Why did Labor and Greens defeat anti-racism motion?

[mellie]

Labor, Greens defeat motion to censure 'toxic coconut' sledge


BY: LAUREN WILSON From: The Australian November 02, 2011.

LABOR and the Greens have voted down a Coalition motion to condemn environmentalists who called indigenous leaders "toxic coconuts" for speaking out in favour of the Kimberley gas hub.

Opposition indigenous spokesman Nigel Scullion yesterday demanded an explanation from the Gillard government and the Greens as to why they did not support the Coalition's motion to condemn the racial vilification.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6182992137

[mellie]

So racism is ok, so long as it suits the Greens and Labors political agenda?

[mantra]

So racism is ok, so long as it suits the Greens and Labors political agenda?

Obviously the language was emotional, but in all fairness to the Green movement - many communities of aborigines have been over-ruled by elders who are encouraged by the multinationals with cash and comfortable jobs.

The majority of aborigines wouldn't be speaking out in favour of the gas hub in the Kimberleys. Most of them wouldn't even know what was happening until it was too late and their sacred sites bulldozed and their water and food sources polluted.

[mellie]

So racism is ok, so long as it suits the Greens and Labors political agenda?

Obviously the language was emotional, but in all fairness to the Green movement - many communities of aborigines have been over-ruled by elders who are encouraged by the multinationals with cash and comfortable jobs.

The majority of aborigines wouldn't be speaking out in favour of the gas hub in the Kimberleys. Most of them wouldn't even know what was happening until it was too late and their sacred sites bulldozed and their water and food sources polluted.

So, what you are saying is, in fairness to the greens, racism is acceptable, so long as it's for a good cause?

This is called a double standard!

The trouble with this Mantra is that we as a society cant always make this distinction, this and may to our way of thinking have been racist/discriminatory for a good cause also, well, to our way of thinking anyway.

Why is it acceptable for environmentalists with a political agenda to be racist, but not other members of the public?

Who gets to decide when racism is and isn't acceptable, warranted... ok for Green environmentalists but not ok for Andrew Bolt?

This hypocritical minority government contradicts itself yet again.


Sorry, but there's no defending them on this one.

See, when Andrew Bolt addressed this issue, he was charged in accordance with our anti-discrimination laws, and labelled a bigot. Yet when environmentalists racially vilify those not seen supporting a Greens/ALP political agenda suddenly it's acceptable?

Either it's acceptable or it isn't Mantra, this government needs to make up it's mind this and needs to stop discriminating against others, and contradicting themselves.

[mantra]

As I haven't got access to the full article Mel - I don't know the full story. It may very well have only been one environmentalist who used this racist term - but of course some would want the whole party condemned because of one voice.

[mellie]

As I haven't got access to the full article Mel - I don't know the full story. It may very well have only been one environmentalist who used this racist term - but of course some would want the whole party condemned because of one voice.

The full article was available for all to read last night however some time early this morning, only half the article is able to be read ... bear with me, I will find you a copy of the entire article Mantra.

[mellie]

Here you go Mantra...

LABOR and the Greens have voted down a Coalition motion to condemn environmentalists who called indigenous leaders ‘‘toxic coconuts’’ for speaking out in favour of the Kimberley gas hub. Opposition indigenous spokesman Nigel Scullion yesterday demanded an explanation from the Gillard government and the Greens as to why they did not support the Coalition’s motion to condemn the racial vilification. On Monday, Nationals senator Ron Boswell put to the parliament a motion to register the concern of the Senate that the indigenous people who had voted in favour of the gas hub at James Price Point in the Kimberly had ‘‘been victimised, unfairly pressured by some green and conservation groups and subjected to racial vilification through being referred to as ‘toxic coconuts’ ’’ in an anonymous newsletter circulated in Broome. The motion also called on the Greens and environmental groups, including World Wildlife Foundation and the Australian Conservation Foundation, to honour their 2007 pledge to the traditional landowners of the Kimberley to respect their decision on Woodside’s $30 billion Browse Basin gas hub proposal. Labor and the Greens voted the motion down in the Senate. Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig said Labor agreed that nativetitle holders were ‘‘entitled to share in the prosperity that a major development on their land brings jobs, economic development opportunities and income streams.’’ Despite voting down the motion, he continued: ‘‘The government absolutely condemns racism. It is important everyone respects the right of traditional owners to reach agreements to share in the benefits of major developments on their land.’’ Senator Scullion yesterday attacked Senator Ludwig’s speech as ‘‘bizarre’’ and said he ‘‘must have been confused’’ about what motion the government was voting on. ‘‘How can the ALP and the Greens refuse to single out and condemn such behaviour?’’ Senator Scullion said. The Australian revealed in September that West Australian Labor MP Carol Martin, the first indigenous woman elected to any Australian parliament, would resign after being vilified as a ‘‘toxic coconut’’.

http://theaustralian.newspaperdirect.co ... iewer.aspx


- Try as they might, GALP cant stop all press!

Oddly enough, this incident occurred over a month ago and our MSM (Except for The Australian) didnt want to know about it.

How peculiar.


Because the MSM must not challenge the red-green coalition (GALP), this or bring anything which raises questions or undermines their agenda.

Mantra, just reading this article will now result in your having to write Bob 1000 lines.


It goes like this..


"I must not question the integrity of the Red-Green coalition and only read GALP approved/censored publications."

[boxy]

How the hell is it the job of the Senate to censure the author of an anonymous newsletter?

[mellie]

How the hell is it the job of the Senate to censure the author of an anonymous newsletter?

Well they don't mind passing motions to ensure MP's only consider the communities in-put when it suits them, going so far as to pass a motion to ensure our MP's only pay close attention to the positive feedback re- polls on gay marriage ...no mention of them taking all feedback into consideration or their own heart felt views I see, why not?

Only those pro-gay marriage opinions count?

"A Greens motion urging MPs to gauge community support for gay marriage has been passed by the House of Representatives."

So, in other words, MP's are being urged to form an opinion based on what the polls tell them to think, and to cast their vote of conscience accordingly.

Lol, here we have Bob Brown telling us what to think, and how to think it.


Unbelievable.

[mellie]

Can anyone understand why the Greens would defeat an anti-racism motion?

I can.


The Greens have declined to comment further on this defeated motion...and for very good reason.