Australia's forthcoming 'race' election

People may be interested to learn that our esteemed leader today vowed to
take us to an early double-dissolution election on the crucial issue of
whether pastoral lease-holders should be given the right to lock their
gates to visits by the Aboriginals who traditionally owned the land they
now farm.

It turns out, much to everyone's surprise, that the dispossession of
Aboriginals was not completely thorough, legally speaking. (Legal niceties
were not the strong point of the grandfathers of today's cockies. Poisoning
the water, bullets, torture and rape were their forte.) So it has been
determined that their pastoral leases do not give the cockies EXCLUSIVE
possession, only the exclusive right to graze stock and associated rights.
Aborigines retain whatever is left over, outraging the guilty consciences
of the squattocracy, who demand that the original owners be stripped of
these vestigal legal rights to their land.

Times have changed, compensation will be a consideration this time around,
but no worries, upgrading of millionaire graziers' titles to full freehold
will be done at taxpayers expense and of course native title rights will
have to compulsorily acquired, since the natives in question don't want to
sell their right to visit their ancestors' burial and sacred sites.

What sort of people would expend millions of dollars (even of someone
else's money) to forcibly confiscate property rights which are of little
value, except to the  people being deprived of them. "Rascist scum" is the
only answer that fits the facts and, reluctantly, many Australians are
having to admit that Prime Minister John Howard is just that.

So the next Australian election will be fought on the issue of implementing
legal racial discrimination, depriving the poorest and most oppressed
section of the Australian population of their vestigal property rights.
Traditional defenders of private property are not expected to take a strong
stand against this - they will, as usual, be the beneficiaries!

So be it, but let this be seen as a precedent, another one. I really don't
see how they can complain when its THEIR turn to be dispossessed. Like
Howard says, we have to do what's in the best interests of the WHOLE
community, socialists merely have a different interpretation of what the
best interests of the community are. Or to be more precise, we have a
different concept of who "the community" are. We think its everyone, they
think "the community" is only the filthy rich.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.