Still want to visit Hall's Creek?

And what has been the NT Governments response to all this?

Raise the age of responsibility.

.
I have been there only once, a few years ago, and even then did not feel comfortable to stay the night.
And I could say the same for a few other places.

I understand the anger & frustration of both those affected & those commenting here, & in no way do I condone nor excuse the behaviours.

However, whilst having no solution to offer I would have to say that what is being witnessed is the result of the causes behind so much anger on the part of these offenders remaining unaddressed.

No doubt someone here will want to comment that they should 'get over it' ('It' being intergenerational disadvantage & trauma) but so long as their sense of injustice continues to fuel their anger, & that anger is met with more anger from outside in the form of attempts to control, the situation will remain unchanged. It may subside but will inevitably rise again in some form .

For real change to occur the adults within the community need to be empowered , but that is both a long term strategy & a strategy which to date has never been attempted in a meaningful & consistent way. It's always about controlling, rarely about giving people real control over their lives, & in the meantime the situation only gets worse. Disempowerment is so ingrained, how to empower is a very difficult question to answer, even if is seen as desirable.

The real problem is that it is not just the kids who have been traumatised, It's the parents, the grandparents & the old people who went before.

You cannot just take meaning from people's lives & then expect that they can be managed by trying to control them. It never works , & it's madness to keep trying.

How to achieve what I think is needed , I don't know, but I feel sure a Yes vote in the referendum when it occurs would be a good start.

It seems that these awful sort of outbursts always get 'compartmentalised', but the solution, whatever it is, has to be within the bigger picture.

Similar behaviours are seen across the western world, always in areas where disadvantaged & disempowered populations live. Dismissed as ghettos.

Cuppa, so you are advocating a Yes vote for something that is a complete unknown, 100% racist and something that will further divide this country?

The bit you got right is "no solution". And I for one will vote NO. Why? No details on what we are going to be voting for.

I dont think the Yes vote will change anything as the problem we are seeing has nothing to do with the past.
It is easy to say it is a racial issue but I think it is a social disfunctional one and the colour of their skin is irrelevant
The ones that are in this disfunctional cycle I would say couldn’t care less about their ancestry or their attachment to the land, the link to that was probably severed a generation or two ago and they are living the same way as anyone else would being raised in that environment

Of course nobody will have the balls to say it like it is as they will just get hounded down and branded a rascist. The ones that use the beautiful meaningless words will continue on their journey and nothing will change.
These people need our help but we need to be honest about what the real issues are and start dealing with them. Sorry doesn’t fix anything in these peoples world nor does having another distant voice in Canberra

There are always those who will focus away from the problems by picking an argument about a related matter. Yes I advocate a Yes vote & no I don't agree with how you describe it.

To call a move to give a voice to those who have been largely shut out of our system racist is preposterous. Of course advocates for a No vote have Jacinta to hang their hats on because she provides the counter view & is the right colour to say it. The poster girl of the 'right' side of politics. Now there is divisiveness John. And I think she does very nicely out of it along with her mentor Warren Mundine.

To suggest that the problem, the social dysfunction, has nothing to do with the past is at best blindness. It is racism which both caused the dysfunction & which perpetuates it.

Just last Saturday evening I was privileged to be at a function in Lockhart River, a function put on by locals for locals. To see what was important to these folk makes the statement about 'couldn't care less about their ancestry or their attachment to the land' absolutely laughable. It was there & palpable! It is is the glue which remains, its what 'we' cannot take from them.

No I don't suggest that a yes vote will directly resolve the issues in Halls Gap ..... but it is a step in the right direction & long overdue. To argue against it is to argue for things to continue as they are. For how many more generations?

It saddens me that anyone would consider voting no. Largely I suspect the folk who choose to vote that way will be those who whilst complaining about aboriginal people don't really want things to change. It suits their views .

I expect a tirade in response to this post, feel free, but I won't be getting into a slanging match. You know what I think, & you know I would like to see change. How about you? You know the old adage " Continuing to try the same thing over & over when it doesn't work is madness".

That's it I've said my piece .

Oh ..... and the 'No Details' argument is a deliberate furphy to try to influence more to vote No. It tries to play on peoples's fears & caution whilst conveniently ignoring statements made by both the Prime Minster & others involved that by the time a referendum occurs there will be clarity on the details of what the vote is about.

Over & out.

The Yes vote will further divide Australia and will not stop this situation at all.

There is no way you will get a united Aboriginal voice, as there are now Aboriginal people saying it simply will not work.

Cuppa my son lived in the Lockhart community for two years and has a number of friends there and his partner is aboriginal
My reference in the above post was not about the people you are talking about as I agree with you about their connection to the land and the past. The ones I am talking about are disconnected to that aspect unfortunately and the help they need is different to the ones looking for a voice in parliament. I just think they are two different issues that need addressing.

The biggest issue is no one knows how to fix it and if you ask the community they dont have an answer either.
Successive governments have thrown money at this for years so I dont think it is a case of not wanting a solution and I think the general public are wanting a solution too.

I am not convinced that setting up minority group representation in parliament is an inclusive move but rather promoting an us and them type scenario. Why cant we all just be Australians together?

So, let's be clear here, you are prepared to vote for anything / something without details provided.
You are clearly a worry or should I say a good friend of anyone putting up a proposal with little or no details.
Methinks you could be easy bait for "scammers".
It does NOT play on people's fears however, you are correct to say it encourages caution and so it should.

The details of what the Voice have yet to be released and the referendum question has yet to be determined. And yet, like the unrepresentative swill in the "National Party" (with one or two exceptions), some have already decided how they will vote? As the saying goes, the hardest thing to open is a closed mind.

To quote the late R F Kennedy: "Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not."

Beautifully written Cuppa. The claim that a Voice to Parliament is racist is pure tosh. It is redolent of the same mindset that claims Ngozi Fulani's charity in the UK is "racist" because it focuses on abused black women.

As someone said, to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is madness. Just about everything possible has been done already. A Yes vote is at least a change that's never been tried. Racism is as much a fact of life as people's fervent desire to support different football teams. The trick is the ability to live peacefully with the fact, accept that different races are different, and fully accomodate the difference without expecting anyone to be converted. The kids need to be brought into line, and if a spear in the leg by an elder is the answer, then the elders should be given the power and respect to do it. But then again, we're not even allowed to smack our own kid's bum anymore so pigs might fly, welcome to the consequences.

@Bazooka . I see your words in your post 12 as a big part of the problem.
You have tajen the words divisive and automatically turned that around and taken it as rascist when they are two different things
The overuse of the rascist implications is counterproductive and the point of the discussion gets lost, we see this happening all the time when we are talking about any other race or cultural issues in our society. The race card gets played and the meaningful discussion of the actual problem gets lost and shut down.
We need to get over ourselves and this woke attitude and call a spade a spade. That doesn’t mean you are being disrespectful to anyone you are just being honest with the situation so that steps to resolve it can start.

Sorry Alby, racism is racism. Calling it out is calling a spade a spade.

The real problem is that far too many people like to consider themselves non racist & become terribly offended when their (often unintended/unrealised ) racist behaviour or statements are pointed out to them. The racism in Australia is systemic & many seem to consider this 'normal' & something to be protected.

Yes calling a spade a spade by highlighting racism does make discussion difficult because often folk view the term racism as a personal affront, & react directly to that in a defensive manner, making understanding that their racist commentary or actions are far more of an affront to those they apply them to.

Use of the term 'using the race card' is a common retort which sidesteps the real issue of racism & distracts any conversation toward an argument.

The term Woke has fast become a term used offensively (but when called out the users often slip back to the arguments about it's original /historical meaning. It is very rare to see it used in it's original context today). It has been 'hijacked by right wing haters, making it deliberately ambiguous, it is almost always a term of abuse with built in deniability.

FWIW when I make reference to racism/racist, it refers to behaviour & not necessarily to character.

It really is very sad that racism has become politicised by far right wing politics to the point where even folk with moderate right views seem to accept them whilst seeking to both deny their views are racist and at the same time to normalise those views, to validate them as acceptable.

We must remember that any views which seek to blame, to put down, to disadvantage & to hurt others are never acceptable, whether on the basis of race or anything else, but when all this happens with the ingrained racism prevalent in Australia it's so often denied, sometimes knowingly by those who take pride in their blatant racism, but often because Australian culture for so long has normalised it, that people who are otherwise good people, not haters, do not recognise the hurt they cause & the harm they assist to continue.

Look at politics, where does the bulk of intolerance of difference lay. Once upon a time those on the 'right ' side of the political fence believed primarily in supporting our community with different ways of seeing how the community could best be supported to those on the left side of the fence. Back then racism was not the province of one side of politics. Today, in the main it is. This has resulted from a very successful hijacking by those within our community who have no interest in the wellbeing of our community at all.

You'll have to show me where I did that Alby. As far as I can see I called out the cliched nonsense that having particular arrangements for disenfranchised and disadvantaged indigenous people is racist. THAT is a classic example of the egregious misuse of racist/racism. There's nothing new in that notion, it's been raised on and off for decades. Fortunately, most have moved on to supporting those trying to address the problems and finding solutions. Cuppa addressed the point extremely well in his original posts. I've seen examples of the very same "reverse racism" comments on other websites recently so perhaps I'm more sensitive than others.

I'm happy to call a spade a spade and have done so on this forum previously as most know. I don't like doing it - this isn't a forum for that sort of "debate" imo - but some things are too important to let go without comment. There has in the past been some particularly offensive views expressed on this forum, born largely of prejudice and opinionated ignorance, which are the basic drivers of racism. The vast majority of people on this forum as far as I can see are good-hearted, well-meaning, concerned, frustrated, and want to see real change. "Less talk more action" a la the supposedly "dehumanising" welfare card, grog bans etc is how I'd sum it up. I agree wholeheartedly although like most on this forum I don't have experience and expertise of these complex problems and I have no solutions beyond the obvious, most of which are already being done.

The linking of the Voice - which I have some concerns about as far as its ability to represent a multitude of indigenous opinions - to existing problems of youth misbehaviour and crime seems very strange to me, especially as we have no details of what its aims are, how it will operate, how it will be held accountable, etc.

Cuppa you have just gone and done exactly what I am talking about.
So if someone holds the view that creating a subsection in parliament for a particular group is not the best way forward they are a rascist?

What if they have a better idea for a way forward to getting a positive outcome ?

Bazooka maybe I am confused with your position on this but I took your post as saying you are rascist if you don’t support the parliament vote.
Apologies if I misunderstood

Hi Alby, I agree in the most part with what Bazooka has written.

In regard to what you believe I have done "exactly what I am talking about' I'm afraid I need to request further explanation. Truthfully I don not understand what you mean . If you could explain your meaning with reference to my post I would appreciate it.

Your second comment suggesting that I maintain that not supporting 'The Voice' makes someone racist is not so, at least not in itself, I do suggest however that many who choose not to support 'The Voice ' will however be racists. And the idea of the Voice is NOT to create as 'Subsection of Parliament'. Not at all, it will not be part of parliament. It is about creating a pathway for aboriginal peoples to have a voice, to advise on matters of importance to themselves, to advise on solutions they believe stand a better chance of working. Decisions will still be for Parliament alone. Imagine if David & Michelle asked interested members to form a group to advise on the direction of Exploroz. No one would expect that group to be decision makers, that role would remain with David & Michelle. The Voice differs in just one respect & that is the opportunity for the Australian people to support it & to make it something which cannot be removed by future governments because it suits them to.

Your final question is I believe the key (or a key) to this current discussion. If there is a better way forward to getting a positive outcome, then of course it would be 'better'.

However 'they' needs to be defined, as does 'better' and 'positive outcome'
My thoughts are if 'they' are not aboriginal peoples, whatever the outcome it won't be better. It'll just be more of the same which doesn't work.
And 'positive outcome' from who's perspective? Again if this does not come from aboriginal peoples, then the term will be unlikely to prove positive in the long term.

No-one is ever going to achieve 100% agreement & no dissent on anything, & the Aboriginal peoples are no different to anyone else in that respect. However the coming together & the writing of the Statement From The Heart' part of which is the basis for The Voice, was a significant event in our history & I respect it as such.

The naysayers, who for whatever reasons don't want a vote for the Voice to succeed, often cite 'lack of 100% agreement among aboriginal peoples. This is little more than 'white anting' & to me makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone else is subject to a system where lack of 100% agreement is expected & that a democratic majority is acceptable. Why should that be any different for Aboriginal people. We can't dismiss them as being incapable of decision making any more than we can do that with non aboriginal people & if we do ..... on what basis?

Written words are easily misinterpreted Alby, no problems.

I have an open mind on the Voice but opinions which won't persuade me are those such as the simplistic ones Jacinta Price has espoused to date (particularly the one people, one nation guff). Her views appear to have been flavoured, nay tainted by her Centre for Independent Studies (an extreme libertarian "think tank") indoctrination and the flattery she gets from right wing media extremists (the very same mouthpieces which contributed to the appalling election result for the opposition in Vic, where once again reactionary conservatives were shunned while moderate Liberals were not).

Price needs to explain what she means by "we are all just Australian citizens, and we should be treated as such." Sounds admirable but completely ignores history and cultural disadvantage. Does she mean that land, hunting, and mineral rights should be removed? That history should be ignored? That token gestures like recognition and welcome to country, indigenous football rounds, etc which have helped normalise acceptance of heritage and culture should be dumped? That measures such as the welfare card should be dropped? Does she oppose a treaty, the aboriginal flag?

Cuppa you are saying that because someone has a different view on an appropriate path forward and intend on voting No they are rascist .
Does that then mean all the aboriginal people who choose to vote No are rascist too?

See what is happening here? the dialogue focuses on whether you are rascist or not and there has been no discussion on what the actual vote is all about and how it will work. There is no dialogue on the practical aspect of the workings and how it can achieve a better outcome. The discussion just gets shut down on racial grounds before you get to that point.

That is the part that gets up my nose and the point I am trying to make.

Hi Alby, If I have given that impression then I could understand it would get up your nose

However that is not what I said, or at least intended to say. To paint all No voters as the same would be no better than painting all aboriginal folk the same.

I thought I had covered your concern in my previous post when I wrote " Your second comment suggesting that I maintain that not supporting 'The Voice' makes someone racist is not so, at least not in itself, I do suggest however that many who choose not to support 'The Voice ' will however be racists."

So you can see that my view is not how you have continued to see it.

I accept that there will be people who vote NO for reasons other than racism, & who will mean well.

Sadly there will also be people who will vote NO simply because of their ingrained hatred of aboriginals whom they don't want to ever see having any power, let alone exercising it. These are the folk who scrape up the filth & fling it around *every* time any aboriginal groups exercise their rights.

These two different groups will vote the same way & unfortunately whatever their reasons, if their vote wins the day my view remains that it will be a significant opportunity for Australia to 'grow up' lost, & the nation will remain stuck in the adolescence of it's development for many more years to come. And that is unlikely to be a pretty or fulfilling picture for anyone.

Cuppa has explicitly said that isn't the case Alby.

Wrt to your "no discussion" point:
Can't see any reason to think that details won't be forthcoming prior to our votes being lodged. I'm supremely confident that will occur, as promised by Albanese. It's a referendum after all. I'm guessing there will also be background information provided for those of us who didn't follow the Uluru Statement From The Heart closely (probably the vast majority of Australians) and don't understand what the Voice is supposed to achieve.

A national debate will then ensue, and that should ensure anyone with an interest has adequate information to base their decision on. What no-one (not even Jacinta Price or Noel Pearson) can know is what a YES vote will and will not do for indigenous people, whether it will be good, benign or bad overall. Personally I doubt it will divide the nation as some hyperbolically suggests, any more than the Marriage Equality decision brought about moral decay, and "threatened our sense of family, identity, ancestry , history , heritage and society."

The irony of Aussie1's two posts was palpable. People who intend to vote NO at this point obviously have closed their minds. If they're like me, I very much doubt they've done any background research on the Uluru Statement or discussions on what the Voice may entail. I certainly haven't.

.
Hi Cuppa, and others of course.
I should have realised that my posting of the ABC report of community behaviour in Hall's Creek would ignite divisive responses. I wish now that I had not posted.

But I do now wish to speak to the discussion spawned from the original post.

The term "racist" gets right up my nose. It is bandied about with abandon. The moment that someone expresses something about 'racial' matters many who disagree with the expression will shout "racist" or "racism". And I see you doing just that. An expression about race does not necessarily make one a racist or having racial views. I strongly disagree with rapists, domestic violence and many other social wrongdoings but I am unlikely to be criticised should I express that. But if I express criticism of misbehaviour in the Aboriginal community I am likely to be challenged on 'racial' grounds.
It may be appropriate to address someone about having views about matters of race, but those views do not make them a racist by necessity. Merely that they have views on a racial subject.... which may not align with your own.

As to "The Voice". You postulate that "many who choose not to support it will be racists". How do you know that? Statistically, I should think it likely that the converse could also be true. Is not your hypothesising on social differentiation akin to racist behaviour?
I await clarity on the subject of this proposal. Plenty of opinion exists but little fact. However if there is a perceived need for our Government and our Parliament to hear the Aboriginal voice then surely this can be implemented by Departmental instruction without the need for Acts or Constitutional amendment. I view with alarm you proposition to "make it something which cannot be removedly future governments". "Future governments" may well have good reason to change what has gone before and it is inconceivable that changes could be placed beyond them.

If our present government sees reason to act in a particular way for the betterment of the Aboriginal community then I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so. But history will evince that results of referendums are notorious in maintaining the status quo and accordingly fail in the intent. If that were to happen in this case then it impedes the government to take similar action by Act or departmental instruction. Then the whole cause is lost. Besides, it costs a lot..... the 1999 Referendum cost $66,820,894 and the proposition was lost.

Postscript..... I have just read your most recent post and you seem to really have some predetermined opinion of some voters that do not see things your way.

From Cuppa..."I accept that there will be people who vote NO for reasons other than racism, & who will mean well.

Sadly there will also be people who will vote NO simply because of their ingrained hatred of aboriginals whom they don't want to ever see having any power, let alone exercising it. These are the folk who scrape up the filth & fling it around *every* time any aboriginal groups exercise their rights."

There will also be many who will vote NO after having first hand experience of first nations people anti social behaviour. Cairns, Townsville, Katherine, Darwin, Alice Springs and dozens of other towns/cities have seen a huge surge in black kids stealing cars, break and enters, assaults, rapes, bashings and other crimes. Many times a day it is repeated in these places. 20 years working in dozens of aboriginal communities also taught me that many aboriginals are just as racist as some whites. Get a bit sick of hearing from whites who travel around the country for a few months and then start sprucing off about how they know all about aboriginal culture etc. I have no idea what the solution is. I,ve a lot more respect for the aboriginals living in regional/remote areas than some of the garbage living in the cities.

A vote is not going to change anything...until the parents take responsibilty we will be having the same old discussion in 50 years time..

Thank you Alan, you have done a much better job of articulating my point than I did.

While I disagree the MANY no voters will be racists Allan (I suspect that was a simple miswording by Cuppa) I have zero doubt that MOST racists, fascists and white supremacists in the is country WILL vote no. Fortunately these are still a very tiny minority in this country.

The history of referenda in this country shows that to get the majority required, Australians need to be utterly convinced that, among other things, (1) change is necessary, (2) that change will improve something significantly for the better, (3) that only by changing the Constitution can that be achieved. The last referendum involving indigenous matters in 1967 was simply righting some egregious wrongs. It proposed to remove references discriminating against first Australians in the Constitution, allowed Parliament to make laws about them, and made sure they would be counted in our census! It was rightly overwhelming supported (90+%) while the accompanying question about Reps Vs Senate numbers was soundly rejected.

We may be evolving in our views about change but as far as Constitutional change is concerned we are typically skeptical and conservative, and probably rightly so. The wording of this proposed Constitutional change will be critical to its success, and demise. And, should it fail to get the double majority it won't necessarily mean we didn't like or support the principle.

Allan, first up I think some topics become divisive deliberately. Discussions about aboriginal issues have no need to be divisive, but are so often made so. It is a particularly effective way of avoiding the discussions required for change to occur. Some are far happier to just keep pointing the finger.

Using the term racist/or racism on my part is not as you suggest - bandying it about with abandon. I use the term quite deliberately to be clear what it is that I don't like. Others choose to interpret/misinterpret what I say to suit their own views or agenda.

My comments here have remained generalised & have not been directed toward any individual. Unless someone posts something blatantly racist how could I.

What I did say in regard to your initial post is there for all to read. Racism did not get a mention.

Have 'racial' views only becomes racist when those views are applied to an entire people. This is nothing more than stereotyping & in Australia is very commonly negative & harmful. It comes spewing out at the slightest opportunity. If you or others cannot see that my posts aim to counter that whilst promoting the idea that change is both needed (I think we can all agree on that can't we? ) & that it will require doing something different.

To me that something different may differ to what many think, but my background as a therapist dealing with people's trauma has taught me that to move on from trauma several things need to happen to begin the process. 1. The trauma has to stop. 2 The trauma needs to be spoken of , acknowledged. 3. Those traumatised need to be *assisted* to gain the strength to overcome the effects of the trauma themselves.

To date not one of those things has happened to the race our forefathers did all they could to wipe them out, mostly in horrific manner as though they were vermin.

When that became less socially acceptable the trauma was continued in many ways, no less awful, judt less bloodthirsty.

It has yet to stop.

I'm not really interested in debate about whether 'The Voice' will or will not be effective. I am interested in showing aboriginal people that there are sufficient Australians in favour of giving it a go. That in itself could be the most positive message the non aboriginal community has ever given to aboriginals.

We cannot know the exact course of the path. Folk who used to come to see me professionally never came with a map, & no map was provided. What they knew was that things were not right for them & that they had hope of a way to move forward. Many found their hopes realised. The trauma would always be there but for many it ceased to be an impediment to moving on to the sort of life they hoped for but feared they would never have.

The Voice is not "THE ANSWER', but is the best way we have to date of discovering what the answer might be. Likely the answer(s) rather than a single answer.

As to enshrining The Voice into the constituion, it is I suggest the only way of providing the continuity & there the trust that is required for positive participation. Aboriginals have been taught very powerfully over generations that white folk cannot be trusted. We need a way that all can recognise of making a new start.
I witnessed the rise in overt racism in this country when JohnHowards government were in power. More abour what they often didn't say than what they did. Over the years of their time in government this country took significant backward steps as far as Aboriginal issues went, in particular - trust. Not saying that was deliberate or racist - just that it happened. What I don't want to see is the beginning of a useful process being wiped after a 4 year period. This would be 'more of the same' & keeps the whole issue party political. We all need to grow up & deal with the sore which has been festering for far too long.

Lastly, in response to your final comment. I cannot control what folk may choose to read into the views I express, but you are absolutely ,completely wrong. I try to express MY views as best I can, & some things I certainly do feel passionate about & this is one of them. It has zero to do with others not agreeing with me.
If someone here were to make a racist statement I WOULD call it out. I have not done that, because no racist statement has been made. No different to someone making a pro-rape statement.

The problem it seems is that those who do hold racist views have in mote recent years realised that many do not share them & thus have found ways to infer ambiguously their views ready to backtrack of necessary, The reason that that is a problem is that it makes it very difficult to know who is & who is not expressing a racist view. I hope that you can see that in light of that that my choice is to make it clear that I AM anti racist and that is all I have really said. NOT that others who have different views to me are racists. Can you see the difference?

On the original topic, this might interest some:

The myths and realities of youth crime in northern Australia

Latest stats in the NT actually show a 20% decrease in [reported] sexual assault.

BigFish, I think my views would be little different had I not been swanning around the country for a few years, & I agree that many people affected by lawlessness will be likely to vote the way they do as a result of the trauma *they* have been on the receiving end of. Perhaps I would too if it had happened to me.

I think if I did, if I let my anger direct my vote, whilst very understandable , it would not do anything to actually help things change. That I do feel confident about.

I agree with your point about the need for parents to take responsibility. Absolutely. But I also recognise that many of these people are unable to do this without first gaining control of their own lives, control which in so any ways has been taken from them . If they could it would already have happened. That statement doesn't seek to excuse, but rather to commence a discourse which helps. Anything else is blaming, & whether deserved or not will, as you predict, see the same problems occurring in 50 years time, by then 50 years more trauma & complexity.

Allan B, I whole heartedly agree with your post Dec 8 @ 11.11
Completely correct and all sensible folks agree with the content.

Just by the by Allan. Constitutional change is ALWAYS possible, so even if The VOICE is successful it is never beyond the PEOPLE to change or remove it. Putting the CHOICE and responsibility in the hands of the people is far more preferable to leaving it to governments in my view. That view has only been hardened with what has emerged recently in those once solid bastions of democracy the UK and the USA, and here under the last government for that matter. If Trump, Johnson, and Morrison didn't ring alarm bells for people as far as corruption and real threats to democracy go, then they need to do some basic research.

Folks, I knew the chances of my posting would 'draw fire', but really I'm not a masochist.
When I previously wrote 'Over & Out" I mean't it, but have allowed myself to be drawn back in.

I think I've had enough & that my continuing will only continue to provide a target for more shots & become repetitive.

I believe I have made my thinking clear. My hope is that rather any futile attempt to prevail in an unending argument, that what I have posted may if nothing else alert some to a view that had not been considered & potentially give some hope to a situation several have painted as hopeless.

So I think that's it for me this time around ...... Over & Out ...... again. :)

Cuppa

.
"I believe I have made my thinking clear."
Very clear Cuppa. Thank you.

Call me a knucklehead, but I haven't seen anything disrespectful in this thread, just different opinions. Having different opinions isn't divisive or a bad thing. It's good to know other people's opinions whether you agree with them or not. Being civilised is the ability to agree to disagree in my opinion, but others may disagree with that.....they're probably tossers though. Lol!

Jacinta Price has offered nothing logical at all as far as I can see. In fact her "logic" that "there was no evidence the Voice would support marginalised communities" and that it would instead “divide on the lines of race” is completely at odds with her statement that we don't have enough details about the proposal. Unless Price has a direct line to "god" it is also patently obvious she herself has no evidence about what a Voice might or might not achieve.

This is not a rare thing for Price. One of her justifications for the retention of Jan26 as Australia Day - that she wouldn't exist if it wasn't for white settlement - is illogical nonsense. There are thousands of more relevant reasons why she exists. I wouldn't exist had Hitler not invaded Poland and currently science suggests we all wouldn't exist but for "mitochondrial Eve". Take your pick of any historical event and you can probably find a link somewhere. Price's invention that there exists some "farcical idea that all Aboriginal people think the same based on our race" is itself farcical. That is the type of ignorant stereotyping usually found in racist circles.

.
Hi Bob,
As I said, we didn't stay overnight so will never know what we may have missed.
But on the "morning fuel-up"...... I always fill on arrival, not departure. For one thing, there may not be any fuel left by morning!

I had a restless night in the caravan park at Halls Creek in 2007 sleeping with one eye open because of all the shenanigans going all around us. This has been brewing for quite a few years.

Pretty much a realist if you ask me. :-)

If I stand out the front of a Centrelink office and a young 20 year old Anglo-Celtic lad walks out smiling telling his mates he got the money and I say - " why don't you get a job you lazy bugger ? " nobody bats an eyelid - but if a young 20 year old Indigenous lad walks out two minutes later smiling telling his mates he got the money and I say - " why don't you get a job you lazy bugger ? " I get labelled a racist - how does that work because I would really like to know ??????

Cheers
Gazz

.
Possibly an egalitarian racist Bigfish.

You could be right Allan. Hating all mankind equally allows me to say what ever I think about a persons race, weight, disability, etc.etc. because I have not singled out any one issue or favoured any one group. I am now an egalitarian racist! Donald would be proud of me.......

Objection, leading question your Honour. It's hypothetical Gazz but I'd say you'd jumped to a conclusion on the basis of prejudice and supposition in both cases.

Did you happen to read the story of Cassius Turvey? One theory is that his death may have been a case of someone jumping to conclusions/mistaken identity. RIP Cassius.

Bazooka

I'm just looking for a legitimate answer, just like quite a few million other Aussies are to the same question when the word " Racist " gets thrown upon them - especially when they are not racist !!!

Cheers
Gazz

There would be plenty on here that would change their minds if they had to live in the communities that were constantly bombarded day and night with our proud indigenous one nation kids and teens destroying their property and assaulting their kids/wives. So easy to sit back in your white neighbourhood and label people racist because they are sick of black kids and their crimes..and going unpunished.

It is good to see the locals making positive changes. We need to see more of this

That is fantastic stuff. Great to see.

There used to be “Community Police” in most major centres where there is a community settlement. Not sure if there are any in Halls Creek, judging by the response you got, perhaps there isn’t. I know they used to be very active in Katherine, but that was a few years ago now.

Macca.

Sastra that is how it rolls in these communities, the law doesn’t get enforced like it does elsewhere.
I have seen them driving past police cars in vehicles that have been rolled previously and have no windscreen or bonnet and a stoved in roof and the authorities ignore them. I joked to my wife that I will probably get picked up for a cracked tail lamp or something

I won’t disclose which community but there was a new policeman transferred there from the big smoke and he tried to enforce the law in the same way as the city of his previous posting.
He only lasted a couple of months before the locals had had enough of him and they sent him out of town in an ambulance