- Blacks are more likely to be hurt by global warming than other Americans, according to a report issued Thursday.

The report was authored by the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, a climate justice advocacy group, and Redefining Progress, a nonprofit policy institute. It detailed various aspects of climate change, such as air pollution and rising temperatures, which it said disproportionately affect blacks, minorities and low-income communities in terms of poor health and economic loss.

“Right now we have an opportunity to see climate change in a different light; to see it for what it is, a human rights issue on a dangerous collision course of race and class,” said Nia Robinson, director of the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative. “While it’s an issue that affects all of us, like many other social justice issues, it is disproportionately affecting African-Americans, other people of color, low-income people and indigenous communities.”

Click here for more…

ShareThis

- Free cigarettes are no longer handed out at Congressional Black Caucus functions. And it has been years since anyone referred to Edolphus Towns, Democrat of Brooklyn, as the “Marlboro Man” for his campaign contributions from the tobacco industry.

But the Congressional Black Caucus has not severed its financial ties to big tobacco. And that can complicate matters when the political discussion involves smoking’s impact on African-Americans.

A rift has opened in the 43-member caucus over a menthol provision in legislation that would enable the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. To reduce smoking’s appeal to teenagers, the legislation would outlaw flavored cigarettes — except for menthol cigarettes, which are specifically exempted.

Click here for more…

ShareThis

- A majority of Americans believe that Democratic candidate Barack Obama will win the presidential election against Republican hopeful John McCain in November, a Fox News poll showed Thursday.

While 51 percent say Obama, who is vying to become the first African American president, will win the election, only 27 percent are betting on a McCain victory.

Voters registered as Democrats are more confident about their candidate’s chances than their Republican peers: 71 percent of Democrats see Obama winning on November 4 while 51 percent of Republicans believe McCain will win.

One in four Republicans think that Obama, a senator from Illinois, will succeed US President George W. Bush.

A month ago, 47 percent of Americans believed that Obama, 46, would win the election compared to 32 percent for McCain, a 71-year-old Arizona senator.

Even though many Americans are predicting an Obama victory, the race remains tight.

In a head-to-head matchup, Obama leads McCain 41 to 40 percent among registered voters, the poll showed. If Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and independent hopeful Ralph Nader are added, Obama leads McCain by 40 to 37 percent.

If Obama chooses former Democratic nomination rival Hillary Clinton as his running mate and McCain picks former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a former Republican candidate, the Democratic ticket leads 48 to 39 percent.

The survey was conducted between July 22-23 among 900 voters. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

A separate poll by the Pew Research Center found that two-thirds of Hispanic voters support Obama for the White House, while less than one quarter back McCain.

The findings marked a positive turn for Obama’s fortunes with Latinos: he lost the Hispanic vote in the Democratic primaries to Clinton by nearly two-to-one, Pew pointed out.

“The presumptive Democratic nominee’s strong showing in this survey represents a sharp reversal in his fortunes from the primaries,” Pew said.

That led to speculation that “Hispanics were disinclined to vote for a black candidate,” the Washington-based think tank said.

The poll, which showed 23 percent of Latinos support McCain, was conducted nationwide among 2,015 Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center from June 9 to July 13.

A separate survey by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute showed McCain had whittled away at Obama’s lead in the key battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and overtaken Obama in voter support in Colorado.

“It’s been a good month for McCain. His movement in these key states, not large except for Minnesota, jibes with the tightening we are seeing in the national polls,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the polling institute, said in a statement.

“The good news for McCain is that he has improved his standing in Colorado and Michigan, two states that are critical to each man’s strategy,” Brown added.

McCain led Obama by 46 percent to 44 percent in Colorado, the survey conducted last week of some 1,400 people in the mountainous state showed. The margin of error was 2.6 percent.

In June, Obama led McCain by 49 percent to 44 percent in Colorado, traditionally a Republican state.

In Michigan, Obama also saw a couple of percentage points shaved off his voter-support tally, which fell from 48 percent in June to 46 percent this month. McCain held steady at 42 percent. The margin of error in that state’s poll was 2.4 percent.

And in Minnesota, McCain surged ahead — from 37 percent in June to 44 percent — while Obama fell back from 54 percent to 46 percent, Quinnipiac said. Minnesota’s margin of error was 2.8 percent.

ShareThis

- As one notorious Atlantic City corruption case nears its end, with its former “Missing Mayor” due to learn his sentence for scamming the federal government out of increased veterans benefits, another one is heating up.

Former mayor Robert Levy is due to be sentenced Friday morning in U.S. District Court for lying about the extent of his Vietnam War service in order to obtain additional veterans benefits.

But as his case winds down, another corruption case is raising tempers here. In the latest scandal, some claim that a white City Councilman is being treated more leniently than his black co-defendants in a sex video blackmail case.

City Councilman John Schultz is one of several defendants charged in a November 2006 blackmail attempt against a council colleague, Eugene Robinson, who was lured to a motel room and secretly filmed having sex with a prostitute in an attempt to force him to resign.

Robinson refused, and contacted authorities.

Schultz was accused of referring former Council President Craig Callaway _ who had already pleaded guilty to unrelated bribery charges and was awaiting what would become a 40-month prison sentence _ to someone who could help him edit the videotape. Two of Callaway’s brothers, Ronald and David, as well as close friend Floyd Tally, are also charged in the case.

Schultz has applied to enter the state’s pretrial intervention program, which lets nonviolent first-time offenders to complete a period of supervision while avoiding a criminal conviction.

Prosecutors offered to let Craig Callaway plead guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit invasion of privacy, and be sentenced to as long as four years in prison _ a deal he rejected.

If accepted into the program, Schultz would not be required to forfeit his council seat.

That has infuriated not only the black co-defendants, but also many in the predominantly black city.

“Everyone else in the case of African-American descent is being treated differently,” said Steve Young, an official with the local NAACP. “It shouldn’t matter how much you pay your lawyer or what color you are: right is right, and wrong is wrong. This is selective prosecution of African-Americans in our community, and it’s a slap in our face.”

During several court appearances, David and Ronald Callaway have loudly protested having to stand in the courtroom and be photographed by the media while Schultz was not required to be present.

Schultz did not return a call left at his City Hall office. His lawyer, Edwin Jacobs, would not discuss specifics of the case.

“We’re not going to try John’s case in the newspapers or in the media,” he said. “The matter will be resolved through the court system in due course.”

Robinson’s lawyer, Joseph Levin, wrote to state and federal prosecutors, objecting to the way Schultz’s case is being handled. He cited the cases of a former Atlantic City school board president and a city public works official who were required to step down from their jobs after pleading guilty or being convicted of crimes.

“What is the difference between those defendants and Councilman Schultz’s present situation?” Levin wrote. “Sadly, the only perceivable difference is that the above defendants are African-American, whereas Councilman Schultz is white. That is the perception. … Such perception is a crushing blow to those of us who still believe that justice is blind.”

The Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press Thursday afternoon that it has not decided whether to accept Schultz into the pretrial intervention program, and denied that race has anything to do with how the case is being handled.

ShareThis

- Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

The spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that Obama made his decision out of respect for the servicemen and women, but Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign immediately criticized the move.

“Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the Republican contender.

Obama’s decision raised a number of questions because the visit, which had been scheduled for Friday, never appeared on the schedule of events distributed to reporters who are accompanying him on his travels.

The first word from the campaign about its existence was Gibbs’ statement.

Obama had been planning to go to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany before a flight to Paris. Gibbs said the stop was canceled because Obama decided “it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.”

ShareThis

The report, prepared by the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety under the Illinois Traffic Stop Study Statistics Act, makes clear that consent searches remain problematic four years after the General Assembly first mandated that law enforcement agencies collect and report data on the race of drivers stopped and searched by police.

Joining the ACLU of Illinois in calling for an end to the practice of consent searches by the ISP were the following groups: the Rainbow Push Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the NAACP Illinois Conference, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Chicago, the Illinois Coalition on Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and, Amnesty International - USA. The groups’ letter to the Governor notes that “after four years of study, the conclusion is obvious - consent searches are an invidious device that is a condition of inequality imposed on minority citizens on our roadways.”

A consent search occurs when law enforcement officials lack probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring, yet nonetheless asks a civilian for permission to search their vehicle or person. Statewide data shows that during 2007, Hispanic drivers were more than twice as likely to be asked for permission to search their car after a routine traffic stop - and African American drivers were asked for permission three times more often. The State Police data was equally startling - with African American and Hispanic drivers being “consent searched” more than three times more often than whites. Data shows that drivers refuse permission for a consent search at about the same rate across racial lines - making clear that Black and Hispanic drivers are singled out for consent searches at a significantly higher rate than their white counterparts.

Most significant is the analysis of “hit rate” data collected for the first time in 2007. This new data shows that the consent searches targeting drivers of color yield markedly less contraband than searches of white drivers - making clear that there is an unjustified disparate impact on Blacks and Hispanics. Data shows that statewide police officers conduct consent searches of minorities 2.5 times more often than white drivers, but discover contraband at a rate one-half that of white drivers. The numbers are more dramatic for the ISP. ISP troopers ask for permission to search minority drivers more than three times as often as white drivers, but are nearly twice as likely to find contraband in a white motorist’s vehicle compared to a Black motorist’s vehicle, and eight times more likely to find contraband when searching a white driver compared to a Hispanic driver.

The civil rights groups said that the data makes clear that Governor Rod Blagojevich should bar the ISP from conducting consent searches.

“With a single executive order, Governor Blagojevich can end this practice that is proven to be discriminatory,” said Harvey M. Grossman, Legal Director of the ACLU of Illinois. “The Governor not only can fix the policy. He can assure that minority drivers in Illinois no longer are targeted for humiliating, degrading roadside searches even though there is no evidence that they have broken any laws.”

The 2006 Annual Report of the Illinois Traffic Stops Statistics Study was issued by the Illinois Department of Transportation. Adopted by the General Assembly in 2003, the legislation requires all law enforcement agencies in Illinois to collect data on all traffic stops during the calendar year. The full report is available at www.dot.state.il.us/trafficstop/results.html.

ShareThis

- Hate crimes in Los Angeles County soared last year to their highest mark in five years even as overall crime dropped across the region, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press.

The annual report, to be published Thursday by the county’s human relations commission, shows 763 hate crimes were reported in 2007, a 28 percent increase from 2006.

The numbers buck last year’s overall crime trends, which saw a decrease of 6 percent in Los Angeles County and 5 percent in the city of Los Angeles, the report notes.

The most common hate crimes were those motivated by race, with 310 committed against black people and 125 against Latinos. However, crimes in which anti-immigrant slurs were used dropped slightly.

Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, who had not seen the report, said it is important to remember that hate crimes represent only a tiny percentage of overall crime numbers. She said the increase is likely a reflection of economic times.

“When economic times gets tighter, hate crime violence goes up,” she said, adding that child abuse and domestic violence often increase for the same reason.

Gangs are a factor in many hate crimes. In all, 16 percent of hate crimes last year were committed by gang members. According to the report, gang members committed 120 hate crimes last year, an increase of 14 percent from 2006.

The extent to which race is driving the area’s gang crisis is a subject of ongoing debate. Sheriff Lee Baca has said he considers it a major factor, while Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and other officials downplay suggestions of racial tension.

The report notes that friction between black and Latino residents continues to be a major instigator of hate crimes. There were 116 hate crimes unrelated to gangs that were committed by Latinos against blacks and 26 such crimes committed by blacks against Latinos.

The report states that white supremacist activity continues to be “surprisingly high,” with 131 hate crimes showing evidence of being committed by white racists.

According to the U.S. Justice Department, for every hate crime that is reported to police, as many as 28 are not reported, often for fear of retaliation or concerns about talking to authorities.

The Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations has compiled an annual hate crimes report since 1980.

ShareThis

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father — my grandfather — was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning — his dream — required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I’m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that’s when the airlift began — when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. People of the world, look at Berlin!”

People of the world — look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.

People of the world — look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall — a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope — walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers — dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth — that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations — and all nations — must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century — in this city of all cities — we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations — including my own — will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust — not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here — what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don’t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin — people of the world — this is our moment. This is our time.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived — at great cost and great sacrifice — to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom — indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us — what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores — is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of those aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of those aspirations that all free people — everywhere — became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation — our generation — must make our mark on history.

People of Berlin — and people of the world — the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.

ShareThis

- Australia’s prime minister, who has won applause for apologizing to Aborigines for past wrongs, has revived plans for a constitutional revision to recognize the country’s indigenous people.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was visiting a remote Outback Aboriginal community Wednesday when he raised the issue of recognizing Aborigines in Australia’s 107-year-old constitution.

“We will … give attention to detailed, sensitive consultation with indigenous communities about the most appropriate form and timing of constitutional recognition,” Rudd told the Yolngu people in the Northern Territory.

But government opponents warned Thursday against giving Aborigines any special privileges under a revised constitution.

“The challenge … is putting something into the constitution that is meaningful without alienating large sections of the population,” opposition Liberal Party indigenous affairs spokesman Tony Abbott told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

“One thing you certainly couldn’t do is give more rights to one group of Australians than to others,” he added.

Opposition from Liberal lawmakers would almost certainly ensure that any referendum needed to include Aborigines in the constitution would fail. Referenda that lack bipartisan support almost always fail in Australia.

Australia’s constitution does not mention Aborigines. A referendum in 1999 that proposed adding a preamble to the constitution that recognized indigenous people as the first Australians sparked bitter debate about its wording and ended in defeat.

Australia was colonized in 1788, but the nation’s highest court did not recognize until 1992 that Aborigines had been the legal owners of the land when British settlers arrived.

Federal compensation has been paid to some Aborigines for loss of land while native title claims over parts of cities around Australia are still before the courts.

Rudd said Thursday he did not have a timetable for constitutional reform.

Rudd, whose Labor Party won elections in November, led Parliament in February to apologize to Aborigines for past racist policies and mistreatment.

Aborigines are a 400,000-member minority among Australia’s 21 million population. They are also the poorest, least-healthy and worst-educated ethnic group in Australia.

ShareThis

- We present this as a public service announcement: Anyone who is seeking to speak to a “Black leader” should immediately cease and desist.

We recognize that politicians, the mainstream media, and sometimes even Black people, go out searching for a “Black leader” to opine on any number of subjects.

They seek out a “Black leader” to speak for the Black community. They seek out a “Black leader” to speak for other Black people. They seek out a “Black leader” to represent the thoughts, hopes, dreams, aspirations, disappointments and frustrations of Black people. And they would like for all of those things to be wrapped up in one person.

That person does not exist.

Click here for more…

ShareThis