What is it all about? Well many might wonder. A gang of aboriginal louts attacked the nations leader over a rival politician's remarks which were so innocuous that it is a wonder they were noticed. However in a PC moment it is not possible to say anything about an aboriginal without violent protest. In this case it was suggested their thinking might move on after 40 years of a protest eyesore in the national capital. Would this be permitted in any other county, of course it wouldn't
http://http://www.smh.com.au/nationa...127-1qkku.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/activ...127-1qkn9.html

Yeah Red Julia looked upset .

Of course one of her staffers alerted them to the comments by Abbott for the intent of inflaming their passions ,and probably for political gain .So who really sparked the protest ? Who is really at fault ?

You are right Tom and he was fired for doing so. Dirty tricks is the usual bag we expect from Labor, this one backfired on their leader. But there is more to this, The Abo's burnt a flag on the steps of Parliament House so after disrespecting the PM they disrespected the nation. I expect that that was premeditated. I have no symapthy for their cause or their claims. They are mostly a shiftless lot who have failed to take advantage of the assistence given them, their answer to anything is violence even among their own people.
http://www.news.com.au/national/gill...-1226255907487

I know if someone roughed up the President that way they'd be sporting a new decorative piercing between their eyes.

Happy Australia Day.

My feelings exactly we don't use the full weight of the law often enough

I do know something of your issues 'over there' and your issues do effect us here in Canada but when you say 'aboriginal' do you mean that in a derrogatory term, of do you mean 'native Americans or amerinds'? Can you change your terminology to a more respective terminology instead of 'aboriginal louts'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

I do know something of your issues 'over there' and your issues do effect us here in Canada but when you say 'aboriginal' do you mean that in a derrogatory term, of do you mean 'native Americans or amerinds'? Can you change your terminology to a more respective terminology instead of 'aboriginal louts'.

---

The term aboriginal in Australia defines a specific racial group as distinct from Torres Strait Islanders. Aboriginal Definition: An original inhabitant of any land; one of the aborigines. Your equivalent might be first peoples. We have no such sensibilities and to define them otherwise I would have have to choose from more than two hundred tribal identities and that would be inaccurate so we use the collective noun aboriginal when referring to these people.We have done so for two hundred years and have no intention of changing what is normal and common place everyday speech. We have no definition of mixed blood people such as Metis as you do and so the term aboriginal encompasses all people of aboriginal dissent. However we do note that the troublemakers are usually of mixed blood. The term lout defines someone more likely to resort to violence than not and in this case is entirely accurate. The aboriginal people involved in this incident were at the aboriginal tent embassy, a tumble down collection of temporary buildings known by that name that has been a eyesore for 40 years when they were incited to attack a nearby restraurant and disturb an official ceremony. If I wanted to refer to them in a derotatory manner I would use the term boung (as in a mob of ignorant boungs attacked the Prime Minister) as I would use the term wog for people of middle eastern or southern European extraction.

So No my terminology is about as respectful as I am likely to get and I am sure you have better things to do than pursue the course of political correctness. How our issues could affect the peoples of Canada I cannot see as there is an entirely different set of circumstances and ethos associated with native affairs. It is more likely that our aboriginal population would take the lead from your successes than the reverse.

The Sharks are circling!
It is not surprising that an embarrassed Prime Minister should face the further embarrassment of a no confidence vote. No one here believes a lowly staffer initiated the attempt to embarrass the Opposition Leader without higher approval and with such a spectacular backfire that the judgement of the Prime Minister's office must be in question.

Well it is going to be questioned in the only place where it counts. Could this bring back the Krudd?
Wilkie set to support debate over no-confidence vote

By this incident the aboriginals shot themselves in the foot. The government was disposed to amend the constitution to give special place to them however after this disgusting display that is off the agenda. No change giving preference to any race will now happen.

We have had enough of the domination of the minority and the waste of public money giving preference to aboriginals. I would not be surprised to see the aboriginal tent embassy torn down once again, after all it is the wish of the local aboriginal people that it be removed.