Friday, October 12, 2007

Q & A with Pauline Hanson

Q: "By actually acknowledging the Aboriginal people as the traditional owners in our constitution, are we opening up a can of worms then?"

A: No. As inner-city liberals around Australia can attest, recognition of the Aborigines as traditional owners places no obligation on anybody to pay more than cursory attention to the plight of Aborigines. It sure does feel good, though.

Q: "Although it sounds very warm and fuzzy, what is the real implications for Australians and future generations?"

A: I concur. Subject-verb agreement is difficult.

Q: "Does becoming a republic sever not only our sovereignty with the crown but also with the land?

A: No. I am not aware that the proposed republic sought to eliminate property rights. Indeed, many republics around the world, some of them quite famous, still recognise land ownership.

Q: "Will the land revert back to Native Title and where does that leave all Australians who are not of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural background?"

A: The Native Title Act came into force in 1994. Since then, Australians of various cultural backgrounds have displayed a dogged ability to remain in the country, except when they are mentally ill and mistaken for damned foreigners.

Q:"But they've got to stand up on their own two feet and start doing it for themselves as well. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

A: Current scientific consensus is that horses have four feet. Politically correct sensitivities being what they are, it is probably advisable that you avoid further comparisons of the Aboriginal people with any kind of non-human animal species. Also, making Aborigines drink is not widely considered to be the solution to the various problems faced by remote Aboriginal communities.

1 comment:

diego luego said...

Subtotal limb loss may be an undocumented side effect of equine influenza. I can't wait to watch the Melbourne Cup.