Tent Embassy Demo
I agree with Tony Abbott and think his remarks entirely sensible. The tent embassy in Canberra says nothing to anyone and should have been quietly packed up years ago. The “activists” who run it would be better off investing time in youth programs in indigenous communities. Every government in Australia is aware of its responsibilities to Aboriginal Australians. The debate is how you narrow the gap not whether you should and the debate is as serious within the Aboriginal community as between it and the white.
Anyway here we have again the bankruptcy of the old Leftist approach: throw a demo. Every time some respectable body does this – the ACTU or Unions NSW or a pro-refugee group – the same thing happens: on the street the extremists take over. The Trots love a blue, “the worse things are the better they are” and by radicalizing everyone and breaking heads it all hastens the World October, onto revolution, comrades.
Don’t look for logic. Prime Minister Gillard is targeted and some clown is shown brandishing her shoe yet she said and did nothing in respect of the tent. Suddenly we are presented with a demand for “Aboriginal sovereignty” – which can only mean separatism – which nobody has defined and which, on principle, 99 percent of Australians would oppose and a majority of Aborigines oppose. And of course the block-headed demonstration sets back reconciliation and would seal the defeat for Aboriginal recognition in the constitution if a referendum were pending.
I have seen this with “anti-globalization” demonstrations. With union campaigns. With anti-war marches. The soft Left has never been able to lift its sights above nostalgia for the anti-Vietnam demonstrations of the 60s. And the ragbag Left will never forgo an opportunity to turn a “demo” violent.
Aboriginal right to land – which is what the embassy was established to promote – has been recognized in several different forms. The real debate is why this recognition has failed to have any effect on outcomes in remote Australia.
Give us some views on that, instead of bellowing and blockading.
I thought that this response to my blog post from Lynda Newnam was worth reproducing:
“The real debate is why this recognition has failed to have any effect on outcomes in remote Australia.”
Peter Sutton has a lot to say about this in his book “Politics of Suffering” which won the 2010 John Button prize. On receiving the award he was quoted as saying: “At the cost of some vituperation from some of my colleagues, I think it has been worth getting the debate on to a more truthful footing and I think now we can’t go back to the pie-in-the-sky days.”
To gain a quick idea try these links:
In the closing chapter of “Politics of Suffering” Sutton writes: ” It may be that the greatest act of formal and government-embraced Reconciliation will look like something else, aretreat from legal racism. A good candidate here would be the removal of race itself as a legal category of distinction in Australian law and bureaucracy. Aboriginality itself, of course, would not be removed, any more than Jewishness or Greek ethnicity are negated by their absence from the state apparatus. Mary Darkie, from the Great Sandy Desert, put her view this way: “Reconciliation is about getting to know each person individually. It means letting go of old ideas that all white-skinned people are the same or all black-skinned people are the same. All people are different; they may have the same skin colour but inside, each person is unique. It‘s what‘s inside each person that‘s important. I sometimes think we live in a crazy world that we always have to divide people into separate groups.””