Australian National
(anotd)
Monday 20th July 1998
This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the
National Library
of Australia
Subscriber's password
check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The
Strategy" on-line from April 1998.
Recent stories exclusive to
(how to)
subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day now at the
bottom of this page.
"ON NOW" weekly abbreviated anotd
fax-back
-
Dial: 1902 211037 and follow the instructions.
(Note: costs 0.75 c per minute will be billed to your phone account
under "ON NOW NEWS LETTER")
Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line
DISCUSSION forum] [One
Nation Federal Web Site]
Archive of weekly features (available to all
readers):
[The
Canberra Column]
[Economic
Rationalism]
Today's
Headlines
an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's
first daily Internet newspaper.
Since
October 1995
Between the One Nation lines
Last night a disgusting abuse of Australia's democracy once again took place
in Victoria.
This is the state that the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, has labelled
a "symbol of multiculturalism". This is the state that One Nation's state
leader, Robyn Spencer, was to call a victim of "the face of multicultural
thuggery".
We have compiled an extensive report exposing the role of the Labor Party
in promoting violence and their role in leading the attacks on a democratically
elected party.
Pat Sheehan in his book "the Barbarians" clearly spells out how the
Labor Party have used immigration to shore up their flagging support now
the Labor Party are using their violent, extremist foot soldiers to attack
all that Australians hold dear.
Here
is an extract from the comment by Alan Jones on Channel 9 this
morning:
The print media and the ABC have been in the habit
of describing such violence as "Clashes between protesters and One Nation
supporters" as is to give the impression that One Nation supporters are equally
to blame. Surely in Australia anyone is allowed to meet for any lawful purpose.
Surely the propounding of political views whatever they may happen to be
is a lawful purpose, or do we live in a country where political discussion
is replaced with the clenched fist?
This is for us to decide.
If we can't accommodate differing views then we make
a mockery of the concept of a free society.
Making the
news" -
an indepth exposé of media and political collusion at the highest
possible levels in Australia.
You say:
Subject: State-sponsored discrimintation in
Oz!
On Sunday evening(19th July, 1998) Pauline Hanson,
Member of the House of Representatives for the Federal seat of Oxley in
Queensland, Australia was due to speak at a private meeting/venue at Hawthorn
Town Hall in Hawthorn, a Melbourne(Australia) suburb.
This meeting, although private(for One Nation party
members only) was a legitimate political meeting that had been approved and
agreed to by the authorities. Present was a large contingent of the Victoria
Police(whose motto is:'Uphold the Right'!) on foot, horseback and in patrolling
'divisional vans'. Present also was a sizeable contingent of protesters(who,
by means unknown, had "got wind" of this private meeting several days
before-hand[although One Nation Party members were only notified on the Thursday
prior to the meeting]...having sufficient time to compose and [professionally]
print a large number of 'posters' urging people to 'demonstrate' against
Pauline Hanson 'and the fascists'. These posters were plastered all along
Glenferrie Road: the main thoroughfare adjacent to the Hawthorn Town
Hall).
At the last minute, the speech by Mrs Pauline Hanson
was cancelled. Several dozen One Nation Party members were prevented from
entering the premises of the Hawthorn Town Hall by a double ring of protesters
who surronded the entire building(about a city block in size). There were
verbal and physical threats made to these people to stop them going about
their lawful business: attending a lawfully constituted private political
meeting to which they were invited by written invitation. The large police
contingent made a 'show' of remonstrating with the demonstrators, but did
not lift a finger to come to the assistance of a number of One Nation Party
members(some of whom were threatened with violence, if not death). Eventually,
the police 'announced'(to the cheering of the 'demonstrators') that the
meeting(or, at least, the appearance of Mrs Pauline Hanson) had been
cancelled.
So much for the vaunted 'political neutrality' of this
State police force: the 'upholders of the right'. Their real _colours_ have
now been revealed: political stooges of the Premier of Victoria(Mr Jeff Kennet:
a voiciferous and rabid anti-Hanson 'politician'). And yet this is the same
police force who, several months before this incident, had _no qualms whatsoever_
in violently and forcefully removing a small band of elderly protesters
(complaining about the ear-splitting and foundation-shattering noise from
Formula 1 racing cars)from the vicinity of Albert Park in Melbourne, then
hosting the Grand Prix international Formula 1 racing venue. Needless to
say, this was a 'pet project' of Premier Mr Kennett, and one that filled
the state coffers(and, doubtless, the pockets of various political 'front
men'/'stooges') to overflowing!
So much for 'upholding the Right'! cheers!
(jimbo!)
Subject: Public Outrage and Political Censorship
in Victoria!
Dateline: Hawthorn Town Hall, Melbourne....Time: 5:30
p.m. Whoever thinks Oz is a democracy may want to think again after the
disgraceful exhibition outside Hawthorn Town Hall by the enemies of free
speech, democracy and the right to a fair go....
Dateline: Hawthorn Town Hall
Time: Sunday 19th July, 5:30 p.m.
People who think that Oz is a (representative) democracy may be forced to
re-think after this evening's disgraceful exhibition outside Hawthorn Town
Hall.
Those arriving slightly late to this meeting(expecting
to hear Pauline Hanson speak) were confronted with an abusive cordon of hostile,
jeering fanatics. Is this the new face of 'free speech' in Oz? As a result
of these totalatarian antics, the planned speech had to be cancelled. So
much for democracy! Those supposed neutral guardians of law and order in
the State of Victoria(the Victoria Police..whose motto, incidentally, happens
to be 'Uphold the Right') apparently did not lift a finger to assist people
going about their lawful business(viz: attending a lawfully constituted political
meeting). On the strength of this, one could indeed question the political
neutrality of this organisation. Are they in fact just another arm of the
political repression in this State, characterised in the grim persona of
Jeff Kennett?
Perhaps the description of Oz's government should be
changed in various encyclopaedias, magazines, journals and web pages to
'quasi-dictatorship'.
On a somewhat lighter note, the principal of a supposedly
'christian' college(Wesley College) in Melbourne has issued a pronunciamento
that no One Nation Party representatives would be allowed on the school grounds.
Fine and dandy if you are a: practicising homosexual, pornographer, abortionist,
known Satanist or any of a variety of non-Christian 'religions', but heaven
help you if you set foot on these hallowed grounds with words of decency,
logic, patriotism and common sense..... the joke, however, is on Mr David
Loader(or, perhaps, we should say: Mr David Loada...cr*p). Wesley College
is 'run' by the Uniting Church of Australia, which is considered somewhat
of a sick joke amongst many devout christians in this country. This 'clayton`s
denomination' is, in fact, haemmoraging in the pews and conservative estimates
put its losses at several thousand over the last few years...about 100 per
week(thatz a medium-sized congregation going AWOL per week). These poor examples
of 'christianity'(who believe/tolerate anything and everything as long as
it's not the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ), are no more than a propaganda
mouthpiece for the 'intellectual elites'. However, being legends in their
own lunchtime, they haven't yet realised that _no-body_(even the intellectual
elites!) take them seriously! Any criticism of ON Party by a representative
of this mob of galahs undoubtedly increases ON Party approval rating by _at
least_ 10% and loses another half-a-dozen congregations to _real_ christian
churches....
Hmmmmm: on a more sombre note: is rational political
debate still possible in Oz, or must we now anticipate the current political
crisis being solved by bullets rather than ballot boxes..... perhaps ON Party
supporters should start picketing Laboral meetings? Nothing like a taste
of your own medicine to snap you out of it! cheers!
(jimbo!)
Subject:
Making the
News
top reporting ..like your courage to be heard ...after
packer or murdoch hacking into gwb and one nation...and the new chat line
....????.the isp who went down owing optus is this true or was he payed off
or scared off...just curios but interestingly contoversial ........
corner lane cove road and epping road macquarie park
or north ryde ......map 282 j.6 gregorys sydney compact street directory
....entrance private road thomas holt drive ....two twin 6 storey buildings
owned by packer ....... programmes created for sale to internet or microsoft
type companies .......i worked inside and the details to hack into the
web and other gwb enterprises ....great probability they originated or
were initiated in this building maybe i am misinformed if possible see for
yourself
Subject: Re: Tully at the Gold Coast
launch
....from greg
Dear Scott,
I saw the .gif of Tully at the Gold Coast launch -
How nice of him to take along his girlfriend to spend some "quality time".
The question is.... Whom is walking whom?
Tickled,
Anthony Mare
Subject: Freedom of speech
(To The editor, Queensland Times)
Dear Sir,
Although I live in Melbourne now, there is still an
emotional attachment to dear old 'Switchwitch' as I called it as a child.
Both my parents ended their days there. Furthermore, my father retired from
a lifetime in the Queensland Police Force there.
So I do care about the reputation of Ipswich.
Thus the banning of a legitimate party elected by a
sizeable section of the people of Queensland in the last election from the
Council premises is disturbing. It only serves the purpose of allowing further
denigration of Queensland by "Southerners". Such action will give Ipswich
the type of reputation that Broken Hill and the towns of the West Coast of
Tasmania suffered in the 1960s due to the total control of one side of politics.
I worked in the latter area then and saw how Queenstown was being destroyed.
Its ultimate demise was so predictable. It was destroyed by the same political
strangulation as is proposed in Ipswich.
As the editor of the local newspaper in Ipswich, do
you have the interests of the city at heart? Do you wish to see Ipswich
destroyed? It will be the innocent and the gentle folk of the town who will
suffer the backlash. As an emeritus editor of a publication myself, I know
how much influence for good you would have, so please support freedom of
speech there.
May I point out that towns and cities do develop
reputations? For example, Manchester in the UK achieved eternal notoriety
when it passed an ordinance to encourage a woman to sue a man for offering
to let her pass through a door first... as in the old gallant manner. The
ordinance classified this long standing etiquette as sexual harassment. San
Francisco has a poor reputation for running conferences since they will not
comply with lecturers' and organisers' requests, etc. etc.
Yours sincerely,
Barry Mollenhauer
Subject: Comments on Australian News of the
Day
Regarding the Ipswich council's decision, and also
all the other anti-One Nation protests that we have seen in this
country...
I feel that this country desperately needs some new
legislation or even amendments to the constitution. The legislation would
say.. In effect.. that all political parties have the right to speak. That
right to speak must be protected by the Commonwealth of Australia, by force
if necessary to protect people wanting to listen and by regulation that all
parties must have proper and reasonable access to publicly owned
facilities.
Parties need protection again thugs that would try
and stop them by force rather than rational debate. The Commonwealth must
be made to provide resources to protect the democratic system. Parties and
free speech are fundamental to a healthy democracy, and when the entrenched
government have the power to stop new ideas either by promoting, or failing
to stop thuggery and/or denying access to the public facilities.
In the past we have relyed in this country on the principle
of "a fair go". We can no longer rely on this principle. Now is the time
to push to have freedom of speech and democracy put into law before it is
too late. Without the force of law, Ipswich council can legally do as they
please. And that isn't good enough for a democracy.
Ben
Subject: letter to editor
The decision by Ipswich City Council to deny Pauline
Hanson access to meeting facilities is a disgrace and should not be tolerated
by ratepayers or anyone who considers themselves "true blue" Australian.
Shame on you Ipswich City Council, your undemocratic action serves only to
further divide our people. It is a dangerous game you are playing.
Ken Bailey
Mullumbimby NSW
Ipswich City Council
The Editor,
The Queensland Times.
Dear sir,
Is it true as advised that Ipswich City Council is
refusing the One Nation party leader continued use of council facilities
previously available for public assembly?
Should this be so, the clear implication of political
motivation behind such a denial ought really be cause for concern to all
thinking Australians. For whilst acknowledging (and respecting) the existence
of widespread distaste and displeasure at certain views espoused by this
party, I wonder if there is not cause for dismay at witnessing resort to
a spoiling tactic like this.
If we are indeed the easy-going, tolerant people as
frequently told, ought we not perhaps be consistent and behave similarly
to differing groups? Is it tolerant to muzzle a contrary view on the basis
of mere disagreement? Should we calmly condone use of a repressive abhorent
measure that ought be an anathema to all? To accept behaviour so clearly
in conflict with all we should value most; that is, right to (peaceful) assembly?
So fundamental and treasured a tenet now seen in Ipswich as permissable only
when the message is soothing and sympathetic to popular taste. Need we really
feel so seriously threatened by a differing perspective? Just how alarming
to a secure and confident people can vigorous debate really be? Precisely
whom is afraid of open discussion on these varying issues?
I suggest it would constitute more enlightened and
intelligent behaviour to first let see and be openly heard any who wish to
speak. Prohibition and coercion should not be the Australian way. We ought
be proud of our freedoms and defend them wherever necessary. Listen first,
(if desired) then reject whatever views we wish! But please don't let us
become so timid and uncertain as to feel threatened by simple expressions
that differ from our own! For are we not indeed a majority? And can anything
unpleasant truly occur without this same majority first voting approval?
So who really is there to fear but we ourselves!
Yours sincerely,
hgfc
May I cordially state that any construction, deduction
or inference of personal views on any matter derived solely from this letter
must be deemed entirely speculative and unsubstantiated, just as I intend.
I am however pleased to assert in this way a general principal having universal
application.
Subject: From Japan
Dear Sir,
I have a question for Ms Hanson.
I visited your home page through some newspaper. I am a Japanese in Japan.
I found some comment as follows: " Japan is fiercely anti-white and
anti-one another." Could you explain what you mean by that?
Recently Japanese business has been down and the depression
will last much longer. The unemployment rate is increasing. My salary has
been reducing in four years in a row. In Japan more than a few million foreigners
from Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran and so on including white people are living
and working. But we never attribute the present depression to such foreigners.
We are never anti-white nor exclusionist.
Your comment is wrong. Have you been to Japan? You
are too ignorant of Japan. If I misunderstand you, I have to apologize. Could
you tell me about your comment.
Sorry for my bad English.
Best regards
Nobee Shimoda
Subject: Poor Peter Robinson
The (Sydney) Sun-Herald's Peter Robinson goes gaga
over One Nation pretty-well every week. Today he was frothing in fury at
Howard's lack of 'leadership', and at the Nationals re-assessing their policies
(read 'running scared'). But today there was also a grudging respect: "Whatever
happens in the next election, Hanson has had her triumph and has shown up
the present crop of politicians for the little people they are. She may be
a dill, but she is a more successful feminist than almost anyone you can
name". While I'd strongly object to being called a feminist, it's obvious
he meant the word as a compliment.
But prejudice certainly addles the brain. In a bizarre
comment on a report that Sydney's population is set to reach 6.2 million
by 2051 he says: "Some people seem to regard that with horror, but surely
it's an entirely exciting prospect. Eventually, come what may, the vibrancy
and creativeness of the big city will submerge the provincialism of the Howards
and the Hansons".
How provincial can you get, judging people by where
they live! Big cities, good. Everywhere else, lousy.
Antonia Feitz
Subject: One Nation banned from Wesley
College.
To the Principal,
Wesley College,
Melbourne, Australia.
So, only the One Nation Party is banned from speaking
to your students!
This is yet another example of the erosion of free
speech in Australia. If the kids don't get a chance to here the truth, who
are they supposed to believe? Surely you are not suggesting that we leave
it to the media barons to indoctrinate our children. All they are interested
in is their business empires.
You said, "I feel guilty about saying no in the sense
that I'm gagging what I see as a legitimate debate". And so you should feel
guilty because in your heart you know that you are forcing you own political
opinions on your unsuspecting students.
You also said, "The school's Public Question Society
had organised speakers from the Liberals, Labor and Greens parties. However
those groups did not contest Australia's major cultural values in the same
way as One Nation".
Of course they won't question Australia's cultural
values. They created Australia's cultural values and did so without consulting
average Australians. This applies in particular to the Australian Labor Party
which won office with promises of fatter pay packets and welfare handouts
for everybody and then claimed they had a mandate to change the cultural
values of Australia! Could this be because immigrants statistically vote
Labor?
As an academic you should at least give One Nation
a chance to speak the truth, before it is too late for all of us.
I hope others will also email you at:
principal@wesley.vic.edu.au
Regards,
Kevin Wildash
Subject: Finally there is the voice we have been
waiting for
To Pauline
Finally the collective national psyche found its voice
in you, Pauline. Do not stop articulating our needs! We are with you all
the way.
Ildi Antal
Subject: Launch of One Nation in Tasmania
My son is a university student and has a right to protest
but should he do so then I am quite prepared to exercise my parental
rights.
As a parent I pay my son to study, I don't pay my son
to protest.
Subject: possible comment on tax reform
ytc/unemployment.
Dear One Nation party,
In your crusade to shake up the political system to
get the politicians of the major parties to listen to the voice of the bulk
of Australians, these comments on tax reform listed below may be worth
considering for inclusion:
Australians need to change their basic attitude when
thinking about the taxes we pay- not about actually how much each of us pays
per year BUT what PERCENTAGE of our REAL income is actually paid. : The battler
really pays probably up to 60% of his/her income in tax when ALL components
of spending plus income tax are added together. Higher income groups through
their tax accountants with trusts, negative gearing, income splitting to
silent partners, etc, pay a much small percentage of their real income.
Multi-nationals etc pay little or none at all. To be fair to all, it's the
percentage of one's real income which should really matter. Those with the
capacity to pay more in real dollar terms should think themselves lucky to
live in a country where they have this opportunity, rather than rip more
out of the system and expect those less fortunate to shoulder even more of
the tax burden. Also company management should not associate the taxs they
pay government which have been deducted from their workers' wages, as
complementary to the tax the company has to pay on its earneings. They are
definitely separate, but I'm sure many companies think that by providing
employment with the subsequent workers' taxes paid, that that's enough. (
I call this the Alan Bond syndrome).
Why don't the major parties consided the debit tax
idea? Too radical to succeed? ,or will their rich mates and supporters etc
etc suddenly have to pay tax they can now avoid, and will still avoid with
a GST thrown in for more burden on the average tax payer? I don't have access
to the real figures to analyse what I have listed above but from what has
been discussed in the media lately, it indicates there is some validity to
the mushrooming of legal tax avoidance.
Finally, it's about time real unemployment figures
were given- not cam ouflaged to protect the government's political image.
How about the % who don't have a full time job; or the % of those who don't
work more than 20 hours/wk; or those that don't work more than 10 hours a
week. Figures like these everyone can understand and we'd see the real position
we're in. It might give more validity to the call to halt all immigration,
both skilled and un-skilled, until we have filled those available positions
with newly trained and re-trained Australians of all backgrounds and
ages.
Trust this is of some help to policy making.
Ken Moncrieff
Subject: Comments on Australian News of the
Day
>EMERALD - (Saturday, July 18, 1998) - Telstra may
not need to be sold! The National >Competition Policy, will ensure its
demise, from within. Akin to having Dracula in >charge of the Blood Bank?
Ingenious, isn't it?
Why do you think the Govt. is so eager to sell it quick?
They want to flogg it off while it is actually worth something. As of recently
Australia is now totally de-regulated with its telecommunication. When the
foreign Telcos move in in-force Telstra will shrink.
Subject: Re: Peter W. & Racism &
Immigration
Hi - this letter to the editor is in part a reply to
Peter W.'s comments on Saturday.
I believe that everyone has a right to live with their
own "cultural standards and lifestyle etc.". Whether this be the typical
Anglo-Saxon ('"white") way of life, or Asian way of life. I do not think
Asian Australians are harming Australia by simply speaking in their native
tongue, because it is easier, after all they are providing service to community
and earning money etc. which will be taxed and be used for the benefit of
Australia. However saying that, I do not think simply speaking another language
is even a different way of life, so they are not "reject(ing) our culture"
as our culture is a diverse mix of cultures anyway. I hope you do not claim
that Anglo-Saxons have a "monopoly on culture".
Let's just forget this racism issue, as we all know
that racism is wrong and backward. The real 'debate' where this issue came
from was immigration levels. Truthfully I can't understand why most people
who read this newsletter are opposed to multiculturalism. If we didn't have
multiculturalism, perhaps I could have been so vague about other races as
to become a racist. But I know through school lots of people from many different
countries and cultures, and so I have learned that they are just people like
you and me.
Also, we must continue immigration to maintain our
population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (which Pauline Hanson has
used herself) has released population data recently. They show that we have
a lower birth date than death rate. Figures also show that Australia's aged
population (65+ years old) are taking up more and more of the percentage
of Australians: predictions are that 25% of Australians will be aged 65 and
over by 2051 compared with 12% today. These people are no longer working,
and most may apply for a pension. Where does the money for pensions come
from? From taxpayer's money, of course - the workforce. Because there are
more and more aged people per working person, there is a strain on the workforce
to pay for all these pensions from taxes. Indeed if we stop immigration,
simply there will not be enough money for all these pensions without
drastically:
increasing taxes,
pulling money from other sectors,
lowering the amount of money each pensioner gets, or
increasing the standards for getting a pension (so it will be harder to get
a pension in the first place).
Why? Because currently there are about 50,000 or so
working force immigrants every year coming into Australia to play there part
and help pay for the increasing proportions of aged people.
But if the baby boomers of today would rather stop
those "little Asia's" from increasing than have any worthwhile pension when
they retire, then who am I to stop them?
J. Shinkfield
The left wing extremists' rule book to attacking
Pauline Hanson
Want to attack or insult Pauline but not quite sure
which tack to take? Use this guide to 'dissing' Pauline to help make an informed
choice of how you would like to go about the task.
Approach 1 - The Hitler Angle
Liberally use terms such as 'fascist', 'totalitarian'
and 'racist'. Be sure to make heavy use of PC key words, and continually
attempt to draw heavy parallels between Hanson and Hitler. For example, if
Pauline happens to like the colour green, and so did Adolf, then create a
thesis linking these two facts together to imply that one must necessarily
mean the other. It also helps to make snide remarks to the effect that One
Nation is somehow related to the 'brownshirts'. Ignore the fact that the
only people using 'brownshirt' tactics have been those protesting against
ON, it might ruin the flow of the storyline. Brownshirt tactics on the anti-ON
side should be construed as freedom fighters. Heavy emphasis on
'deconstructionist' and 'post-modernist' literary styles will gain you bonus
points.
Approach 2 - The Ad Hom Attack
"Pauline as personification of evil" - This is a
particularly common approach, but it offers great value in providing a cathartic
release for all that pent up sexism and aggression that the PC types need
to find alternative outlets for. And what better way than to attack a woman
without the PC sisterhood to back her up? Make copious comments on her facial
structure (it's OK, she's white), her hair colour (it's OK, she's white)
and her skin colour (well, er, she's white). Don't hold back - remember,
Pauline isn't PC so you don't have to worry about having your hypocritical
cant pointed out to you. Another favourite is of course to attack Pauline's
accent. Unlike those *racist* types who made comments about other's accents,
you are not *racist* when you do the same. You have the protection of politically
correct sentiment to let you get away with it.
Approach 3 - The Elitist Argument
Reasonably common, but it requires careful wordsmithing
to avoid being seen for the intellectual wank that it is. This approach
continually makes use of phrases such as 'fish and chips' and 'small business'
to denigrate Pauline. You must be aware that since many of Australia's migrants
are also small business owners, you will actually be attacking them as well.
But (for godsake) don't concentrate on that... instead, make the point that
the only truly valid politicians should be lawyers with a pedigree, preferably
with a trendy ethnic or feminist chic about them. You can gain bonus points
if you can use this approach without looking like a conceited and utter prat,
but be warned - an .edu account combined with this approach will leave you
looking like a smarmy prick.
Tony
Subject: who's prejudiced?
Christopher Jack asked: 'What someone has knocked you
back on a job because you are white?' Well Christopher, if you lived in Armidale
or Kempsey NSW, or thousands of other Australian towns you would see plenty
of jobs, but more importantly apprenticeships and traineeships RESERVED for
'Aborigines'. My own sons have burned in anger at being refused from even
applying. I'd say that this is an example of knocking people back because
they are white, wouldn't you?
Even the famous priest/lawyer, Aboriginal activist
Father Frank Brennan, son of the High Court Judge Brennan acknowledges that
between 80 and 90% of Aborigines are fully assimilated and urbanized. So
you tell me why people who live in the same houses, whose kids attend the
same schools and play in the same sporting teams as their white neighbours,
should be advantaged because they are 'black'? The quotes are deliberate.
In case you don't know, these 'blacks' can be milky white-skinned, red-haired
Celts. How on earth can such people claim to be disadvantaged? Even the real
blacks have a problem with it.
Black activist Roberta Sykes is on record of complaining
about these 'blacks' benefiting from government largesse. Why wasn't she
hounded as a racist? Because she's black? Oddly enough Pauline Hanson and
Roberta Sykes want the same thing - money going to the Aborigines who are
disadvantaged. Non-racist Pauline Hanson wants assistance granted on need,
not race. Racist Roberta Sykes wants racial purity to prevail - only 'real
blacks' should benefit.
Given the above facts, Christopher, arn't you a little
embarrassed by your rhetorical question: '[What] Neighbours refuse to talk
to you because you are white? Well actually, though it might surprise you,
most of us get on very well together. I frequently give lifts to local Aborigines
as they travel up and down the New England highway visiting their 'cousins'.
Perhaps it has not crossed your closed mind that many people have black and
white relatives. That race relations are far more complex that ignorant city
people can imagine. The eminent Miles Franklin award winner David Foster
has black and white grandchildren. He is firmly of the opinion that native
title should only apply to fully initiated Aborigines still living in the
tribal way. Bet you didn't know that.
Moreover it might surprise you to know that many Aborigines
themselves are furious at the ATSIC rip-offs. I suggest you read Peter McKay's
latest Canberra column accessible from this page. In it he reports on the
speech of an Aboriginal man who was guest speaker at a One Nation meeting
in Queenbeyan last week. You will have your prejudices about One Nation strongly
challenged.
Antonia Feitz
Another perfect day in paradise.
Have a good one.
Recent stories exclusive to
(how to)
subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:
The Ipswich City
Council re-institute a ban against Pauline Hanson - 19th July 1998
The One Nation
mailing list published in the Australia/Israeli Review - 9th July
1998
The Barbara Hazelton
betrayal - 2nd July 1998
Pauline Hanson's
One Nation Queensland State MPs meet in Parliament - 27th June 1998
QANTAS censor Pauline
Hanson - 24th June 1998
"Paul" (Big "K")
Costello's lies - 22nd June 1998
Live coverage
of Queensland State Elections - 13th June 1998
Beattie's preference
lies exposed - 11th June 1998
Launch of
One Nation state policies - 8th June 1998
Sixty Minutes break
new barriers in unethical reporting - 6th June 1998
Ray Martin revelas
his spots when challenging Pauline Hanson on A Current Affair - 4th
June 1998
The backlash to
Ray Martin's unethical behaviour during his interview with Pauline
Hanson.- 4th June 1998
Return to Australian National
News of the Day
#
See GLOBE International for
other world news.
anotd
