Out on the plains the brolgas are dancing
Lifting their feet like war horses prancing
Up to the sun the woodlarks go winging
Faint in the dawn light echoes their singing
Orana! Orana! Orana to Christmas Day
Down where the tree ferns grow by the river
There where the waters sparkle and quiver
Deep in the gullies bell-birds are chiming
Softly and sweetly their lyric notes rhyming
Orana! Orana! Orana to Christmas Day
Friar birds sip the nectar of flowers
Currawongs chant in the wattle tree bowers
In the blue ranges lorikeets calling
Carols of bushbirds rising and falling
Orana! Orana! Orana to Christmas Day
The word "Orana" means "Welcome"
This link will open a midi file player to allow you
to hear the tune and see the words as it plays. Carol of the Birds
Advocates, you will remember Transfield won't you === in spite of the fact that they are no longer operating detention centres under that name. Well, here is the latest.
To-day is the Day of Remembrance of John of the Cross - the writer of the mystical classics, The Dark Night of the Soul and The Living Flame of Love and more.
For those who would wish to read the works of John of the Cross, please be introduced to a marvellous website for reading - for free - the riches of the Christian tradition, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. This site is a storehouse of great treasures available to all. For the works of John of the Cross, please go here.
A quote for to-day from The Living Flame of Love:
... He loves thee with liberality, without self-interest, only to do thee good, showing joyfully His countenance full of grace, and saying:
I am thine and for thee, and it is my pleasure to be what I am, that I may give Myself to thee and be thine.
Who then shall describe thy feeling, of blessed soul, when thus beloved, and so highly honoured?
In every other comparable nation, treaties and indigenous sovereignty are a fact of life.
Photo: Greg Newington
After settlers arrived in the US, Canada and New Zealand, they signed treaties with the local indigenous peoples. These were often unfair in favouring the interests of the settlers. Nonetheless, they recognised indigenous sovereignty, provided redress and established a basis for coexistence. These agreements persist to the present day.
When the British founded a colony in Australia in 1788, no treaties were signed. Instead, Aboriginal people were dispossessed due to the legal fiction that the continent was terra nullius, or no man's land. This conveniently applied the so-called "barbarian" theory, which held that some indigenous peoples are "so low in the scale of social organisation" that the law need not recognise their rights and interests.
The difference between Australia and these other nations is stark. Only Australia fails to recognise the sovereignty of its first nations by way of a treaty.
The effects have been devastating. The absence of a treaty meant that Australia could be created in 1901 by ignoring Aboriginal peoples. They were set aside as a "dying race" that would not survive white settlement. The Constitution even declared that they were not to be counted in reckoning the numbers of people in the new Commonwealth. This reflected the belief that Aboriginal people should be denied the vote, and so not included in electoral calculations.
Advertisement
In 1962, Aboriginal people were finally granted the vote in federal elections. In 1967, the Constitution was changed to permit them to be counted, and to enable the federal Parliament to make laws for them. Unfinished business still remains. The Constitution today only speaks of Australia from the time of British settlement, and does not mention the stories and history of Aboriginal people. It also embodies racial division by recognising that states can disenfranchise people because of their race, and permitting the federal Parliament to grant or deny rights on this basis.
These problems will hopefully be rectified if Australia finally comes to vote on Indigenous recognition after the next federal election. The process towards that goal begins afresh today when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's referendum council meets for the first time.
The council will have to grapple with the fact that constitutional change is not the only reform being pressed. As the recognition debate has drifted, the call has grown louder among Aboriginal people for a treaty. Some want a treaty instead of constitutional reform. Others demand both.
A treaty is not an alternative to constitutional change, and indeed the two can proceed side by side. Constitutional recognition is narrowly focused in dealing with Australia's framework of government. A treaty on the other hand is a negotiated settlement that could remedy the defects in how Australia was settled. It could provide redress for historic claims and enable a new agenda of Aboriginal self-empowerment.
Treaties also typically recognise the sovereignty of indigenous peoples, subject to the laws of the new nation. This concept may seem radical in Australia, but it is we who are exceptional. In every other comparable nation, treaties and indigenous sovereignty are a fact of life. Even US President George W Bush affirmed in 2001 that: "My administration will continue to work with tribal governments on a sovereign to sovereign basis."
A year before, Prime Minister John Howard rejected the idea of a treaty for Australia, saying a "nation … does not make a treaty with itself". His statement is nonsensical, and defies the reality of how the US, Canada and New Zealand are governed. They recognise that a nation built upon the ancestral lands of another community can recognise a measure of shared sovereignty, and that this is best achieved by a treaty.
For many years, the Australian debate has been blind to these realities. This makes former prime minister Paul Keating's recent comments on the reconciliation of Australia's national identity with our Indigenous heritage all the more welcome. His intervention reminds us of a different era in which Australia came close to developing a treaty.
Work towards a treaty began under the Fraser government. A national consultation was initiated in 1979, culminating in a report of the federal Parliament that recommended the government consider a treaty. Prime minister Bob Hawke went a step further in 1988. He promised: "There shall be a treaty negotiated between the Aboriginal people and the government on behalf of all the people of Australia." He said this might be concluded before the end of that term of Parliament, but no treaty eventuated.
Such commitments reflected popular support. In 2000, a poll found 53 per cent of Australians favoured a treaty, with 34 per cent opposed. The idea only went off the agenda when it was firmly rejected by Howard, and since then no prime minister has championed it. However, it will not go away. We will need a treaty if we are to redress past wrongs and achieve a better foundation upon which to reconcile the interests of Indigenous peoples and those who have come to share their lands.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of law at the University of New South Wales.
Ten years ago the Cronulla riots shocked the nation. As someone who converted to Islam after marrying into a Muslim family and has children growing up Muslim in Australia, I'm more aware of this impending anniversary than most.
Watching news footage of the riots at the time, which included people being seriously assaulted by a drunken flag-waving crowd because they were of Arab or Muslim appearance, prompted my husband and I to seriously consider changing our oldest son's proudly chosen Arab Muslim name. We eventually decided against it, reasoning that we shouldn't capitulate to racism, the event was a one-off, and that by the time he grew up, Islamophobia would have receded.
More than 5500 people gathered at North Cronulla on December 11, 2005.
Photo: Andrew Meares
Ten years on, and anti-Muslim hate seems to have reached an all-time high; I think twice before saying my son's name out loud in a public place. Tens of thousands of people have liked anti-Muslim social media pages, anti-Muslim rallies are held regularly across the country, and several anti-Muslim political parties plan to contest the next election.
Advertisement
These developments, which would have shocked many even a year ago, now seem a normal part of the Australian political landscape. My youngest son can identify the regular news coverage of anti-Muslim sentiment by looking at the images. If they're of men and Australian flags, it's about "the people who don't like us".
This has prompted me to question why the almost complete appropriation of Australia's national symbol by groups whose agenda is to exclude has been met with silence from those whose job it is to represent our flag and country.
Members of the Reclaim Australia rally in Melton on November 22.
Photo: Chris Hopkins
Despite general agreement on the need to unite against the terrorists who want to divide us, the need to unite against the right-wing extremists who want to do the same thing has not been a part of the national conversation. Where is the leadership on condemning increasing extremism targeting the Muslim community?
A failure to do so has fostered an environment in which physical and verbal attacks on people identifiably Muslim, particularly women, have increased to the point where community leader Saara Sabbagh recently told a forum against racism: "You can ask any Muslim woman with a headscarf and she'll tell you a story."
A friend told me recently that her year 4 son had come home from school asking her, "Are we killers, mum?"
Speakers at a Reclaim Australia rally in Canberra on November 22.
Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
One of the most frightening aspects of rising Islamophobia is that it is a worldwide trend. Anti-Muslim, anti-immigration political parties have made gains in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, France and Italy. United States presidential candidate Donald Trump recently proposed a national register for Muslims, a move New Jersey Rabbi Joshua Stanton said made him think about "fascist actions taken against Jews during the last century".
Some may argue that it's inappropriate or offensive to talk about Islamophobia when people have been killed in terrorist attacks carried out by criminals who say they are doing so in the name of Islam. Yet Muslims are more likely than others to be killed in terror attacks worldwide, and just as likely to be killed in Western attacks.
There have been Muslim victims in every major western terror attack, including in New York, Madrid, London and Paris.
In addition, each time criminals carry out terrorist attacks, the entire Muslim community faces a backlash increasingly encouraged not just by right-wing extremists, but also by authoritative public figures. Tony Abbott has a lot to answer for here. He has gone, but members of the current government – including Scott Morrison, Josh Frydenberg, Cory Bernardi and George Christensen – continue to actively exploit anti-Muslim sentiment for political advantage. More importantly, although every Muslim I have spoken to about this matter feels under siege as never before, the silence of political leaders on growing Islamophobia is profound.
What should politicians be saying? They could take a lead from other public figures and community leaders, such as the musicians who have dissociated themselves from racism by demanding anti-Muslim rally organisers stop playing their music, and the faith leaders who have condemned the rallies as damaging to our society.
It's not that hard, which suggests the failure of politicians to condemn Islamophobia is a matter of political will and a fear of losing the racist vote.
If politicians don't want to denounce anti-Muslim hatred because it's the right thing to do, they might think about doing it because the hate-filled leaders of Islamic State are exploiting attacks on Muslim women in Western countries to recruit Western men.
In an English-language video set to music, IS claims to be "Defending the pride of our sisters who have cried". Political leaders consistently making strong statements opposing anti-Muslim bigotry as it occurs would completely undercut that claim's potential to radicalise.
Politicians could start by condemning the use of the Australian flag at the anti-Muslim rallies that look set to become a permanent feature of Australian political life. They could follow up by pledging to put all anti-Muslim political parties last on their preference cards.
When my children see images of people waving the Australian flag to signify a hatred of Muslims, I'd like to be able to tell them that the people in charge of our country condemn this misuse of a symbol meant to represent us all.
Susie Latham is a PhD student at Curtin University and a co-founder of Voices against Bigotry.
She will be presenting at a Deakin University conference on Citizenship and Racism in Australia in December.
This two day conference will address the 'Muslim question'
currently circulating in citizenship debates in the West and also
reflect upon the decade that has passed since the Cronulla riots.
Day
one hopes to address a dearth of research evidence, prompt new
conversations and directions for policy through an objective examination
of the relationship between Islamic belief, ritual and practice and
civic attitudes and expressions of social responsibility toward the
western political community. The gap in research contributes to
reductionist characterisations of Islam as a persistent threat to
western societies, fuelling Islamophobic and "extreme" nationalist
responses.
Day two will address just how significant the Cronulla
Riots were, then and now, and whether – in a world preoccupied with the
War on Terror – the Riots remain a useful reference point for
discussions of intercultural relations and multiculturalism in
Australia. This discussion is particularly relevant in a world where
Islam's compatibility with western liberal values continues to be
questioned at global, national and local scales.
Deakin City Centre, Level 3, 550 Bourke Street, Melbourne More information
Religions for PeaceDelivers Petitions for the Protection of the Planet
(Paris, France, 28 November 2015) On the eve of the UN Climate Summit in Paris,Religions for Peace (RfP)joined approximately 400 religious leaders, COP 21 delegates and climate campaigners from across the globe in delivering the petitions collected through theRfP Faiths for Earth Campaign.
(L-R) Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town the Rt. Rev. Thabo Makgoba, Mr. Mithika Mwenda, Ms. Lotifa Begum, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, and Rev. Kyoichi Sugino
1,780,528 million people joined a collection of faith-based petitions urging political leader to take decisive action to curb global warming and help poor countries to adapt to climate changes.
(L-R) Ms. Deepika Singh, Rev. Kyoichi Sugino, Mr. Nicolas Hulot, and Ms. Lotifa Begum
The petition was presented to UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Ms. Christiana Figueres and Special Envoy of the French President for the Protection of the Planet, Mr. Nicolas Hulot on Friday, November 28 at the 'Faith in Climate Justice' event. The event was organized by four international faith-based networks working together for a common cause:RfP, ACT Now for Climate Justice, Our Voices, and the Global Catholic Climate Movement.
Several key individuals spoke at the event: from the Philippines, former COP negotiator Mr. Yeb Sano; from Brazil, Cardinal Claudio Hummes; from South Africa, Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town the Rt. Rev. Thabo Makgoba; from the US, Rev. Kyoichi Sugino ofRfPInternational; from Kenya, Mr. Mithika Mwenda, Coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance; and from Bangladesh, Ms. Lotifa Begum of Islamic Relief Worldwide.
Dr. Din Syamsuddin
Dr. William Vendley, Secretary General,RfPInternational said: "Meeting the challenge of climate change will help transform us into who we are called to be: one human family living in community with the earth and the Divine."
"Climate change is an ethical crisis that needs each and every one of us to take urgent moral action," said Dr. Din Syamsuddin, Chair, Centre for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilisation (CDDC) and Co-President ofRfPat an official side event on the first day of COP 21. He then outlined the concrete actions taken by theRfP Faiths for Earth Campaign, particularly the one that he is leading in Indonesia, Siaga Bhuni (Earth Alert) that is educating people on climate change issues, promoting eco-friendly houses of worship and a clean, pollution free environment.
Participants of the RfP Global Religious Youth Leaders' Summit
More than 50 youth leaders representing diverse religious traditions from 35 countries also joined the delivery event. Prior to joining, theseRfPyouth leaders held a three-day summit on the theme:Welcoming the Other: Multi-religious Youth Respond to the Challenges of Violent Religious Extremism, Refugee Crisis and Climate Change. Joining the youth leaders were representatives of the United Nations and intergovernmental institutions, and experts and practitioners from civil society organizations. The Summit participants condemned the violence committed in the name of religion and rejected any attempt to fuel distrust and cycles of discrimination and violence to polarize and divide our communities. The youth leaders committed to further strengthen their effort to advance Peace. A two-year action plan was developed and a strong multi-religious statement was issued defining their future actions and their firm commitment to ensure its implementation.
###
RELIGIONS FOR PEACE--the world's largest and most representative multi-religious coalition-advances common action among the world's religious communities for peace.Religions for Peaceworks to transform violent conflict, advance human development, promote just and harmonious societies, and protect the earth. The globalReligions for Peacenetwork comprises a World Council of senior religious leaders from all regions of the world; six regional inter-religious bodies and more than ninety national ones; and the Global Women of Faith Network and Global Interfaith Youth Network.
777 United Nations PlazaINew York, NY 10017 USAITel: 212 687-2163IFax: 212 983-0098
At this week’sUnited Nations Conference on Climate Change, over 40,000 attendees will discuss the future of global attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But which countries are the biggest supporters of climate change action?
A new studyby Pew Research shows that in most countries, there’s a large gap between concern about climate change and the willingness to act. But the results are a bit different than you might expect.
The study, which polled people in 40 nations, found that people worldwide are worried about how climate change will affect Earth’s future. A majority of people surveyed in each nation felt that climate change is a serious problem, and 54 percent worldwide characterized climate change as “a very serious problem.”
The most concerned respondents were in Latin America (74 percent) and Africa (61 percent), with the smallest number of concerned citizens in the Middle East (38 percent). United States respondents ranked near the bottom of concern—only 45 percent of Americans surveyed believe that global warming is very serious, and only 30 percent were “very concerned that climate change will harm me personally.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/which-countries-are-most-open-curbing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-180957408/#VGOgPCXW5YemRlhW.99 Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
