And what is most interesting is the fact that the people doing the
dispossessing here are usually the first ones to claim the sanctity of
property rights above all else.

However, the property rights to be so sanctified are, of course, their own.
Surprise, surprise.

DDeBar

----------
> From: Bill Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CHOMSKY] Australia's forthcoming 'race' election
> Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 5:55 PM
>
> 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.