Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[philip]

ok. i'm assembling an approach to the australia industrial relation
commission come nov 12. it is better that i say:

since women and men have different behaviours a policy of 'shared
behaviours' applied to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish. ?

philip

@ cadigal eora

 I said I wouldn't say any more about it but ... you sound angry because I
didn't
 accept your interpretation of the study. I hope you have read more than
this one
 book. It is important to differentiate between differences and variations.
What
 the authors are talking about are variations not structural differences as
in
 different structures.

 I was not discussing non-indigenous approaches to conflict resolution -
that was
 your interpretation of what was going on. I just voiced an objection to
one
 thing that you had to say.

 Brain physiology was my major at university.

 Now I will drop it.

 Trudy

 philip wrote:
 
  as you wish. eveybody back to discussions about non-indigenous
approaches to
  conflict resolution. quickly now. the text i quoted is specifically
about
  structural differences between women's and men's brains. it could not be
  more specific. if you're not prepared to consider the reference there's
not
  much more to be said anyway. you don't cite contrary evidence. you're
now
  saying that there is no reliable evidence. the canadian study refers
quite
  specifically to gross morpholical (structural) differences. time will
  tell.
 
  respectfully,
 
  philip
 
  @ cadigal eora



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Ian Henderson]

Laurie,

I tried to show in my earlier posts examples of how conflict resolution
works in the Aboriginal Communities that I have been involved in. This may
not be a universal system but the People I have lived and worked with all
used it. I called it 'consensus' because that is the word best seems to
describe the process. Bob Hawke tried to introduce it into parliamentary
processes but failed.

As you could see from my description, everybody in the consensus decision
making process is able to materially contribute. As well, decisions do not
get made on prescriptive alternatives. There is no dichotomy, as the process
unveils, and because of the nature of the process, new ideas can be included
or discarded and it is not the preserve of one form of humanity. I was often
in discussions that involved both Aboriginal men and women, or at times only
women.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, it may not be the answer to the development
of the contents of a treaty, or a Bill of Rights, as I am sure there are
other forms of conflict resolution as yet unknown to me that could be
used  maybe not even invented yet  but from my experience it is the
best form I have come across so far. As far as incorporating this into a
discussion on a treaty there is no reason why it should not be used. The
biggest hurdle is time. I have been asked on a number of occasions how I was
able to cope and I have always replied  patience. I would refuse to set
a time limit on these discussions, and sometimes despite feeling anxious
about what could appear repetitious refused to allow my prejudices to show,
for not only did it work out in the end, but reflection always indicated a
logic present that I was not always privileged to understand.

I sat through endless requests by cattle station owners during the V.R.D
strike in which they were requesting Aboriginal Stockpersons to help in
mustering. I shook my head in disbelief at some of the decisions by the
Aboriginal people, but never queried the legitimacy of those decisions. This
is by way of showing how difficult such inter-cultural discussions can be
and why they need to be carried out in a charitable manner by both sides.
Charity is the secret.

Ian.


 Yes Phillip, after 40,000 years, we know that indigenous approaches to
 conflict resolution work,  but we have to learn how to incorporate them
into
 methods for solving todays conflicts.

 Being facetious, given the scientific advances of the last 100 odd years,
 rather than ensuring equal numbers of men and women participate in
conflict
 resolution, perhaps a more accurate way of ensuring differences are
catered
 for would be to give nominees a hormone test and

 1. Allow equal numbers of  people from extreme ends of the hormonal scale
to
 participate, or

 2. Allow only those closest to the middle of the scale to participate.

 In those ways we could ensure a balanced hormonal resolution.:-)

 I  agree that we are inevitably  putting up non-indigenous solutions ,
 because many of us are non-indigenous-we do need leadership from
 indigenous people if we are to advance our thinking and be of any real
 assistanceI think  that many indigenous people do not speak out
because
 they do not trust we non-indigenes, and why would they? I think that
one
 of the major benefits of the reconciliation movement has been that many
 indigenous people now feel more able to trust some non-indigenes.

 Perhaps what is needed now to make advances is for indigenous people to
 really move to the front and start leading the debate and action, On
 this list, I felt that Suze, Don and other indigenous members including
 yourself were doing that,  but that is my feeling---it may not accord with
 yours or that of many other indigenous people.

 Maybe everyone is  marking time a bit until Howard's demise.

 Laurie.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Trudy Bray]

Hi Phillip,

I can't advise you how to frame what you are trying to say. I respect your
beliefs and opinions but I do not necessarily share all of them.

I think there is too much variation in human behaviour to be able to put them in
boxes saying men and women. But I do agree that a great variety of input from
both sexes is necessarily a richer collection of wisdom.

Women have fought for a long time to get out of the box labeled 'inferior' and
even a hint of being put in that box again is not going to go down well with a
lot of women even if you don't see the separation as a belittling. 

I know this is not your intention and I respect that but for many of the same
reasons that you haven't been able to trust some non-indigenous people,
non-indigenous women don't either. Too often, different means 'inferior', as you
are well aware and for me, that is the injustice to tackle first. On all fronts.

If you think there is a way to by-pass this problem, I would like to hear it.
There is always a good possibility that my perceptions are limited.

Trudy


philip wrote:
 
 ok. i'm assembling an approach to the australia industrial relation
 commission come nov 12. it is better that i say:
 
 since women and men have different behaviours a policy of 'shared
 behaviours' applied to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish. ?
 
 philip
 
 @ cadigal eora
 
  I said I wouldn't say any more about it but ... you sound angry because I
 didn't
  accept your interpretation of the study. I hope you have read more than
 this one
  book. It is important to differentiate between differences and variations.
 What
  the authors are talking about are variations not structural differences as
 in
  different structures.
 
  I was not discussing non-indigenous approaches to conflict resolution -
 that was
  your interpretation of what was going on. I just voiced an objection to
 one
  thing that you had to say.
 
  Brain physiology was my major at university.
 
  Now I will drop it.
 
  Trudy
 
  philip wrote:
  
   as you wish. eveybody back to discussions about non-indigenous
 approaches to
   conflict resolution. quickly now. the text i quoted is specifically
 about
   structural differences between women's and men's brains. it could not be
   more specific. if you're not prepared to consider the reference there's
 not
   much more to be said anyway. you don't cite contrary evidence. you're
 now
   saying that there is no reliable evidence. the canadian study refers
 quite
   specifically to gross morpholical (structural) differences. time will
   tell.
  
   respectfully,
  
   philip
  
   @ cadigal eora
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -
 RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
 http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
 Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
 that date.
 This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
 copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
 use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
 permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

-- 
*
Join the peoples' movement:
The Australian Reconciliation Party
http://www.green.net.au/arp/
*

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[philip]

hi trudy.

you wrote:

 Women have fought for a long time to get out of the box labeled 'inferior'
and
 even a hint of being put in that box again is not going to go down well
with a
 lot of women even if you don't see the separation as a belittling.

[snip]


Too often, different means 'inferior', as you
 are well aware and for me, that is the injustice to tackle first. On all
fronts.

your words are exactly what the text i referred to predicted.

a hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in
a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden
truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious.

such a remark, uttered today, would evoke very different reactions. said by
a man, it would suggest a certain social ineptitude, a naivete in matters of
sexual politics, a sad deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy
attempt to be provocative. A woman venturing such an opinion would be
scorned as a traitor to her sex, betraying the hard-fought 'victories' of
recent decades, as women have sought equality of status, opportunity and
respect. (p9)

i've been dismissed from the australian public service singularly through
the perception that i have exhibited 'a certain social ineptitude, a naivete
in matters of
sexual politics, a sad deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy
attempt to be provocative' as i've tried to assert indigenous perspectives
but i'm not going to lay down and cop it .. i'm going to fight the
imposition of this gormless non-indigenous invective with every fibre i can
muster.

the text goes on:

yet the truth is that virtually every professional scientist and researcher
into the subject has concluded that the brains of men and women are
different. There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain - and
what science knows - that they do not. (p9)


 If you think there is a way to by-pass this problem, I would like to hear
it.

meditate on an australian republic with a women's senate and a men's
assembly and the problem will go away.

you might also consider that civilisations occur in cycles comprising
extended phases of patriachy and lesser phases of emancipation.

western culture will return to patriachy and the routine suppression of
women's rights unless there is structural intervention to unsure that women
will remain permanently in a position of authority as occurred with
indigenous communities at the dawn of human intelligence.

with the gang mentality and rank ecocidal stupidity that occurs when men are
unconstrained by an equivalent women's authority in social decision-making
and in an age of global threatening technologies a return to patriarchy will
most likely also signal the end of humankind.

 There is always a good possibility that my perceptions are limited.

all our perceptions are limited by our sex.

it's the interaction of women's and men's behaviours and perceptions that
makes the world go around.

philip

@ cadigal eora


 philip wrote:
 
  ok. i'm assembling an approach to the australia industrial relation
  commission come nov 12. it is better that i say:
 
  since women and men have different behaviours a policy of 'shared
  behaviours' applied to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish. ?
 
  philip
 
  @ cadigal eora
 
   I said I wouldn't say any more about it but ... you sound angry
because I
  didn't
   accept your interpretation of the study. I hope you have read more
than
  this one
   book. It is important to differentiate between differences and
variations.
  What
   the authors are talking about are variations not structural
differences as
  in
   different structures.
  
   I was not discussing non-indigenous approaches to conflict
resolution -
  that was
   your interpretation of what was going on. I just voiced an objection
to
  one
   thing that you had to say.
  
   Brain physiology was my major at university.
  
   Now I will drop it.
  
   Trudy
  
   philip wrote:
   
as you wish. eveybody back to discussions about non-indigenous
  approaches to
conflict resolution. quickly now. the text i quoted is specifically
  about
structural differences between women's and men's brains. it could
not be
more specific. if you're not prepared to consider the reference
there's
  not
much more to be said anyway. you don't cite contrary evidence.
you're
  now
saying that there is no reliable evidence. the canadian study refers
  quite
specifically to gross morpholical (structural) differences. time
will
tell.
   
respectfully,
   
philip
   
@ cadigal eora
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  -
  RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived
at
  http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Ian Henderson]

Phillip,

As I have said before: There is much more difference between woman's
abilities and intellect than there is between men's and women's. I really
wish I knew what point you are trying to make. The whole thing seems quite
fatuous to me and only leading to some sort of red herring across the
discussions that are taking place in this Group.

Ian.

- Original Message -
From: philip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


 Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common
 membership of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the
 same in aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a
 biological and scientific lie.

 The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain, the
 chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
constructed
 in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
 results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.

 Brainsex - The Real Difference Between Men and Women. Ann Moir  David
 Jessel, 1989:5. Mandarin.

 philip

  Men and women do not have different brain structures. Size difference in
 whole
  or in part does not constitute a difference in structure.
  Men's brains are bigger in general but not necessarily individually. As
a
 ratio
  to body weight, women's brains are bigger than men in general but not
  necessarily individually. The Corpus Calosum (sp?) is bigger in women
than
 in
  men but it is still the same structure.
 
  Trudy
 
  philip wrote:
  
   the australian government agency centrelink has a bill of rights in
the
 form
   of a staff policy of 'shared behaviours' concerning acting with
 integrity
   and so forth.
  
   since women and men have different brain structures, different thought
   processes and different behaviours a policy of 'shared behaviours'
 applied
   to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish.
  
   i sought explanation of 'shared behaviours' as a centrelink employee
and
 was
   informed that the policy was non-negotiable.
  
   two ministers and the prime minister declined to refute my analysis.
  
   i have since been dismissed from the australian public service in my
 absence
   on sick leave for failing to comply with a lawful direction in
relation
 to
   'shared behaviours' as well as around forty other suspected breaches
of
 the
   public service code of conduct over my attempts to assert my rights in
a
   centrelink workplace and to communicate with centrelink managers as my
   health deteriorated under a regime of acrimony and intimidation.
  
   my case for unfair dismissal comes up in the australian arbitration
   commission over five days from 12 november.
  
   my principal argument is that policies which fail to distinguish
between
   womens and mens behaviours concern themselves entirely with the
 activities
   of brainless, sexless humanoids.
  
   since i am a male human being and not a brainless sexless humanoid i
 cannot
   be in breach of or be sanctioned for breaching a code of conduct or a
 policy
   which fails to distinguish between womens and mens behaviours.
  
   similarly, constitutions, bills of rights and treaties  which fail to
   distinguish between womens and mens behaviours are gibberish.
  
   i've already unsuccessfully applied for political asylum on one
occasion
   outside australia against the present constitution after i was
tortured
 over
   several hours by a dozen police officers in and around an
'independence
   communications office' attached to an indigenous cultural centre in
   melbourne twenty years ago and assume i will be dismissed from
australia
 or
   become deceased if a bill of rights or treaty which fails to
distinguish
   between womens and mens behaviours is introduced.
  
   in my view the only solution is an australian republic with a womens
 senate,
   a mens assembly and an executive of elders.
  
   the days of civilisations treating their inhabitants as brainless
 sexless
   humanoids in the relentless advancement of material culture at
 unimaginably
   enormous social cost to humankind are rapidly coming to a close.
  
   philip
  
   @ cadigal eora
  
   managing women and men
   http://mfbns.com



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -
 RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived
at
 http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March,
2001 and
 Recoznettwo is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ from
 that date.
 This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
permission from the
 copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and
research under the fair
 use provisions of the Federal

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Laurie Forde]

Yes Phillip, after 40,000 years, we know that indigenous approaches to
conflict resolution work,  but we have to learn how to incorporate them into
methods for solving todays conflicts.

Being facetious, given the scientific advances of the last 100 odd years,
rather than ensuring equal numbers of men and women participate in conflict
resolution, perhaps a more accurate way of ensuring differences are catered
for would be to give nominees a hormone test and

1. Allow equal numbers of  people from extreme ends of the hormonal scale to
participate, or

2. Allow only those closest to the middle of the scale to participate.

In those ways we could ensure a balanced hormonal resolution.:-)

I  agree that we are inevitably  putting up non-indigenous solutions ,
because many of us are non-indigenous-we do need leadership from
indigenous people if we are to advance our thinking and be of any real
assistanceI think  that many indigenous people do not speak out because
they do not trust we non-indigenes, and why would they? I think that one
of the major benefits of the reconciliation movement has been that many
indigenous people now feel more able to trust some non-indigenes.

Perhaps what is needed now to make advances is for indigenous people to
really move to the front and start leading the debate and action, On
this list, I felt that Suze, Don and other indigenous members including
yourself were doing that,  but that is my feeling---it may not accord with
yours or that of many other indigenous people.

Maybe everyone is  marking time a bit until Howard's demise.

Laurie.
---
- Original Message -
From: philip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


 as you wish. eveybody back to discussions about non-indigenous approaches
to
 conflict resolution. quickly now. the text i quoted is specifically about
 structural differences between women's and men's brains. it could not be
 more specific. if you're not prepared to consider the reference there's
not
 much more to be said anyway. you don't cite contrary evidence. you're now
 saying that there is no reliable evidence. the canadian study refers quite
 specifically to gross morpholical (structural) differences. time will
 tell.

 respectfully,

 philip

 @ cadigal eora

  SNIP


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Trudy Bray]

Phillip,

I said I wouldn't say any more about it but ... you sound angry because I didn't
accept your interpretation of the study. I hope you have read more than this one
book. It is important to differentiate between differences and variations. What
the authors are talking about are variations not structural differences as in
different structures.

I was not discussing non-indigenous approaches to conflict resolution - that was
your interpretation of what was going on. I just voiced an objection to one
thing that you had to say.

Brain physiology was my major at university.

Now I will drop it.

Trudy

philip wrote:
 
 as you wish. eveybody back to discussions about non-indigenous approaches to
 conflict resolution. quickly now. the text i quoted is specifically about
 structural differences between women's and men's brains. it could not be
 more specific. if you're not prepared to consider the reference there's not
 much more to be said anyway. you don't cite contrary evidence. you're now
 saying that there is no reliable evidence. the canadian study refers quite
 specifically to gross morpholical (structural) differences. time will
 tell.
 
 respectfully,
 
 philip
 
 @ cadigal eora
 
  I was not talking about brain size.
 
  I think it is pointless to continue this discussion since you indicated
 that men
  and women have different brain structures  The brain, the
   chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
 constructed
   in men and in women; and when I protest that all human brains have the
 same structures you change to behavioural differences with which I have no
 argument although there may be as many behavioural differences within each
 gender as between them. It isn't that cut and dried.
 
 
  You have found some studies that support your view of life. There are
 other
  studies that do not.
 
 
  The results of many studies about brain structures and how they work to
 affect
  behaviour and memory have had to be changed or thrown out because more has
  become known about our most complicated organ. Science is only just
 beginning to
  have some rudimentary (as a ratio to the potential - no pun intended)
  understanding of how the brain works and much of what they thought was the
 truth
  before has had to be dumped. I'm sure that there will be more theories
 that will
  have to be modified or discarded as knowledge increases in the future. It
 pays
  to keep an open mind (no pun intended) and be receptive to new discoveries
 being
  made.
 
  One thing that hasn't changed throughout the long search of how the brain
 works
  is the structures that make up the brain. The physiology hasn't changed in
 line
  with science's increasing knowledge of its functions.
 
  The best that can be said as things stand today is that scientists have
  different theories about how the brain works. Which theories are correct
 (if
  any) only time and more knowledge will tell.
 
  I will drop the subject now before I bore everyone to tears.
 
  Trudy
 
 
 
 
 
 
  philip wrote:
  
Sorry, Phillip, I have read the Canadian study - it points out
 differences
   in
size of the brain structures - not different structures.
  
   no need to be sorry trudy. you're the one who's talking about brain size
 not
   me. the text i quoted also makes little reference to this property. what
 i'm
   talking about and what the text is talking about is evidence of the
 brain's
   operation, including evidence from the Canadian study indicating gross
   morphological (structural) and often striking behavioural differences
   between men and women', that the female brain and the male brain which
 can
   be easily and unambiguously distinguished operate differently therefore
   these entirely distinct forms of the human brain are structured
 differently.
  
   women and men perceive the world differently. there is women's
 perception
   and men's perception according to whether male hormone kicked into the
   foetus at six weeks or not. if you don't think the apples and oranges
   analogy is appropriate then you are dealing with a western cultural
 illusion
   not the overwhelming scientific consensus to which the text i mentioned
   refers.
  
   as the text explains, there are two ways of looking at differences
 between
   women and men. one is the western cultural approach comprising the
 illusion
   that there is no structural difference and the other is the overwhelming
   scientific consensus that there is. take your pick.
  
   furthermore, flat administrative structures (consensual decision-making)
 and
   tall administrative structures (hierarchical decision-making) can have
   exactly the same number of teams and may come in all sizes yet they are
   entirely different decision-making processes.
  
   moreover, if you research sex further you'll find that there is no
   scientific consensus as to how sex emerged  (for instance, most species
   become extinct if they lose one percent of their 

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[philip]

Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common
membership of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the
same in aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a
biological and scientific lie.

The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain, the
chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently constructed
in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.

Brainsex - The Real Difference Between Men and Women. Ann Moir  David
Jessel, 1989:5. Mandarin.

philip

 Men and women do not have different brain structures. Size difference in
whole
 or in part does not constitute a difference in structure.
 Men's brains are bigger in general but not necessarily individually. As a
ratio
 to body weight, women's brains are bigger than men in general but not
 necessarily individually. The Corpus Calosum (sp?) is bigger in women than
in
 men but it is still the same structure.

 Trudy

 philip wrote:
 
  the australian government agency centrelink has a bill of rights in the
form
  of a staff policy of 'shared behaviours' concerning acting with
integrity
  and so forth.
 
  since women and men have different brain structures, different thought
  processes and different behaviours a policy of 'shared behaviours'
applied
  to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish.
 
  i sought explanation of 'shared behaviours' as a centrelink employee and
was
  informed that the policy was non-negotiable.
 
  two ministers and the prime minister declined to refute my analysis.
 
  i have since been dismissed from the australian public service in my
absence
  on sick leave for failing to comply with a lawful direction in relation
to
  'shared behaviours' as well as around forty other suspected breaches of
the
  public service code of conduct over my attempts to assert my rights in a
  centrelink workplace and to communicate with centrelink managers as my
  health deteriorated under a regime of acrimony and intimidation.
 
  my case for unfair dismissal comes up in the australian arbitration
  commission over five days from 12 november.
 
  my principal argument is that policies which fail to distinguish between
  womens and mens behaviours concern themselves entirely with the
activities
  of brainless, sexless humanoids.
 
  since i am a male human being and not a brainless sexless humanoid i
cannot
  be in breach of or be sanctioned for breaching a code of conduct or a
policy
  which fails to distinguish between womens and mens behaviours.
 
  similarly, constitutions, bills of rights and treaties  which fail to
  distinguish between womens and mens behaviours are gibberish.
 
  i've already unsuccessfully applied for political asylum on one occasion
  outside australia against the present constitution after i was tortured
over
  several hours by a dozen police officers in and around an 'independence
  communications office' attached to an indigenous cultural centre in
  melbourne twenty years ago and assume i will be dismissed from australia
or
  become deceased if a bill of rights or treaty which fails to distinguish
  between womens and mens behaviours is introduced.
 
  in my view the only solution is an australian republic with a womens
senate,
  a mens assembly and an executive of elders.
 
  the days of civilisations treating their inhabitants as brainless
sexless
  humanoids in the relentless advancement of material culture at
unimaginably
  enormous social cost to humankind are rapidly coming to a close.
 
  philip
 
  @ cadigal eora
 
  managing women and men
  http://mfbns.com



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Don Clark]

Thanks Diet, I have already heard of the Gundgesetz, although I know very
little about it.  It would be an interesting exercise to research all the
'bills of rights' to see how difficult it is for most to have changes made.

Don
- Original Message -
From: Diet SIMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


 Hi Don, Suze,

 Germany has no bill of rights, but it has an equivalent of sorts, the
 Gundgesetz, or Basic Law, which sets out some human rights. To change
the
 Basic Law a two-thirds majority of parliament is needed. German offices
hand
 out copies of Basic Law in English, so approach consulates or such in
 Australia if you're interested.

 Diet

 - Original Message -
 From: Don Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


  Hi Suze
 
  A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by
having
  the votes in parliament to do so.
 
  A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so easily.
As
  in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights would have to be
by
  referendum - if I understand correctly.
 
  In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can be
taken
 to
  (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges whether the law,
or
  Act, or amendment or action has contravened the bill of rights.  They
 can't
  change it, they can only adjudicate it.
 
  A bill of rights of course can have problems.  An example is once again
in
  the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that banning of
  firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in that it states that
 it
  is a right of a man to bear arms.
 
  So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill.  However, that
such
 a
  bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to take arms away,
 indicates
  to me that a bill of rights, framing indigenous aspirations and rights
as
 a
  part of its statutes would be the preferable method for starting to
 achieve
  social justice for indigenous people.
 
  Don
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Suze Collette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
  Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
 
 
In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties in
my
estimation.
   
Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is agreed
 to
  it
should be negotiated with each and every different tribal grouping,
 and
taking into account their different issues.
   
Treaties are rarely kept with indigenous people the world over.  I
  wonder
what makes people think that a treaty would be any different in
  Australia.
   
I am very wary of treaties and those many of those who support it.
   
   
don
  
   Many people have told me of the Treaty's in the past that have been
   dishonoured and broken.  So I now better understand why people are
  reluctant
   to move toward a Treaty.  But, if a Treaty will provide bugger all
   protection, then I gotta ask what's the alternative?  Trudy mentioned
a
  Bill
   of Rights, and this led me to wonder well...if a Treaty is pointless
  because
   it can simply be broken, then can't a Bill of Rights similarly be
   dishonoured?  As I see things, we really don't have much of a choice
but
  to
   place faith in Australians now and in the future, to vote out
 governments
  if
   they fail to honour the agreements we reach. How much real protection
do
  any
   of these bits of paper give without people power?
  
   I honestly cannot see how we can proceed with Treaty negotiations with
 the
   Commonwealth of Australia yet anyway.  No-one I've been speaking with
is
  at
   all interested in ATSIC or our current Land Councils negotiating
 anything
  on
   their behalf.  As things stand, anyone with business interests in our
   resources doesn't give a bugger who signs an agreement, just as long
as
 it
   will hold up in a court of law they're happy!
  
   People are seething mad that agreements are being made by a few, when
 the
   majority of their Tribe does not agree!  We have some serious problems
 to
   sort out regarding fair and equal representation of all clan members
  within
   each Tribal Nation! Aboriginal people have been, and still are,
 obstructed
   from negotiating, decision making, and collaboratting, and its
  contributing
   to extreme frustration, anger and division amongst the Aboriginal
 Nations
  as
   people seek to point the finger at other Aborigines suspected of
 betraying
   our laws and ways.
  
   Why can't we firstly structure independant Aboriginal representation
so
 we
   can ensure everyone is fairly and equally represented in any
 negotiations
   and decision making. ATSIC cannot qualify as our

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Don Clark]

Not pedantic, Sandy.  Thanks for the information.

However, I still stand by the statement in some ways. And I don't think I
have any more of a problem than most.

The fact the jurisprudence has not defined the term, in its own way, means
that the term people and man seem to be interchangeable in the eyes of the
law.  The fact the gun lobby is still able to 'muddy the waters' in this
area is not, to me, as relevant as the fact that there is a reluctance to
change the amendment.

Don

- Original Message -
From: Sandy Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)



 Another good idea, Suze!  Or, why not just devise and pass a
 Constitutional amendment with the proper wording.  Then there's no
 need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?

 But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
 bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to
 provide an aspirational framework for our public life:  this is who we
 are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.
 That sort of thing.

  Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
 problems by themselves.  The American Bill of Rights does not, of
 course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the
 police solely because they're black  That still happens frequently.
 (it's called profiling.  We shouldn't let it happen here).   What the
 Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been
 abused a means of redress.  But that only works if people are
 sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of
 the means of redress.  And also only if the government of the day
 is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of
 paper.

 (Incidentally, for Don Clark:  You'll think I'm being hopelessly
 pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of the
 people to bear arms, not the right of a man to bear arms.  The
 same thing, I hear you say?  In that case, you've got a problem!
 But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always
 been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment:  Does the
 people mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local
 militias?  I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively
 on that.  It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the
 Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying
 condition vis a vis guns.)

 Cheers,
 Sandy

  If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a Treaty
  agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But crikes, if it
can
  be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's worth everyone's
effort
  in the first place? hmm... oh, how about write into the Bill of Rights
that
  no-one shall dishonour the Treaty? g *sigh, I wonder if solutions can
be
  that simple?
 
  Suze
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Don Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2001 5:16 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
  
  
   Hi Suze
  
   A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by
having
   the votes in parliament to do so.
  
   A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so easily.
As
   in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights would have to
be by
   referendum - if I understand correctly.
  
   In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can
   be taken to
   (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges whether the
law, or
   Act, or amendment or action has contravened the bill of rights.
   They can't
   change it, they can only adjudicate it.
  
   A bill of rights of course can have problems.  An example is once
again in
   the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that banning of
   firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in that it
   states that it
   is a right of a man to bear arms.
  
   So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill.  However,
   that such a
   bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to take arms
   away, indicates
   to me that a bill of rights, framing indigenous aspirations and
   rights as a
   part of its statutes would be the preferable method for starting
   to achieve
   social justice for indigenous people.
  
   Don
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Suze Collette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
   Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
  
  
 In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties
in my
 estimation.

 Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is
   agreed to
   it
 should be negotiated with each and every different tribal
   grouping, and
 taking into account

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Don Clark]

I recently watched something where Article 4 was the defence of a man who
was arrested by the police.  It seems they were using heat monitors (or
something of that kind) to look through his house.  This flies in the face
of evidence gathering procedures.  The man was set free.

Don

- Original Message -
From: Peter Tremain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


 Amendment Article 4
 Right of Search and Seizure Regulated. 
 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
 effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated,
 and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
 affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
 persons or things to be seized.

 
  Another good idea, Suze!  Or, why not just devise and pass a
  Constitutional amendment with the proper wording.  Then there's no
  need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?
 
  But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
  bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only
  to provide an aspirational framework for our public life:  this is who
  we are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to
  behave.  That sort of thing.
 
   Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
 
  problems by themselves.  The American Bill of Rights does not, of
  course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the police
  solely because they're black  That still happens frequently.  (it's
  called profiling.  We shouldn't let it happen here).   What the Bill
  of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been abused a means
  of redress.  But that only works if people are sufficiently informed,
  organised and cashed-up to take advantage of the means of redress.
  And also only if the government of the day is not completely hostile
  to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of paper.
 
  (Incidentally, for Don Clark:  You'll think I'm being hopelessly
  pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of the
  people to bear arms, not the right of a man to bear arms.  The same
  thing, I hear you say?  In that case, you've got a problem!  But
  seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always been
  divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment:  Does the people
  mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local militias?  I'm
  not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively on that.  It's
  more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the Bill of Rights
  that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying condition vis a
  vis guns.)
 
  Cheers,
  Sandy
 
   If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a
   Treaty agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But
   crikes, if it can be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's
   worth everyone's effort in the first place? hmm... oh, how about
   write into the Bill of Rights that no-one shall dishonour the
   Treaty? g *sigh, I wonder if solutions can be that simple?
  
   Suze
  
  
-Original Message-
From: Don Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2001 5:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
   
   
Hi Suze
   
A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by
having the votes in parliament to do so.
   
A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so
easily.  As in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights
would have to be by referendum - if I understand correctly.
   
In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can
be taken to (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges
whether the law, or Act, or amendment or action has contravened
the bill of rights. They can't change it, they can only adjudicate
it.
   
A bill of rights of course can have problems.  An example is once
again in the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that
banning of firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in
that it states that it is a right of a man to bear arms.
   
So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill.  However,
that such a bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to
take arms away, indicates to me that a bill of rights, framing
indigenous aspirations and rights as a part of its statutes would
be the preferable method for starting to achieve social justice
for indigenous people.
   
Don
   
- Original Message -
From: Suze Collette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
   
   
  In fact

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[philip]

dear trudy,

 While there are differences in size of structures and in information
processing,
 the brain's structures in men and women are the same.

read the book. it's been around for a dozen years. i have a copy in surry
hills/redfern i can loan you.

chapter one: the differences

a hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in
a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden
truism, a statement of the yarningly obvious.

such a remark, uttered today, would evoke very different reactions. said by
a man, it would suggest a certain social ineptitude, a naivete in matters of
sexual politics, a sad deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy
attempt to be provocative. A woman venturing such an opinion would be
scorned as a traitor to her sex, betraying the hard-fought 'victories' of
recent decades, as women have sought equality of status, opportunity and
respect.

yet the truth is that virtually every professional scientist and researcher
into the subject has concluded that the brains of men and women are
different. There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain - and
what science knows - that they do not.

when a Canadian psychologist entitled an academic paper 'Are men's and
women's brains really different?' she acknowledged that the answer to the
question was self-evident:

'yes, of course. it would be amazing if men's and women's brains were not
different, given the gross morphological (structural) and often striking
behavioural differences between men and women.

(Brainsex - The Real Difference Between Men and Women. Ann Moir  David
Jessel, 1989:9. Mandarin)

etc etc

 The brain's development is very largely dependent on hormones and, since
these
 are highly variable, the resulting brain can also show great variation
within
 gender as well as between genders.

the male brain is singularly dependent on the 'kicking in' of male hormone
in a six week old 'female' foetus. (all foetuses are 'female' for the first
six weeks.)

apples and oranges can show great variation within kind as well as between
kind but they are very different fruits.


 If you think there are structural differences that are not matters of size
then
 please point out the structures that you think are different.

read the book.

in women the functional division between the left and the right sides of
the brain is less clearly defined. Both the left and right sides of the
female brain are involved in verbal and visual abilities.

men's brains are more specialised.

the left side of the male brain is almost exclusively set aside for the
control of verbal abilities, the right side for the visual. (p43)

men and women have a different brain organisation even in the left-hand
side of the brain. Professor Doreen Kimura, a Canadian psychologist, made
the discovery (since confirmed by other scientists) that the brain functions
related to the mechanics of language such as grammar, spelling and speech
production, are organised differently in men and women. in men these
functions are located in the front and back areas of the left side of the
brain. in women these functions are more focused and are concentrated in the
front area of the left-hand side of the brain. (pp43-44)

'mechanics of language.
men: left hemisphere front and back. more diffuse. women: left hemisphere
front. more specific.

vocabulary. defining words.
men: left hemisphere front and back more specific. women: left and right
hemispheres front and back. more diffuse.

visio-spatial perception.
men: right hemisphere. more specific.
women: right and left hemispheres. more diffuse

emotion.
men: right hemisphere. more specific.
women: right and left hemispheres more diffuse.'

(summary of diagram p 46)

[note that all these functions are critical to parliamentary debate]

etc etc.


 Your quote below indicates two people's opinion - do they mention which
 'structures' are actually different?

anne moir has a phd in genetics. at the time of publication she was european
editor for the canadian broadcasting commission in britain. david jessel
writes and presents television programmes. yes, as above, and much more.
these people are not ratbags. like yourself they are investigative
journalists. (or is it christine who is the investigative journalist?)
please read the book.

philip



 philip wrote:
 
  Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common
  membership of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the
  same in aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a
  biological and scientific lie.
 
  The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain,
the
  chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
constructed
  in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
  results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.
 
  

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Trudy Bray]

Phillip,

While there are differences in size of structures and in information processing,
the brain's structures in men and women are the same.
The brain's development is very largely dependent on hormones and, since these
are highly variable, the resulting brain can also show great variation within
gender as well as between genders.

If you think there are structural differences that are not matters of size then
please point out the structures that you think are different.

Your quote below indicates two people's opinion - do they mention which
'structures' are actually different?

Trudy


philip wrote:
 
 Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common
 membership of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the
 same in aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a
 biological and scientific lie.
 
 The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain, the
 chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently constructed
 in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
 results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.
 
 Brainsex - The Real Difference Between Men and Women. Ann Moir  David
 Jessel, 1989:5. Mandarin.
 
 philip
 
  Men and women do not have different brain structures. Size difference in
 whole
  or in part does not constitute a difference in structure.
  Men's brains are bigger in general but not necessarily individually. As a
 ratio
  to body weight, women's brains are bigger than men in general but not
  necessarily individually. The Corpus Calosum (sp?) is bigger in women than
 in
  men but it is still the same structure.
 
  Trudy
 
  philip wrote:
  
   the australian government agency centrelink has a bill of rights in the
 form
   of a staff policy of 'shared behaviours' concerning acting with
 integrity
   and so forth.
  
   since women and men have different brain structures, different thought
   processes and different behaviours a policy of 'shared behaviours'
 applied
   to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish.
  
   i sought explanation of 'shared behaviours' as a centrelink employee and
 was
   informed that the policy was non-negotiable.
  
   two ministers and the prime minister declined to refute my analysis.
  
   i have since been dismissed from the australian public service in my
 absence
   on sick leave for failing to comply with a lawful direction in relation
 to
   'shared behaviours' as well as around forty other suspected breaches of
 the
   public service code of conduct over my attempts to assert my rights in a
   centrelink workplace and to communicate with centrelink managers as my
   health deteriorated under a regime of acrimony and intimidation.
  
   my case for unfair dismissal comes up in the australian arbitration
   commission over five days from 12 november.
  
   my principal argument is that policies which fail to distinguish between
   womens and mens behaviours concern themselves entirely with the
 activities
   of brainless, sexless humanoids.
  
   since i am a male human being and not a brainless sexless humanoid i
 cannot
   be in breach of or be sanctioned for breaching a code of conduct or a
 policy
   which fails to distinguish between womens and mens behaviours.
  
   similarly, constitutions, bills of rights and treaties  which fail to
   distinguish between womens and mens behaviours are gibberish.
  
   i've already unsuccessfully applied for political asylum on one occasion
   outside australia against the present constitution after i was tortured
 over
   several hours by a dozen police officers in and around an 'independence
   communications office' attached to an indigenous cultural centre in
   melbourne twenty years ago and assume i will be dismissed from australia
 or
   become deceased if a bill of rights or treaty which fails to distinguish
   between womens and mens behaviours is introduced.
  
   in my view the only solution is an australian republic with a womens
 senate,
   a mens assembly and an executive of elders.
  
   the days of civilisations treating their inhabitants as brainless
 sexless
   humanoids in the relentless advancement of material culture at
 unimaginably
   enormous social cost to humankind are rapidly coming to a close.
  
   philip
  
   @ cadigal eora
  
   managing women and men
   http://mfbns.com
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -
 RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
 http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
 Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
 that date.
 This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
 copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, 

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Diet SIMON]

Hi Don, Suze,

Germany has no bill of rights, but it has an equivalent of sorts, the
Gundgesetz, or Basic Law, which sets out some human rights. To change the
Basic Law a two-thirds majority of parliament is needed. German offices hand
out copies of Basic Law in English, so approach consulates or such in
Australia if you're interested.

Diet

- Original Message -
From: Don Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


 Hi Suze

 A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by having
 the votes in parliament to do so.

 A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so easily.  As
 in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights would have to be by
 referendum - if I understand correctly.

 In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can be taken
to
 (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges whether the law, or
 Act, or amendment or action has contravened the bill of rights.  They
can't
 change it, they can only adjudicate it.

 A bill of rights of course can have problems.  An example is once again in
 the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that banning of
 firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in that it states that
it
 is a right of a man to bear arms.

 So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill.  However, that such
a
 bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to take arms away,
indicates
 to me that a bill of rights, framing indigenous aspirations and rights as
a
 part of its statutes would be the preferable method for starting to
achieve
 social justice for indigenous people.

 Don

 - Original Message -
 From: Suze Collette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
 Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


   In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties in my
   estimation.
  
   Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is agreed
to
 it
   should be negotiated with each and every different tribal grouping,
and
   taking into account their different issues.
  
   Treaties are rarely kept with indigenous people the world over.  I
 wonder
   what makes people think that a treaty would be any different in
 Australia.
  
   I am very wary of treaties and those many of those who support it.
  
  
   don
 
  Many people have told me of the Treaty's in the past that have been
  dishonoured and broken.  So I now better understand why people are
 reluctant
  to move toward a Treaty.  But, if a Treaty will provide bugger all
  protection, then I gotta ask what's the alternative?  Trudy mentioned a
 Bill
  of Rights, and this led me to wonder well...if a Treaty is pointless
 because
  it can simply be broken, then can't a Bill of Rights similarly be
  dishonoured?  As I see things, we really don't have much of a choice but
 to
  place faith in Australians now and in the future, to vote out
governments
 if
  they fail to honour the agreements we reach. How much real protection do
 any
  of these bits of paper give without people power?
 
  I honestly cannot see how we can proceed with Treaty negotiations with
the
  Commonwealth of Australia yet anyway.  No-one I've been speaking with is
 at
  all interested in ATSIC or our current Land Councils negotiating
anything
 on
  their behalf.  As things stand, anyone with business interests in our
  resources doesn't give a bugger who signs an agreement, just as long as
it
  will hold up in a court of law they're happy!
 
  People are seething mad that agreements are being made by a few, when
the
  majority of their Tribe does not agree!  We have some serious problems
to
  sort out regarding fair and equal representation of all clan members
 within
  each Tribal Nation! Aboriginal people have been, and still are,
obstructed
  from negotiating, decision making, and collaboratting, and its
 contributing
  to extreme frustration, anger and division amongst the Aboriginal
Nations
 as
  people seek to point the finger at other Aborigines suspected of
betraying
  our laws and ways.
 
  Why can't we firstly structure independant Aboriginal representation so
we
  can ensure everyone is fairly and equally represented in any
negotiations
  and decision making. ATSIC cannot qualify as our representative, nor can
 the
  Land Councils because their structure does not cater to the diversity of
  views, issues, needs for our multiple Koori Tribes, let alone Clans; and
  because ATSIC and Land Councils are not independant from the government
  funds and agendas, lack of impartiality in negotiations comes under
  suspicion; and because Kooris are upset that some decisions that have
been
  made via ATSIC and/or Land Councils that conflict with Aboriginal law
and
  spirituality.
 
  I have no idea how ATSIC commissioners can cope

RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Sandy Sanders]

Another good idea, Suze!  Or, why not just devise and pass a 
Constitutional amendment with the proper wording.  Then there's no 
need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?  

But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a 
bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to 
provide an aspirational framework for our public life:  this is who we 
are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.  
That sort of thing.

 Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve 
problems by themselves.  The American Bill of Rights does not, of 
course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the 
police solely because they're black  That still happens frequently.  
(it's called profiling.  We shouldn't let it happen here).   What the 
Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been 
abused a means of redress.  But that only works if people are 
sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of 
the means of redress.  And also only if the government of the day 
is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of 
paper.

(Incidentally, for Don Clark:  You'll think I'm being hopelessly 
pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of the 
people to bear arms, not the right of a man to bear arms.  The 
same thing, I hear you say?  In that case, you've got a problem!  
But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always 
been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment:  Does the 
people mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local 
militias?  I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively 
on that.  It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the 
Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying 
condition vis a vis guns.)

Cheers,
Sandy

 If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a Treaty
 agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But crikes, if it can
 be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's worth everyone's effort
 in the first place? hmm... oh, how about write into the Bill of Rights that
 no-one shall dishonour the Treaty? g *sigh, I wonder if solutions can be
 that simple?
 
 Suze
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Don Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2001 5:16 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
 
 
  Hi Suze
 
  A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by having
  the votes in parliament to do so.
 
  A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so easily.  As
  in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights would have to be by
  referendum - if I understand correctly.
 
  In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can
  be taken to
  (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges whether the law, or
  Act, or amendment or action has contravened the bill of rights.
  They can't
  change it, they can only adjudicate it.
 
  A bill of rights of course can have problems.  An example is once again in
  the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that banning of
  firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in that it
  states that it
  is a right of a man to bear arms.
 
  So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill.  However,
  that such a
  bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to take arms
  away, indicates
  to me that a bill of rights, framing indigenous aspirations and
  rights as a
  part of its statutes would be the preferable method for starting
  to achieve
  social justice for indigenous people.
 
  Don
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Suze Collette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
  Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
 
 
In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties in my
estimation.
   
Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is
  agreed to
  it
should be negotiated with each and every different tribal
  grouping, and
taking into account their different issues.
   
Treaties are rarely kept with indigenous people the world over.  I
  wonder
what makes people think that a treaty would be any different in
  Australia.
   
I am very wary of treaties and those many of those who support it.
   
   
don
  
   Many people have told me of the Treaty's in the past that have been
   dishonoured and broken.  So I now better understand why people are
  reluctant
   to move toward a Treaty.  But, if a Treaty will provide bugger all
   protection, then I gotta ask what's the alternative?  Trudy mentioned a
  Bill
   of Rights, and this led me to wonder well...if a Treaty is pointless
  because
   it can simply be broken, then can't a Bill of Rights similarly

RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Sandy Sanders]

Thanks, Peter.  No, I guess the right to bear arms isn't the 4th 
amendment, then.  2nd, maybe?  
Sandy

 Amendment Article 4 
 Right of Search and Seizure Regulated. 

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
 effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 
 and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
 affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
 persons or things to be seized. 

~~~
Sandy Sanders
Wormhole Books
27A Main Street
Upwey   VIC  3158
Australia
ph/fax  61 (03) 9754 5440
www.wormhole.com.au

WORMHOLE BOOKS  science/fiction and beyond . . . .
www.wormhole.com.au

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[philip]

the australian government agency centrelink has a bill of rights in the form
of a staff policy of 'shared behaviours' concerning acting with integrity
and so forth.

since women and men have different brain structures, different thought
processes and different behaviours a policy of 'shared behaviours' applied
to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish.

i sought explanation of 'shared behaviours' as a centrelink employee and was
informed that the policy was non-negotiable.

two ministers and the prime minister declined to refute my analysis.

i have since been dismissed from the australian public service in my absence
on sick leave for failing to comply with a lawful direction in relation to
'shared behaviours' as well as around forty other suspected breaches of the
public service code of conduct over my attempts to assert my rights in a
centrelink workplace and to communicate with centrelink managers as my
health deteriorated under a regime of acrimony and intimidation.

my case for unfair dismissal comes up in the australian arbitration
commission over five days from 12 november.

my principal argument is that policies which fail to distinguish between
womens and mens behaviours concern themselves entirely with the activities
of brainless, sexless humanoids.

since i am a male human being and not a brainless sexless humanoid i cannot
be in breach of or be sanctioned for breaching a code of conduct or a policy
which fails to distinguish between womens and mens behaviours.

similarly, constitutions, bills of rights and treaties  which fail to
distinguish between womens and mens behaviours are gibberish.

i've already unsuccessfully applied for political asylum on one occasion
outside australia against the present constitution after i was tortured over
several hours by a dozen police officers in and around an 'independence
communications office' attached to an indigenous cultural centre in
melbourne twenty years ago and assume i will be dismissed from australia or
become deceased if a bill of rights or treaty which fails to distinguish
between womens and mens behaviours is introduced.

in my view the only solution is an australian republic with a womens senate,
a mens assembly and an executive of elders.

the days of civilisations treating their inhabitants as brainless sexless
humanoids in the relentless advancement of material culture at unimaginably
enormous social cost to humankind are rapidly coming to a close.

philip

@ cadigal eora

managing women and men
http://mfbns.com


 Another good idea, Suze!  Or, why not just devise and pass a
 Constitutional amendment with the proper wording.  Then there's no
 need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?

 But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
 bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to
 provide an aspirational framework for our public life:  this is who we
 are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.
 That sort of thing.

  Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
 problems by themselves.  The American Bill of Rights does not, of
 course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the
 police solely because they're black  That still happens frequently.
 (it's called profiling.  We shouldn't let it happen here).   What the
 Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been
 abused a means of redress.  But that only works if people are
 sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of
 the means of redress.  And also only if the government of the day
 is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of
 paper.

 (Incidentally, for Don Clark:  You'll think I'm being hopelessly
 pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of the
 people to bear arms, not the right of a man to bear arms.  The
 same thing, I hear you say?  In that case, you've got a problem!
 But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always
 been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment:  Does the
 people mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local
 militias?  I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively
 on that.  It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the
 Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying
 condition vis a vis guns.)

 Cheers,
 Sandy

  If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a Treaty
  agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But crikes, if it
can
  be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's worth everyone's
effort
  in the first place? hmm... oh, how about write into the Bill of Rights
that
  no-one shall dishonour the Treaty? g *sigh, I wonder if solutions can
be
  that simple?
 
  Suze



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Jim Duffield]

On 23 Aug 2001, at 17:15, Don Clark wrote:

 Hi Suze
 
 A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by having
 the votes in parliament to do so.


Is it not true that due to our High Court interpretation (Hindmarsh 
Island?) of the (referenda amended in 1967) section 51 xxvi of the 
Constitution laws for any race that any laws passed by Canberra focussed 
on the Aboriginal population, laws that liberal thinkers might think as 
_against_ the First Nations, are laws for 'any race of people'?

Strange thing letting bloody lawyers in on law?  Especially when some are 
Liberal appointees.

So much for the referenda model...

tra,



___
 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.kultcher.com/ --- Jim Duffield -

Never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is healthy; 
if you believe theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe 
the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have their strong
wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.  
Lord Salisbury 

  Don't send 'em - All Attachments deleted summarily!
___

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Laurie Forde]

As reported in the Koori Mail of 22/8/01, Pat Dodson, in his address to the
National press club said,  A treaty will come when we realise that it is
only fear, racism, ignorance and continuing social dislocation that are its
alternatives.

As tough as it may be to achieve and maintain the terms of a Treaty, there
does not appear to be a satisfactory  option ; and why would there be? Wars
officially end when treaties are signed then we can get on with dealing
with the Peace between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

Laurie.
---
- Original Message -
From: Sandy Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)



 Another good idea, Suze!  Or, why not just devise and pass a
 Constitutional amendment with the proper wording.  Then there's no
 need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?

 But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
 bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to
 provide an aspirational framework for our public life:  this is who we
 are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.
 That sort of thing.

  Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
 problems by themselves.  The American Bill of Rights does not, of
 course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the
 police solely because they're black  That still happens frequently.
 (it's called profiling.  We shouldn't let it happen here).   What the
 Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been
 abused a means of redress.  But that only works if people are
 sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of
 the means of redress.  And also only if the government of the day
 is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of
 paper.

 (Incidentally, for Don Clark:  You'll think I'm being hopelessly
 pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of the
 people to bear arms, not the right of a man to bear arms.  The
 same thing, I hear you say?  In that case, you've got a problem!
 But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always
 been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment:  Does the
 people mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local
 militias?  I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively
 on that.  It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the
 Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying
 condition vis a vis guns.)

 Cheers,
 Sandy

  If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a Treaty
  agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But crikes, if it
can
  be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's worth everyone's
effort
  in the first place? hmm... oh, how about write into the Bill of Rights
that
  no-one shall dishonour the Treaty? g *sigh, I wonder if solutions can
be
  that simple?
 
  Suze
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Don Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2001 5:16 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
  
  
   Hi Suze
  
   A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by
having
   the votes in parliament to do so.
  
   A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so easily.
As
   in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights would have to
be by
   referendum - if I understand correctly.
  
   In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can
   be taken to
   (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges whether the
law, or
   Act, or amendment or action has contravened the bill of rights.
   They can't
   change it, they can only adjudicate it.
  
   A bill of rights of course can have problems.  An example is once
again in
   the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that banning of
   firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in that it
   states that it
   is a right of a man to bear arms.
  
   So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill.  However,
   that such a
   bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to take arms
   away, indicates
   to me that a bill of rights, framing indigenous aspirations and
   rights as a
   part of its statutes would be the preferable method for starting
   to achieve
   social justice for indigenous people.
  
   Don
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Suze Collette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
   Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
  
  
 In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties
in my
 estimation.

 Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is
   agreed to
   it
 should be negotiated with each

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Trudy Bray]

Phillip,

Men and women do not have different brain structures. Size difference in whole
or in part does not constitute a difference in structure.
Men's brains are bigger in general but not necessarily individually. As a ratio
to body weight, women's brains are bigger than men in general but not
necessarily individually. The Corpus Calosum (sp?) is bigger in women than in
men but it is still the same structure.

Trudy

philip wrote:
 
 the australian government agency centrelink has a bill of rights in the form
 of a staff policy of 'shared behaviours' concerning acting with integrity
 and so forth.
 
 since women and men have different brain structures, different thought
 processes and different behaviours a policy of 'shared behaviours' applied
 to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish.
 
 i sought explanation of 'shared behaviours' as a centrelink employee and was
 informed that the policy was non-negotiable.
 
 two ministers and the prime minister declined to refute my analysis.
 
 i have since been dismissed from the australian public service in my absence
 on sick leave for failing to comply with a lawful direction in relation to
 'shared behaviours' as well as around forty other suspected breaches of the
 public service code of conduct over my attempts to assert my rights in a
 centrelink workplace and to communicate with centrelink managers as my
 health deteriorated under a regime of acrimony and intimidation.
 
 my case for unfair dismissal comes up in the australian arbitration
 commission over five days from 12 november.
 
 my principal argument is that policies which fail to distinguish between
 womens and mens behaviours concern themselves entirely with the activities
 of brainless, sexless humanoids.
 
 since i am a male human being and not a brainless sexless humanoid i cannot
 be in breach of or be sanctioned for breaching a code of conduct or a policy
 which fails to distinguish between womens and mens behaviours.
 
 similarly, constitutions, bills of rights and treaties  which fail to
 distinguish between womens and mens behaviours are gibberish.
 
 i've already unsuccessfully applied for political asylum on one occasion
 outside australia against the present constitution after i was tortured over
 several hours by a dozen police officers in and around an 'independence
 communications office' attached to an indigenous cultural centre in
 melbourne twenty years ago and assume i will be dismissed from australia or
 become deceased if a bill of rights or treaty which fails to distinguish
 between womens and mens behaviours is introduced.
 
 in my view the only solution is an australian republic with a womens senate,
 a mens assembly and an executive of elders.
 
 the days of civilisations treating their inhabitants as brainless sexless
 humanoids in the relentless advancement of material culture at unimaginably
 enormous social cost to humankind are rapidly coming to a close.
 
 philip
 
 @ cadigal eora
 
 managing women and men
 http://mfbns.com
 
 
  Another good idea, Suze!  Or, why not just devise and pass a
  Constitutional amendment with the proper wording.  Then there's no
  need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?
 
  But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
  bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to
  provide an aspirational framework for our public life:  this is who we
  are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.
  That sort of thing.
 
   Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
  problems by themselves.  The American Bill of Rights does not, of
  course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the
  police solely because they're black  That still happens frequently.
  (it's called profiling.  We shouldn't let it happen here).   What the
  Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been
  abused a means of redress.  But that only works if people are
  sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of
  the means of redress.  And also only if the government of the day
  is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of
  paper.
 
  (Incidentally, for Don Clark:  You'll think I'm being hopelessly
  pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of the
  people to bear arms, not the right of a man to bear arms.  The
  same thing, I hear you say?  In that case, you've got a problem!
  But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always
  been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment:  Does the
  people mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local
  militias?  I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively
  on that.  It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the
  Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying
  condition vis a vis guns.)
 
  Cheers,
  Sandy
 
   If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd 

Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)

[Don Clark]

In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties in my
estimation.

Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is agreed to it
should be negotiated with each and every different tribal grouping, and
taking into account their different issues.

Treaties are rarely kept with indigenous people the world over.  I wonder
what makes people think that a treaty would be any different in Australia.

I am very wary of treaties and those many of those who support it.


don

- Original Message -
From: Rod Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:39 PM
Subject: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)


 Another important issues with respect to treaties involves who has
 the power to make them. People often talk about a treaty, but what
 if different groups of Indigenous people want different treaties?  Is
 it likely that treaty negotiations at a national level might
 actually increase divisions between indigenous groups with
 unfortunate consequences?

 Rod,
 
 I'm also a bit wary of a treaty but only because I think it may, in the
long
 run, not guarantee Indigenous rights because it can so easily be ignored.
 
 All human rights, including Aboriginal land rights, would be a whole lot
safer
 in a Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution.
 
 I know many don't agree with me there but I really can't see how
 else Indigenous
 rights as well as anyone elses can be protected from the whim of
 party politics.
 
 Trudy
 

 --
 Rod Hagen
 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Hurstbridge, Victoria, Australia
 WWWhttp://www.netspace.net.au/~rodhagen

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -
 RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived
at
 http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March,
2001 and
 Recoznettwo is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ from
 that date.
 This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
permission from the
 copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and
research under the fair
 use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be
distributed further without
 permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the fair
use provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for fair use.