the Councils are split down the middle and it gets ugly. This is what money does to people. Some traditional owners want the funds and others want to maintain the environment. And both sides are supported by outside sources intent on their own agenda's.

in our neck of the woods, the scotus, in Kelo v. City of New London, allowed invoking eminent domain against one private party to benefit another which is basically what you guys are doing. my country, the california republic, told them to fuck off

 

[Brian Foley]

You should learn to read your own article:

You should learn to read a thread.

Again, learn to read the article you linked - which states that they retain Native Title

That if you had of bothered to read what I wrote you would of seen that The Native Title Amendment Act of 1998 and The Native Title Amendment Act of 2007 had made that status little more than a technicality.

which is what they wanted as a group - to own their own land as individuals.

Rubbish, they did not, they were happy under a tribal commune, until the Goverment threatened to seize their land.

Northern Territory Intervention
There were two major ways that the government gained access to the land. Firstly they withheld funds to these communities, saying that if the leases were not signed the communities would miss out on their share in $100 million worth of infrastructure funding. Worse still, if the communities refused to sign the leases the government threatened to compulsorily acquire the land. This happened to the Alice Springs town camp Ilpeye Ilpeye.

The community had their hand forced.

You consider this to be a bad thing? Why do you wish to deny them the 'Great Australian Dream' Brian? Why do you want to force them to remain only with Native Title which is not as secure as individual ownership?

But they had that right of home ownership already under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 with its complementary Amendment Bill of 2006

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 - Explanatory Memorandum
Overview:
2. In addition the Bill makes provision for long term leases over townships on Aboriginal land to make it easier for Aboriginal people to own homes and businesses on land in townships.

 

[Bells]

You should learn to read a thread.

And you should learn to read what you link in threads in general and keep in mind that some of us are aware of your lies and hypocrisy on this forum.

That if you had of bothered to read what I wrote you would of seen that The Native Title Amendment Act of 1998 and The Native Title Amendment Act of 2007 had made that status little more than a technicality.

Dumbarse, I had said much earlier on in this thread that Native Title is not secure and basically a token gesture. Maybe you should learn to read the thread.

Rubbish, they did not, they were happy under a tribal commune, until the Goverment threatened to seize their land.

You mean you want them to stay happy undera tribal commune. They wanted to own their own land as individuals while having Native Title over the whole. That was their choice. What's the matter Brian? Don't you want them to be able to own their own individual blocks of land outright? I mean, we all know how much you hold Aboriginals in high esteem, don't we?

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, repeatedly, no one was happy with the intervention. It should never have happened that way. I also stated, repeatedly that Native Title itself offers them no protection. Individual and outright land ownership does. It is also something that they can offer their children as an asset and encourages their children to strive for - ie, strive for an education and land ownership, which is what pretty much all Australians strive for - their own land. That is the Australian dream, is it not? Or do you think it should only be for white Australians, Brian?

The community had their hand forced.

From your earlier link that discusses this particular community in general, it had nothing to do with the Howard Government's intervention. The transfer of land to those in the Ilpiye Ilpiye community had nothing to do with the Howard Government's intervention. Learn to read your links properly.

They transferred portions of their Native Title land to the Federal Government who then transferred it back to them in individual lots to individuals so they could own it outright and have the protection of land ownership that the Native Title Act does not give them. Do you get it now?

They then keep Native Title over the rest of the land.

But they had that right of home ownership already under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 with its complementary Amendment Bill of 2006

Errmm.. Federal laws trump State Laws and the transfer of individual titles over to them from the Federal Government is much more secure and would trump any land leasehold they would have had under the Northern Territory's laws.

Freehold and owning the land outright is more secure and they recognised that. They were also compensated for the land transfer, with said land transfer then being transferred back to them for complete ownership as individuals. The rest of the land they still control via Native Title.

 

[Brian Foley]

Dumbarse, I had said much earlier on in this thread that Native Title is not secure and basically a token gesture. Maybe you should learn to read the thread.

Maybe you ought to back out of this thread, you are obviously out of your depth on this.

You mean you want them to stay happy undera tribal commune. They wanted to own their own land as individuals while having Native Title over the whole. That was their choice. What's the matter Brian? Don't you want them to be able to own their own individual blocks of land outright? I mean, we all know how much you hold Aboriginals in high esteem, don't we?

This forum you belong to again, your not fooling anyone. Besides I dont give a shit, this is some lame attempt to derail the argument.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, repeatedly, no one was happy with the intervention. It should never have happened that way. I also stated, repeatedly that Native Title itself offers them no protection. Individual and outright land ownership does. It is also something that they can offer their children as an asset and encourages their children to strive for - ie, strive for an education and land ownership, which is what pretty much all Australians strive for - their own land. That is the Australian dream, is it not? Or do you think it should only be for white Australians, Brian?

Dream??? You are not even an Australian.

 

[Gustav]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, repeatedly, no one was happy with the intervention. It should never have happened that way.

how would you have intervened?

 

[Brian Foley]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, repeatedly, no one was happy with the intervention. It should never have happened that way

how would you have intervened?

Dont bother Gustav, read page 1 of this thread this new 'Australian' endorses the policy of the Australian Goverment.

 

[Brian Foley]

Predictably of the $100 million promised to the Aborigines under this scheme $70 million go missing.

'Millions unaccounted for' in housing program

By Kristy O'Brien

Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:17pm AEDT

The Council of Territory Cooperation has questioned why up to $70 million cannot be accounted for in the latest financial records for a major Aboriginal housing program.

Northern Territory Department of Housing chief executive Ken Davies told a public hearing today that extra costs had come from establishing work camps, pre-ordering building supplies and start-up costs for the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program.

Committee chair Gerry Wood rejected the argument and said that infrastructure comes out of a separate bucket of money.

He said he does not understand where millions of dollars have gone.

"We're concerned about some money that's out there which doesn't appear to have any sort of identification and it's somewhere between $20 and $70 million," Mr Wood said.

Mr Wood was told that the Territory Alliance would only be able to break down the finances when the project is completed in 2013 and until then taxpayers have to trust the money has been spent correctly.

 

[Bells]

Maybe you ought to back out of this thread, you are obviously out of your depth on this.

I believe that would be you, as evidenced by your later racist comments about me, who happens to be a migrant who has lived in Australia for over 3/4 of her life and you do not consider me to be an Australian. How fucking racist are you?

This forum you belong to again, your not fooling anyone.

Don't you get it yet you bigot? I don't belong to such forums. You on the other hand do and you also belong to others I can't even bring myself to look at anymore. You're all into the white supremacist shit, aren't you?

Besides I dont give a shit, this is some lame attempt to derail the argument.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out your rampant hypocrisy when you thought you were being clever by thrusting yourself into this thread, completely misrepresenting your own links and then getting pissed off when your idiocy is pointed out to you.

Dream??? You are not even an Australian.

And? I have lived here since 1980. Unlike you, however, I do not refer to Aboriginals like "Boongs" and use language I can't even bring myself to repeat without wanting to throw up to describe them. You on the other hand do and do so often. Tell me you little bigot, how many Aboriginals do you know? How many come to your home for dinner? I'm betting by how you speak of them, it would not be many, if any at all. Lets face it, you are pissed off at the very notion of Native Title because you don't think they should have any of their own land back. And the very thought that your white Government is giving them land for free for individual and private ownership must just burn you, doesn't it?

 

[Bells]

how would you have intervened?

I'd already said, much earlier on in the thread. You must have missed it in the rabid posting and misrepresenting that you were doing. I wouldn't have intervened. It should have been handled as we handle all child abuse cases in Australia.. on a case by case basis and the children placed in homes of relatives first for their own safety (and if none available, in foster care until their home is safe for them to return) if need be and the abusers arrested.

Provide building works to repair and build proper housing and schools - driving the economy by hiring local labourers to do the building work - getting people off welfare and children into schools - ensure they have access to healthy and affordable food as well as proper health care. You know, give them what we take for granted in the cities and larger regional centres. Tying welfare payments to truancy is something that works in the larger community and in some families in Australia (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike), it is necessary - education is the key imo. It wouldn't be an intervention. It would be providing them what we have everywhere else in the country. If they want dry areas, then they can sort that out themselves, and not have it Government imposed.

What Aboriginals suffer from is a lack of access and restriction to equal access to what the rest of the population has - and throwing money at the problem won't make it better. It will make them more dependent on welfare, which is bad in the long run. There is a wealth of knowledge about traditional customs and family life in Aboriginal communities. They need to be proud of that and make it a showcase to ensure it carries on with later generations - but first and foremost, they need to be given equal access to everything to allow them to get out of the horrible situation they are in.

 

[Brian Foley]

I believe that would be you, as evidenced by your later racist comments about me, who happens to be a migrant who has lived in Australia for over 3/4 of her life and you do not consider me to be an Australian. How fucking racist are you?

You cannot be an Australian you were not born here, I can tell by your sterile posting you havent a clue as to what you are talking about, its all defensive claptrap mixed with psycho-babble, your hatred for SAM is clearly evident. You are not honest to say that SAM and Gustav are correct.

Don't you get it yet you bigot? I don't belong to such forums. You on the other hand do and you also belong to others I can't even bring myself to look at anymore. You're all into the white supremacist shit, aren't you?

You must be a member of that forum, Geoff P got involved immediately, that was the dead give away. Geoff P and The Devil set up several accounts in my name on different forums, in some attempt to portray me as a Jew Hater, we got them exposed on SFD forums, I left the source on the last thread. Your excuse of doing research on rightwing forums was utterly ridiculous, a lie. As I told you I dont give a shit what you think, people I PMed here are satisfied.

And? I have lived here since 1980. Unlike you, however, I do not refer to Aboriginals like "Boongs" and use language I can't even bring myself to repeat without wanting to throw up to describe them. You on the other hand do and do so often.

Not me, only your sockpuppet, only you speak in derogatory terms of Aborigines.

Post 208
Are the people living in some communities feral? Yes. When shit is smeared on walls and houses destroyed, cars burnt or attacked as they drive past, amongst the most pleasanter aspects of such areas, then yes, it is referred to as "feral" by all and sundry. Or is it the fact that feral is seen in conjunction with rap music that has infiltrated Aboriginal communities, leading many to that kind of lifestyle? Here is the comment in question:

What disgusting unfounded racist stereotypical description of Aborigines, obviously you have no knowledge of how they live.

Lets face it, you are pissed off at the very notion of Native Title because you don't think they should have any of their own land back. And the very thought that your white Government is giving them land for free for individual and private ownership must just burn you, doesn't it?

Not at all, not me, my parents are Irish as well as Nationalist Irish in their struggle for their land, how could I not support the Aboriginals. I would like to see the Aborigines get all their land back, doesnt bother me. I spent the best part of my life in the Territory, I am the only one on this thread who brought up Native Title because I know all about what happens, I brought in Ilpeye Ilpeye, you had no knowledge of it. You were not even aware that the Australian Goverment had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to bring in the intervention, its a Fucking invasion. You dont know what you are talking about, you dont fool me either.