Alcohol restrictions: equal treatment for black and white

Steve Brown, like many of us, cannot help getting involved with the alcohol debate. He does so with reluctance by writing about “the blatantly obvious and only conclusion that will bring it to an end”.
It was with a degree of optimism that I read on, hoping for a magic wand, a silver bullet or an Apocalypse.
Hacking through a tangle of repetitive jargon, “the same vested interests”, “the same tired old propaganda”, “the patronizing prig”, i.e., the reader arrives at one of Mr Brown’s favourite hobby horses – “patronising other people’s lives, centralizing around further pointless restrictions, more bureaucracy and further penalties being applied to wider society rather than focusing attention on the few who actually abuse alcohol.”
For someone who doesn’t believe in statistics, his use of “the few” is contestable.
His latest attack on alcohol restrictions sees only “Aboriginal people” as its focus – not whitefellers, despite the non-Indigenous families suffering from the results of an expansion of trading hours and discounted liquor outlets all over Australia.
“When a white person abuses alcohol nobody sets out in the guise of protecting the perpetrator to penalise the whole of society! However when a person of Aboriginal origin abuses alcohol we are apparently quite OK with penalising the entire Aboriginal community.”
Despite the irony of his claim of white supremacy, his inaccurate use of the term “nobody” is another generalization which serves his purpose – to rail at the “pointless” alcohol restrictions, ranging from “Coward Punch” legislation to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (approximately 3000 children are born with FASD each year in Australia).
Mr Brown’s solution is this: “There is, and always has been a simple answer: Equality. Equal treatment. The removal of all race based laws, treatments, restrictions and activities.”
Commenting on the policing of bottle shops, he writes: “We have deepened the divide, widened the gap. The mental anguish the anger and resentment caused by such activity and obvious discrimination simply serves to exacerbate the issues, giving people more reason to abuse alcohol.”
This is an acknowledgement that until racism is removed from society, “equality” will remain an ideal. “The deepening racial resentment also results in drunken abusers being not to damn fussy how they behave or for that matter by what means they obtain their alcohol. To put it simply they want to get in your face!”
Mr Brown rightly links some alcohol restrictions with racism, but instead of seeing others as a means of removing it, he wants to remove the restrictions.
His solution is to “normalise alcohol laws for everybody. Policing efforts must be concentrated on attacking out of control behaviour that might occur as a result of freeing up restrictions.”
What this amounts to, in the first instance, is criminalising alcoholism by insisting on personal responsibility for those whose behavior contributes to alcohol-related violence, self-harm, including the rights of the unborn child and driving under the influence of alcohol, increasing the bureaucracy he rails against as well as the prison population.
Mr Brown prefers a liberal society where the alcohol industry is free to continue their global expansion into Central Australia.
At the very least, taxpayers will continue to pay for the privilege of going down the gurgler, while Steve Brown signs the cheque.

Who are you to tell me what I can and can’t do, just bust because who I am or where I come from, or what I can do to my body.
Only God can judge me. This is all about educating people, what is right and wrong and personal responsibility.
We are all equal. There should be one law for everyone not one for whites and one for blacks. Stop segregating people just because of where they live and where they come from.

Me thinketh you protesteth to loudly Russell! Might be something in what I said that jars a little with your own perceptions Eh?
We all know you get off on a constant rambling waffle about alcohol Russell. Imagining I suppose that somehow your constant outpouring of patronising propaganda gives you some kind of expertise some God given right to inflict your somewhat befuddled short sighted opinions on the rest of the community so often and so loudly as to dominate the discussion by boring everyone else out of the room!
Which of course leaves the discussion going where Russell? And that is also why I will not waste my time getting in a further to and fro with you its kind of like having a conversation with a duck very little of intelligence said and a constant spray of the proverbial!
The message my comment is attempting to convey Russell is that in order to resolve the alcohol issue / debate, where we go with restrictions etcetera you have to begin in the right place!
The right place, in fact the only place, to begin is with Equality! The same rules for everyone! This straight away removes the anger and resentment the isolation and division that is so much part of what we see going on.
That anger and division is the creation of people who like to think they have a right to interfere in other peoples lives If you ever actually stop thinking and talking about alcohol, Russell, you may find time for a moment of clarity! In that moment you may very well come to the same conclusions! We all live in hope of that day believe me!
Oh, and one more thing Russell, cut and paste is not intelligent comment, it’s both pointless and lazy if you’ve got something that’s worthwhile saying give it credibility by writing the words yourself.

@ Mark Lockyer. Posted March 31, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Not sure to whom you’re directing your question here, Mark, but allow me to respond in the interests of clarity and focus.
I don’t consider this to be a racist argument and am on record, supporting the reinstatement of the BDR, rather than police stationed at takeaway liquour outlets, but alcohol-abuse knows no colour, nor cultural boundary.
I agree that educating people about the safe use of alcohol – a legal drug produced in ever-increasing amounts by a global consortium – is one strand of this debate and product warning labels are part of it, but I disagree that it’s “all” about personal responsibility.
When you are addicted, personal responsibility is limited. Government or NGO support is necessary, especially in the more extreme cases of domestic violence and FASD.
We are all born equal, but that is not the social reality. Sometimes, there is a need to use the courts to remind those who take liberty and we are seeing that at present in the debate over proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.
Some Aboriginal people would dispute your claim of one law for everyone and this is referred to in the Land Council article within these pages.
I hope this is helpful in clarifying my position and I welcome your communication. If you are referring to Steve Brown, then you may wish to ask him for further clarification.

@ Steve Brown. Posted March 31, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Ah, is that Shakespeare thou quoteth, Steve? How unexpeced and refreshing.
I recall you writing some time ago that you were not prepared to give my position “the time of day”. I’m glad that you are not as consistent in your petulance as you often are in your line of argument, but this is an important debate – a matter of life and death for many, friends among them – and so we continue to bore each other.
I cannot speak for “the rest of the community” as you do, but I think your use of the royal “we” is a bit of the raw prawn.
I won’t spend much time on your repetitive use of cliche – even cliche can speak a truth – except to say that you make mince with “God given right”, when duck is the plate du jour.
Regarding your comment on equality, please see my reply to Mark Lockyer.

“Equality. Equal treatment. The removal of all race based laws, treatments, restrictions and activities.”
This is what’s required. In all areas of government policy.
We need to go back to square one and start again. It is still not too late.

In response to Russell: l did not grow up out bush, as you know I grew up in Alice Springs. CLC was set up to give Aboriginal people land rights of their land when I was a young feller. I heard the old people having meetings with CLC. They wanted housing, a school, shop and a police and night patrols in their communities. We are all Australian citizens we all have the same rights.

@ Mark Lockyer. Posted March 31, 2014 at 8:31 pm
I fully appreciate your situation. In the 1930s, the late R. M. Williams foresaw what would happen when alcohol was freely available to bush people.
We have all been overtaken by liberal supply. Your dream of Land Rights was hard-won by black and white. It would be a national shame if alcohol destroyed any hope you may have left.
Let’s continue to turn down the tap for a better future. Reinstate the BDR, a floor price and days free from take-away would be a good start. Better management by all stake-holders should be the aim of the Alice Alcohol Reference Group.

The government need to stop giving aboriginal people hand outs, give them a hand up. Give them real jobs. And yes, turn down the alcohol tap.

Since Commonwealth received control of the NT from SA Commonwealth Parliament controlled management of all NT issues.
Commonwealth claimed first it lacked powers to qualify the rights of Australians – identified as Aboriginal. Such claims are clearly false, as demonstrated by numerous Commonwealth qualifications of the rights of Australians using racial measures throughout its control of the NT.
Finke River Mission established a ration depot near the current site of the Ikuntji community soon after the Haasts Bluff Aboriginal Reserve was proclaimed in 1941.
They managed in accordance with various Commonwealth racially discriminatory legislation and regulations.
Management services for the Haasts Bluff Aboriginal Reserve changed when title was transferred to the new Haasts Bluff Lands Trust entity created when the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 commenced.
Commonwealth claims then to have powers to qualify the rights of Australians – using race as a measure, as demonstrated by various Commonwealth qualifications of the rights of Australians using racial measures, since 1967, particularly in the NT.
The Commonwealth legislated to appoint the Central Land Council as property manager and representative agent for the Haasts Bluff Land Trust (with acknowledged “Traditional Owners” relevant shareholders) for property management issues for the Haasts Bluff Land Trust.
The Land Councils still manage these lands in accordance with various Commonwealth racially discriminatory legislation and regulations.
Commonwealth rejected recent attempts do devolve powers from the established Land Councils to local entities.
Commonwealth remains obstructive, refusing legal assistance, to prevent judicial challenges proceeding against the claimed Commonwealth authority to practice racial discrimination between Australians including apartheid.
Problems arise within the NT mostly due qualification of rights and responsibilities of individual Australians using racial tests to justify such qualifications, racial tests the Attorney-General told Parliament do not exist.

I agree with remove all race based laws – let those who harm or potentially harm others pay the price for it. It should not matter what colour you are but children should be raised to be adults who are responsible for their own actions. As for wine being available I was married to someone who was sort of OK with beer but wine really damaged him.
I personally feel that overcontrol is very damaging. It brings with it a mindset which is childlike. Over control causes self esteem problems – mindful of problems caused by the basics card. How many times was my husband forced to go on DASA like programmes where he would stay off the alcohol for a few weeks then get back on it. If someone has to have alcohol available 24/7 then they definitely have a problem.
Another problem is when drinking is forced on people by their friends. Those who don’t drink can be made to feel outcasts.This is particularly prevalent with teens.
The thing I particularly notice is those without jobs and those who are demoralised by people who think they or their jobs are not good enough are quite often at risk of alcoholism, getting into drugs and other harmful activities. Again issues of self esteem.
The psychological model of the ID (dependent baby) the EGO (the learning stage e.g. teens) and the superego (the adult that can look at issues beyond what effect it has on them to what effect it has on others) is important. This final stage is the definition of Adult.

@3.”The government needs to stop giving aboriginal people hand outs, give them a hand up.”
To all, not only Aboriginal people who have more right to be here than us. I know a lot of white Australians who had never worked and are on the dole or on pensions.

Maybey we need equal rights for whites I am sick of aboriginals whinging about everything it’s about time they started helping themselves most people are over it if they want the so-called racism to stop then actually do something themselves and stop always blaming others and asking for handouts no one gives me handouts.
All we ever here is winging hang on gee lucky the europeans discovered australia and defeated the germans and japs where would we be now if the germans discovers australia. All the minority do gooders need to piss off.

Re: Chris Posted November 14, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Australia’s racists benefit from comments like “Maybe we need equal rights for whites I am sick of aboriginals”.
Racists instinctively regard any argument about racial rights as benefiting and supporting their racist views, particularly where such responses impulse reactions.
Equal rights and racial rights contradict each other.
Any qualification of rights of Australians using racial measures conflicts with Australian’s aims at Federation and again in 1967.
Australian’s voting in 1967 clearly sort to extinguish, to eliminate, all discrimination between Australians using “racial measurements”.
Australian’s well understood fatal destruction arise from such evil approaches to policy.
Commonwealth Attorneys-General obstruct attempts to seek this being resolved by the High Court, I am fearing the High Court is likely to uphold basic legal principles.
Australians in 1967 amended their Constitution.
Australians in 1967 legislated to eliminate, to extinguish, ALL discrimination between Australian’s based on race, all such is thus unlawful.
Commonwealth Attorneys-General remain obstructive to resolving these issues, for to do so they must accept loss of abusive racial powers Commonwealth falsely claims and exercises.
Then Commonwealth complains states and NT fail to carry out various tasks related to their normal responsibilities.
Yet is Commonwealth racism which prevents states and NT from acting in many areas, so Commonwealth pays states and NT to monitor what is being done, or mostly not being done, to improve things.
Commonwealth ignores barriers to development, education, health and progress they created and maintain, blame states and NT where they act as agents for the Commonwealth, for failures which directly result from Commonwealth abusive legislation and Commonwealth obstructive instructions.
The States and NT rightly refuse to pay for the problems the Commonwealth has created, and maintains.
WA Premier Colin Barnett admits financial efficiency means his government may reduce services to some remote communities. Governments, businesses do this all the time for economic reasons.
Rent a crowd for a racist Australia probably out in force complaining now that Senator Scullion acknowledges WA’s thinking is based on facts, there are “no jobs, no education, no health systems in place, and there is no likelihood of those systems being in place for relatively small numbers of people”.
Senator Scullion like myself has some optimism for these communities, as exist opportunities to improve things.
Required is they as the landowners, or at least shareholders in these corporate landowners start managing things like the vast majority of other landowners in our nation.
Commonwealth far too long ignored these communities exist on large privately owned properties.
Commonwealth far too long obstructed the corporate entities of these large privately owned properties being called to account.
Commonwealth far too long refused speak clearly to shareholders of these private corporate landowning entities. Is their responsibility as shareholders in these corporate entities to manage their land.
IF these private corporate entities lack funds to improve things, then is up to them to invest in their privately owned corporate entities to get them working to improve things, to provide them what they want.
Private landowners in such rural and remote areas usually responsible to provide their own water, power, sewerage, health, education, and food supply services.
In all states and territories most who live past where such services provided, accept their responsibility to service themselves.
Most such private landowners accept their responsibilities.
There are clear requirements with mutual obligations to receive public funded support services.
States and Territories expand infrastructure, provision of municipal and essential services, where practicable to provide such services.
Commonwealth created NT corporate Land Trusts, and similar many Commonwealth entities, some state entities, are not providing these services upon their lands.
Indeed they remain obstructive towards servicing and maintaining what public monies provided them and their tenants.
Is well past the time these corporate Land Trusts were forced to start servicing their tenant communities.
Critical is the removal of the racist inalienability on these private corporate lands, along with racist exemptions from liabilities as landowners.
Remove inalienability to enable states, NT, and service providers, to apply to resume land to provide public services, within our Constitutions “just compensation”.
Challenge is need to bind Commonwealth, states and territories, to the principles of equality.
Commonwealth falsely claims an authority to regularly abuse Australian’s rights using race as a measure.
Eliminate racial segregation of Australians.
Eliminate racial discrimination of Australians.
Enable equality of opportunity and responsibility.

Hi Paul,
You forgot to add “whinging about everything” that really changes the comment I made.
A perfect example is the winging about closing some of the remote communities.
I mean, gee, the government is cutting down on costs and people who actually work for what they have are going to lose their jobs. If you look at the news clip about these communities and see all the rubbish laying around, why are people not made to clean it up? If you lived in a suburb and left your yard or street like that you would get into trouble.
How about having to turn up for work duty a couple of times a week to clean up and maybe tend a community vege garden to entitle you to your free money and house and everything else they get free?
Surley they would get a sense of achievement and would also then live in a better enviroment which may also reduce medical ailments.
Just calling it as it is – which too mmany pollies won’t!
I get offended when I see Aboriginal school, medical care, legal aid etc etc. I wonder what would happen if we had a European school, medical centre etc etc.

All that stuff they get for free yea. Just like those other buggers who stole a whole continent.

What buggers. I suppose you would prefer the Germans or Japs discovered Australia. More whinging, see my point? Now it’s developed they ask for it back, and want royalties. They are the ones stealing, I thinks. Oh, money for nothing.

Chris (Posted November 25, 2014 at 6:34 pm): I assume you are opposed to inheritance of property then?

Few oppose inheritance of property, though is considerable discussion around “reasonable” taxing of such inheritance.
Around the planet most societies benefit from, indeed depend upon, people working to acquire assets to benefit, to pass on to, their families.
Opposed by many is the term inalienable, as it suggests no risk of losing property.
Inalienable does not mean others must pay to maintain what titleholders possess, yet many seem believe it does.
Reducing or removing risk of loss encourages recklessness, reduces acceptance of liability for costs.
Where ownership is clear, why expect others pay for any improvements or benefits?
Inalienable ownership appears to encourage failure, or refusal, to accept responsibility of ownership, refusal to maintain assets, often provided with public funds, with failures to improve health, education, and opportunities for their own shareholders and their families within these ‘inalienable’ communities.
Is time Commonwealth removed inalienable, to clear state. IF corporate landowners fail to maintain their properties, they risk losing them.
Seems only with such risk will things improve.
Expecting otherwise supports racism.

Bob, what has that got to do with anything?
I am not opposed to inheritance at all. We WORK hard to buy what we want. We are not given it.
We need to stop living in the past and actually just get on with it without the “poor us”.
Some people do not know how lucky they are.
We are all Australian and none should be treated different to the other.
If people want to live like their ancestors, then give back the Landcruiser, house, money etc etc and go bush.
Seems some want their cake and eat it too.
My ancestors were Australian too and before that I do not know – it really depends on how far back you want to go.
None of us are indigenous. Or do we only go back as far as suits us? Hmmm?

Chris (Posted November 26, 2014 at 9:06 pm), you ask what has the right of inheritance got to with anything?
Well, when you said “Now it’s developed they ask for it back, and want royalties. They are the ones stealing, I thinks. Oh, money for nothing” (Posted November 24, 2014 at 8:04 pm), I assumed that you may have meant that Aboriginal people want their inherited property rights recognised, and that you don’t agree with that happening, because you see it as being “money for nothing”.
In fact, your use of the phrase (“Oh, money for nothing”) led me to think that you must prefer to see no inheritance of property; however, now you also state that you “are not opposed to inheritance at all”, which seems to contradict your “Oh money for nothing” remark. But I am still at a loss to understand how you can say first that you support the inheritance of wealth, then immediately state its antithesis: “We WORK hard to buy what we want. We are not given it.”
What is inheriting something other than receiving the rights to it as a gift from the person previously owning it?

Bob who did they inherit from? When did they buy it? Just grabbing something for nothing. I note no comments on anything else?

They inherit the country from their fathers and grandfathers in much the same way as white landowners do.
That’s fair and pretty simple to understand. Those families have been living here for a long time (more than three generations even) and have always passed the land on to their children.
That’s fair and pretty easy to understand. Unless like the lost man on the masonic plinth on stuart terrace, you believe in terra nullius.
Get over it. It’s in the past. That is such a pathetic argument.
How long ago is the past? How much time has to pass before a crime becomes not a crime. If I steal your car today and I still have it tomorrow is it mine you get over it its in the past.
How long? A day a week a year? How long?
All Australians should be treated equally except indigenous people who have to get over anything that would upset them and any other conscious person. Whitefellas can celebrate Australia day when a bunch of convicts and soldiers landed on Worse country. Whitefellas can celebrate ANZAC day when a bunch of whitefellas tried to land on Turkish country. Witefellas can commemorate just about anything that happened in the past. Aboriginal people just have to forget about it and move on.
Sorry it won’t happen – at least not until the whitefellas accept the truth and start to show some understanding and respect.

Chris (Posted November 28, 2014 at 9:49 pm) you ask “Bob who did they inherit from? When did they buy it?”
As Dan has pointed out (Posted November 29, 2014 at 7:26 am), the Aboriginal traditional owners and custodians inherited ownership and managerial rights to their shares of the country from their forebears, under complex systems of title and law developed over many millennia; laws that are encoded in song cycles that span the continent, and that are written symbolically in the rocks and sacred places, and marked on the sacred objects that are kept in key places on their traditional estates.
These laws were (and, in many cases, still are) applied by their separate nation / language groups throughout the continent, as best they are able, under the very difficult circumstances of occupation by the “guns and boats” people. (These age-old laws of ownership, by the way, have in recent decades received a degree of recognition by the courts and Parliaments of Australia).
If somebody tried grabbing somebody else’s land, under their age-old system, (i.e. “Just grabbing something for nothing”), there were usually severe retributions, somewhat along the lines that Captain Phillip was first shown at Botany Bay, when he arrived, in his ludicrous fancy outfit, to announce, in an unintelligible gibberish, that an unknown “King” on the other side of the planet was unilaterally assuming ownership and control of the whole continent, in order to establish a gulag of primitive internment camps for the riff raff of the British Isles, along with their “boat people” officer corps and screws.
When the local owners of the Botany Bay hinterland, using their spears, expressed their disagreement with the British presence, King George’s agent promptly called in the artillery under his command to deal with the initial (and subsequent) resistance.
The possession of lethal firearms and germs, not justice or purchase or treaty, were the decisive factors in the taking of the continent from its original owners.
To a large degree, that basic initial crime has never been dealt with by the British Crown and its governments, or by the Australian colonies and their Commonwealth.
There is owing a very large compensation bill. It is a bit cheeky, in the light of that, for Tony Abbott, Nigel Scullion and Colin Barnett to be claiming that they have no obligation to provide basic services in the places where Aboriginal families choose to try to continue to live on small parcels of their ancestral land – land over which, in the case of 170 WA communities threatened with evictions – the WA government continues to hold stolen “title”.

You still do not get it. You earn respect.
So we give the land back (bad move). So when we do why do you still want money of the government and cars and clothes and handouts and houses.
Go live “traditionally” – at least then I would not have to be constantly harassed, abused and threatened and have racist comments directed at me.
Yous need to come into the 21 century and look at some positives.