Oh dear. I’d better put my photos of Uluru and Booderee away, never to be seen again!

I was wondering what that big ugly grey warship was doing anchored in Jervis Bay as I took photos of plants along the edge of the beach in Booderee National Park. Spying on me for taking unlawful botanical photos??

And I felt decidedly uneasy about taking photos of the Rock when there were signs around suggesting that you shouldn’t. I was fearful of a traditional owner jumping out from behind a mulga bush while I was out on the walking track apparently by myself and accosting me, or of my camera being snatched and the memory card erased if I took photos openly in the presence of other people!

I became quite angry about the absurd restrictions on photography at Uluru, and that was just for normal tourists taking normal touristy photos, not for any commercial purposes. I certainly didn’t feel very welcome in my own country at that point.

I appreciate your concerns Ross.

You’d think, given that our country is basically run by lawyers (see this current thread: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10655) that we’d have more sensible rules and an overall considerably better rule of law in this country!

Thank you, Ludwig. As mentioned I was in the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park quite recently (June 10th-15th) and saw two instances of tourists being "told off" by tour guides for trying to take pictures merely in the vicinity of areas where all photography was forbidden.

One of these instances was near the sacred site called Mala Puta and the tour guide yelled out "No Photographs" to a poor woman who was taking a snap about 10-20 metres away from the actual site - which is quite tiny anyway. (It's a small cave.) And I could tell by the way that the woman was holding her camera that Mala Puta wasn't in frame. I was walking past the group and said to the tour guide that the woman wasn't taking a photograph of Mala Puta but her response was, "well you're not allowed to take pictures anywhere near it."

The other time happened less than half an hour later when another tour guide stopped some tourists from taking a picture of the rock wall that included the sacred site called Warayuki. This sacred site was only a small part of their picture - it at all - and at that time of the day was largely obscured by shadow.

Sadly, even tour guides have now become part of the "thought police" who control how we see and interpret our best-known and our most rock-solid natural icon.

- Ross Barnett

What price on getting caught bogged-down with the assistance of a copy of the environmental regulations behind a spinifex clump?
It’s part of the penalty for a “big Australia”; herd control.

I left North Queensland in 1954. A vast number of interesting natural places there, which could be freely visited then, are now either vastly restricted, developed, destroyed, or totally out-of-bounds.

But, even without the ratbaggery of inappropriate administration of woolly legislation, the pressure of numbers on fragile locations needs to be curtailed. Ever-increasingly so as growth continues, pushed along by political dictate.

"Political Correctness"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

is a Mental Disease that even infects the Conservative Coalition, because the Bureaucrookracy is riddled with it.

So whatever party is in power, Federal, State or Local the "Thought Police" are in power, writing the detail in every piece of legislation.

No Australian child will be safe, until we repeal, every law, rule, regulation or policy, introduced since the early 1960's.

What Australia desperately needs now, 5 decades too late, is joint parliamentary committees, on Un Australian activities.

Lets "Politically Cleanse" the Red/green/getup/labour coalition of all the CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists.

After ASIO has identified them, we can deport them, re-educate them, or execute them for Treason.

The "proceeds of crime" acts could also be used to strip them of all their property as they have been engaged in a criminal conspiracy to bankrupt our nation.

Have a little lie down and a bex, Former-snag. You will feel so much better in the morning. In the meantime, some of us commie types including photographers will keep pushing for freedom of expression and speech without putting anyone up against the wall.

I generally agree with Ross Barnett on this, with some reservations. I wasn't aware of the apparent plethora of restrictions on photography in National Parks and Commonwealth Reserves, and on the face of it they sound excessive. Mind you, I go to lots of National Parks and always obey the regulations, but I can't recall any prohibition on photography displayed in brochures, signage etc.

The mere fact of photographing anything (or anybody for that matter) does nothing to the subject, but I suppose it's the uses to which resultant images might be put that could be a problem. In Ludwig's example of Jervis Bay, last I heard it's a military base and I could understand why one's freedom to take happy snaps might be reasonably curtailed.

In the case of Uluru, if these are indeed sacred sites I think that their owners are quite within their rights to forbid tourists from photographing them. The tourists only have access to Uluru by virtue of it being leased back to the Commonwealth, and I would think that respecting the owners' wishes is quite reasonable. Aboriginal sacred sites are just that to their owners, and I don't imagine they'd be too keen on images of such places being plastered all over the Internet on Flickr or whatever.

As a keen and frequent user of national parks, I accept that a certain amount of regulation is necessary in order to maintain and preserve the special qualities for which they were created, particularly in high use areas. However, I agree that it shouldn't exist for its own sake.

We are currently in a new era of growing facism.Since 911 and the AGW scares,our civil liberties are being slowly eroded.Bush brought in the patriot act,which negates habeous corpus.They have "preventative denention" ie even if your are suspected of being a terrorist you can be detained indefinitely without trial or legal council.

We have the growing rise of facism here with our civil liberties being infringed upon via the ruse of perceived terrorism and the environment.

Obama now wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.George Orwell would say," I told you so."

CJ, I can’t imagine that the public could get anywhere near the military facilities at Jervis Bay where they might be able to take sensitive photos. Restrictions on taking photos in the national park could not possibly have anything to do with military sensitivities, surely!

I disagree that tourists should be forbidden from photographing sacred sites at Uluru. Some of the most distinctive features on the rock became sacred sites in the first place because of their distinctiveness. But they are exactly the sorts of things that tourists want to capture in photos.

I think that the democratic freedom for all Australian citizens and our overseas guests to take photos of natural features of any kind in our national parks should take precedence over the traditional owners’ wishes to prevent sacred sites from being photographed.

These sites get photographed a lot anyway, as not all tourists see the rock in organised tour groups. It is easy to not observe the ‘no photos please’ signs if you are not with other people or tour guides who might object. People are not going to be stung with a dirty great fine or kicked out of the park or the country if they get caught photographing these features.

All the thillions of photos that have been taken over the years of these features have not depleted the integrity of these sacred sites. So restrictions on photos at Uluru should just be dropped.

As I said in my last post, I really felt quite uncomfortable and unhappy about not being able to freely photograph such an amazing and iconic feature as Uluru.

continue

In relation to the point that Ross Barnett made at the end of the article about the environmental impact of photographers compared to feral camels, a similar sort of thing applies at Uluru.

The effect of photographers is utterly insignificant compared to the environmental impact of buffel grass, which has just grossly invaded the desert scrub all around the Rock. This considerably increases the likely frequency and intensity of fire. Buffel grass itself and the resultant changes in the fire regime are having a huge impact on the ecology of the area. There are lots of areas of dead trees, as I recall, presumably killed by hot wildfire.

If park rangers and traditional owners were seen to be actively addressing this issue, then people like me might be a little more respectful of the limitations on photos. But currently, there appear to be restrictions on something which is completely harmless while other major factors affecting the local environment, and the quality of the experience for visitors, are not being adequately addressed, if addressed at all.

I am happy to respect restrictions on photography of sacred sites if such photography is, in fact, offensive. But if that is the case, then there should be a blanket ban on all photography. I don't see how a photo taken for a postcard - then reproduced a few thousand times and sold for a profit - is more respectful than a photograph taken by a tourist who has forked out thousands of dollars for a trip and simply wants to have a treasured keepsake from his/her journey. It doesn't make sense.

I have seen the same double-standard in many parts of the world. You may not take photos of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but you can buy photos. You may not take photos in the Parisian catacombs, but you can buy photos.

Perhaps more reasonably, you may not take photos in the Capuchin mausoleum in Rome, where bones of friars past are out on display. Taking photos of dead bodies is somewhat morbid. However, (surprise, surprise) you can buy photos at the gift shop out front. If it is disrespectful, I think it is doubly disrespectful not only to take photos, but to make a profit from those photos. If it is not disrespectful, then there is not reason to stop tourists from doing it while allowing the professionals. They need to make a decision, as do the people making up the Ulurules as they go.

Until there is one rule for all, I will quietly snigger every time I see tourists sneakily snapping pictures. Being a stickler for rules, I won't join in, and I won't get out of their way. But I will not buy the poor-quality photos whose prices are artificially inflated by the prohibition of people like me taking much better pictures (I won't buy the high quality photos either, for the record - not that I've seen too many of them).

It is a long way to go to see a rock.

It is very easy for a tourist destination to earn a permanent reputation as a tourist trap where the locals and the authorities are luke-warm about tourists and regard them as geese to be herded and plucked.

There was the attempt previously to close the rock because of the death of a 'keeper'. It is not exactly Wally World and locking it down for even a short time would have had a long term effect on overseas tourism. Travel agents work well in advance, particularly where international travel is involved and who wants to disappoint customers?

It is very short-sighted to ramp up park fees when those visitors are spending money in the district.

Before scolding visitors, corralling them in cattle crushes to take their happy snaps, or ramping up fees, Parks Australia and indigenous spokespeople need to put themselves in the position of an overseas travel agent who is recommending destinations to tourists. Would you stake your reputation and valuable repeat business on recommending a long trip to a remote place where the flies are certain to be more welcoming than the locals?

I first got the feeling that I as an Australian was not welcome in the land of my birth when I arrived at Darwin airport, returning from an overseas holiday about 10 years ago. An Immigration officer wanted to know where I had been, what had I done there, who had I traveled with or met, plus other things that were nothing to concern the government or its officers as far as I can see. Then customs demanded that I place my baggage on the floor so that their dog could go tramping and sniffing all over it. Reluctantly it seemed, the Australian government's officers allowed me to go, but not without leaving me with the feeling that this was an atrocious way to welcome home a lifelong Australian citizen. A sad contrast with the easy way I progressed through numerous foreign airports whilst I had been away.

I had never experienced similar discourtesy when returning from overseas holidays through other Australian airports so thought perhaps it was just Darwin was bad. But three times since then I have experienced worse at Brisbane. The Australian government has evidently given up any pretence that it is not my enemy.

Just start from the belief that government is your worst enemy, and many things become easier to understand.

Responding to CJ Morgan who noted in his post of Friday, 9 July 2010 7:56:30 PM, the following:

<<In the case of Uluru, if these are indeed sacred sites I think that their owners are quite within their rights to forbid tourists from photographing them. The tourists only have access to Uluru by virtue of it being leased back to the Commonwealth, and I would think that respecting the owners' wishes is quite reasonable. Aboriginal sacred sites are just that to their owners, and I don't imagine they'd be too keen on images of such places being plastered all over the Internet on Flickr or whatever.>>

Firstly, one of the conditions of Handback in 1985 - which incidentally was done against the wishes of the Australian public if the opinion polls of the time were correct - was that Uluru and Kata Tjuta would continue to be a national park “for the enjoyment of all Australians and overseas visitors.” Yet we now have a situation where a lot of the ways to enjoy the national park are being further and further whittled away.

At the time of Handback all of Kata Tjuta was accessible via dirt roads, one of which ran to the immediate south of the domes and a spur road which ran around the northern side to the Valley of the Winds. However when a new sealed road was opened in February 1991 - which ran several kilometres to the south of the domes - all of the eastern half of Kata Tjuta became inaccessible to tourists and three established walking tracks were closed.

Now as you are aware there is a concerted push to close the Uluru Climb. This is seen as an issue of respect for the wishes of the parks’ traditional owners but what is left out of this discussion by Parks Australia is that Anangu culture vis-a-vis climbing is already well-respected in the park due to the fact that none of the 36 domes at Kata Tjuta can be climbed. And the highest of these would have more spectacular summit views than Uluru itself.

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is a World Heritage area which was first inscribed on that UNESCO list in 1987 in recognition of its value as a natural site of international significance. In research I did for an article that appeared in The Bulletin magazine in March 1994, it was noted that Australia has a responsibility to ensure access to World Heritage Sites. Bill Burford, who was then the public relations officer at the Australian National Commission for UNESCO in Canberra, told me that Australia cannot “stop people going in, photographing them or walking through them.”

Australia also is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which Article 19 specifically mentions the right to freedom of expression, which would include filming and photography. For more background on how that stacks up against the performance of the Australian government in regard to the EPBC Regulations read my recent article at Spectator Australia ... http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/6086908/peter-garrett-no-friend-of-freedom-of-expression.thtml

Certainly I can sympathise with an Anangu desire to keep detailed imagery of sacred sites out of the public domain but at Uluru and especially at Kata Tjuta, what is off-limits to ‘commercial’ photographers is giant slabs of scenery. For instance at Kata Tjuta none of the Valley of the Winds walk may be filmed or photographed for commercial purposes, which includes any editorial coverage. And unfortunately it is heading that way for tourists as well – as I noted in a comment I made earlier with the re-routing of the base walk around Uluru a significant section of the Rock near a sacred site called Warayuki is now off-limits to everybody for photography.

In October 2009 the old sunrise viewing area for Uluru, which was on the north-east side of the Rock was closed down and the absurd folly known as Talinguru Nyakunytjaku was stumped up as its replacement. The north-east side of Uluru had been off-limits for commercial photography for many years but now in effect Parks Australia are trying to close it down for tourist photography as well by a deceptive and horrendously expensive sleight of hand.

- Ross Barnett

JL Deland: >Have a little lie down and a bex, Former-snag. You will feel so much better in the morning. In the meantime, some of us commie types including photographers will keep pushing for freedom of expression and speech without putting anyone up against the wall.<

JL, your comment reflects the free thinking mindset of a "politically correct" cultivated generation that fosters the rights of the minority over the majority. Common sense goes out the window, substituted by ego serving actions that placate their particular social ethos, which is being manipulated by bureaucrats that exist for the journey rather than the outcome. The volume of mandates, caveats, and legislation is the measure of their productivity rather than a rationality that gives the benefit to the majority over a minority.

Consider Ayers Rock, the first inhabitants (of that area) chose it for a spiritual dreamtime prominence, and why would you not? It is huge and it is majestic, a landscape focal point that fills we little mortals with awe and reverence, it was there, it is there, and it will be there after we have turned to dust. But cultural ownership of Ayres Rock is a man inspired concept to feed his ends, the rock has no preference to who reveres, iconize, or dismisses it as a geological anomaly, but we do.

The Aboriginals have no problem with iconography as do the Muslims for example, Aboriginals painted all their dreamtime characters on cave walls for ongoing generations to see. So if we extrapolate that the capturing of an image that is revered in their dreaming to be a cultural deformation then we cannot make images of any of the creatures and landscapes they have previously drawn as part of their dreamtime story. The coat of arms of Australia should be a travesty to Aboriginals given the Emu and the Roo are integral to their religion.

If the local Aboriginals held Ayres Rock as sacred, why lease it to the white fella, I suggest that money overcomes dreaming.

Power corrupts.
Giving *anyone* too much say in what others can do in public places will trample the rights of the many. This is why we have private property and public spaces, to clearly delineate where authority is allowed to operate. In public, freedom (within limits) rules.
I can see the reasoning behind anti-rock rolling/throwing laws, however it is a case of taking things too far: Do we also need "no cutting trees onto roads", "no setting bonfires", "no dumping rubbish", etc, etc? If the law tries to list every act of human stupidity it will never end!
Rather than ridiculously many laws, which inevitably lead to injustice under the modern "zero tolerance" interpretation, we need a laws as guidelines for adults, which can then be interpreted sensibly by rangers, and if necessary courts. If you think this creates too much uncertainty, just keep in mind the travesties caused by over specific laws and zero tolerance in the US and elsewhere.
There are times for minor civil disobedience...this is one of them.

Thanks Sonofgloin for your response. I'll pop some thoughts up in a few days when I can give it proper thought to address where I stand on the issue - currently my world is wobbling very alarmingly due to getting on 8 planes in 8 days with a ear infection which makes it hard to concentrate. I've seen some good responses on it on the forum so far and will keep them in mind.

Quickly though my response to former-snag though was more addressed to him than the issue,- ASIO, 'un-Australian activities' and executing for treason indeed! I still reckons he needs a little lie down. So probably does ASIO.

JL Deland: I want to thank you for your original post, and apologise that I made no comment about it until now.

'Now' has arrived because SLoin has made a response overwhelming!! Your post stood out for me because it was the only one who saw a problem with THIS crap:

"Lets "Politically Cleanse" the Red/green/getup/labour coalition of all the CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists.

After ASIO has identified them, we can deport them, re-educate them, or execute them for Treason.

The "proceeds of crime" acts could also be used to strip them of all their property as they have been engaged in a criminal conspiracy to bankrupt our nation."

Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 9 July 2010 4:20:11 PM
______________

I'm reprinting this inane,insane rambling for three reasons ONLY.

One is that you handled it well!

The other is that I tried to do something about this garbage.
Communication to OLO is a private matter. The fact that I tried to do something is not.

Clearly, neither the article writer nor moderator have a problem with this.

The third?.....

What stuns me (and it shouldn't-this IS OLO after all!!), is that then YOU are criticised!!

Gawd's bliddy strewth!

The most odious and downright pernicious bullshat of the 21st century is the claptrap that IS saying:-

"Freedom of Speech is my right to say whatever I want, about whoever I want. Political Correctness is your attempt to stop me."

These two ugly damn phrases have been bandied about on a regular basis to protect some of those who want to spill their hatred publicly without censure.

The phrases have been discussed at length here on OLO. It changes nothing.

ACTUAL FoS is largely not available to those who need it most, where it is sorely needed. It has been highjacked by those who already have 'freedom of speech' in a democratic society,- but want free rein to spread hate and intolerance.

It is used in a free society as a shield to protect gutless cowards.

NOTHING MORE.

'Ethos'- a nice little sanitiser.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10671#176282

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10671#176479

J L Deland, poor dear does not even realize that sonofgloin was backing me up, or criticising him.

I never said anything untrue, unfair or unreasonable. The Red/green/getup/labour coalition has been infiltrated by CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists.

They genuinely believe that Capitalism is wrong & these PC Thought Police, thugs, have been "white anting" our nation from within.

Among my friends & acquaintances are some former Communists, now reformed, who have admitted to it all & hate you, even more than i do.

Which i don't, for that matter, i feel sorry for all you, so sick, you don't even realise what totally damaged goods you are.

I can still remember as a child seeing on the TV news, "Peace Protesters" throwing red paint &/or animal blood over Diggers returning from Vietnam.

Have a look at some more proof.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.reich4.de/Begriffe/sittlichkeit/?lang=en

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10671#176512

Ginx, Poor dear girly, have a nice cup of tea & a lie down.

Socialism is being brainwashed into continuing an argument, despite well documented, scientifically proven facts & evidence being against you, as they always are, every time you speak Ginx.

Have a good long look at both web sites Ginxy, the second one was written by an internationally renowned, life long, hard line, Communist, who is still caught up in the ridiculous dogma, but at least has enough brain cells left, to look back with 20/20 hindsight & admit all of it was wrong.

The only reason ASIO has not caught up with you yet is because they are run off their feet investigating all the Muslim Terrorists you deliberately imported into our once safe land.

Actually execution is too good for the CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists, Life imprisonment with hard labour in a "Rehabilitation Resource" would be more fair & reasonable.

"Socialism is being brainwashed into continuing an argument, despite >>>>>>>>>>>>well documented, scientifically proven facts<<<<<<<<<<< & evidence being against you, as they always are, every time you speak Ginx."

Bring them here you odious little t-urd. Not the cherrypicked rubbish you produce here.
____________________

"The only reason ASIO has not caught up with you yet is because they are run off their feet investigating all the Muslim Terrorists you deliberately imported into our once safe land."

You Fslag, are delusional and paranoid. You DO need medication. This land is increasingly unsafe because cost-saving programmes (and NOTHING else), have allowed disturbed souls like yourself to wander freely, without medical supervision, and spout this crap

Formersnag: >Actually execution is too good for the CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists, Life imprisonment with hard labour in a "Rehabilitation Resource" would be more fair & reasonable.<

Fsnag, the word Gulag springs to mind as a fitting payment for self serving anti the people ideologs. But sadly the politically correct here would not cop that. But amazingly it was not an issue for the most successful socialist of them all, Joe Stalin. The Georgian pocket rocket would cop it, as did millions of his comrades, and amazingly all of his faithful acolytes including his son.

Western lefties and particularly the younger ones do not understand that power is the goal, not real social justice; just the veneer of it to rally the feeble minded who really do not understand the nature of man.

JL Deland:>currently my world is wobbling very alarmingly due to getting on 8 planes in 8 days with a ear infection.<

JL, commiserations, I hate airports, and ear aches

Formersnag: << The only reason ASIO has not caught up with you yet is because they are run off their feet investigating all the Muslim Terrorists you deliberately imported into our once safe land. >>

I reckon the men in the white coats will catch up with Formersnag before ASIO catch up with Ginx ;)

So JLD is perceived to be suitably submissive to you Sloin for you to reward him with commiseration. Well played!

Not so the arrant nonsense of your other post, so cleverly designed to stoke the flames of the mentally unstable.

Still, when you're down there, that's the mix.

Ginx:>"Freedom of Speech is my right to say whatever I want, about whoever I want. Political Correctness is your attempt to stop me."<

At what point does libel come in, or does that concept go?
It is difficult to give complete freedom of speech because the "controlling few" would run propaganda campaigns against any individual or group they wanted to, to further their own ends ofcourse, that is why they breathe. We are a global village because of the networks these 2% control, we only hear and see what they want us to at present, image free rein to mis inform. The sort of thing that Joseph Goebbels did for Hitler, indoctrination, and we know they would do it, well I do anyway. Balance is probably the issue, but Ginx isn't it always.

Well now..., is that a turn up for the book!.!.! You've totally misunderstood.

The quote was to show how FoS/PC is used by OTHERS.

If you look at my post history on the topic you will see that we are in agreement!

Given that YOU hold that view,-I am gobsmacked that you support(and encourage), the 'Freedom of Speech' being expressed by the Fslag creature.

What if he had substituted:Aborigines/Italians/Chinese as the objects of his hatred-would that be FoS?

He's coming perilously close with Muslims-and a solution for them...,that's FoS??

I SAID FoS is being used as an excuse for open slather bile.
I SAID PC is being used to categorise/demonise those who find such as objectionable.

I meant it. They are both used as I said.

Finally the promised response, though things are still wobbly. Some nasty bugs around this year apart from the flu.

Thanks Ginx for your support. I guess most people just ignore Formersnag as responding to him is just a tail chasing exercise. Now Formersnag I realise perfectly that Sonofgloin is not in agreement with me, but I like to practice politeness when I can – that’s not submissiveness please! Sadly now that Sonofgloin is recommending ‘Gulags’ and seems to have got all excited by Formersnag that probably was a wasted effort.

Anyway Formersnag and Sonofgloin I fully support your right to call for the very ‘un-Australian’ treatment of people you disagree with. I will come out in a very Australian manner though if you ever tried to put your thoughts into practice. ASIO probably doesn’t get their feathers in a fluff about you either as long as you stay peering out from behind the curtains of your house clutching your hopefully legal weapon in case of invading lefty home invaders and vent on OOL. Sadly given a whole bunch of my nearest and dearest have top secret security clearances despite hanging out with leftie scum like me who is no fan of secret evidence etc, they don’t seem interested in investing in Gulag’s just yet. Your plan to turn them into a proper full blown tool of fascist oppression rather than being somewhat oppressive organisation, might have to wait.
Now back to the topic.

I’m in no way a professional photographer and I’ve still got my L plates on in this department, but I've spent a certain amount of time dealing with police and security guards and private individuals (known as sticky beaks) who just think they have a interest in interfering with me because I take photos of topical things - like rallies, power plants etc. In no case was my snapping a risk to anyone. Mostly, it's just unnecessary interference from busy-bodies official and otherwise. In one case though, I'd say it was security being instructed to avoid bad publicity and discouraging photography – really a bit silly really. It's a bit hard to hide a pollution spewing coal power plant behind a bush. So I've encountered my share of unnecessary interference.

That's what I suspect to some degree is happening at Uluru. I think most people are very respectful of the traditional owners and supportive but this seems to have gone beyond what is necessary to be mindful of that. It seems to be a creeping thing too – getting worse over time. It would just take on over-zealous person there with a small degree of authority to muddy the waters. I'm wondering if the decisions about photos are being made back in Canberra by a lower level public service clerk or actually in consultation with the traditional owners as well. The banning of artistic interpretations is absurd too - If Monet had been an Australian photographer, a great interpretation may not have been made.
Anyway the best response to this so far has been Otokonoko's. More power to them.

The sad reality, is that Ayers rock is all these people have. Their squalid and filthy camp nearby, speaks volumes about their priorities. A lot of "traditional" stuff is made up on the fly, usually to support a financial agenda, and yet third world living conditions still apply. Might we be killing them with kindness, going along with each and every haphazard decision made simply because we dont want to be seen as interfering with their traditions?...

Though it is no doubt "racist" to question the prevalent noble savage myth, how come it is no good taking a picture of Ayers rock, but its perfectly fine to collect welfare payments and live a modern life with the perks of whitefella society?

As in Kakadu, the real ridgy-didge rock art is off-limits to tourists of any sort. There are still genuine aborigines living the life up there and contributing to the artwork as a living work. I get the impression that Ayers rock has much less ridgy-didge stuff, and much more cheap trinkets and fees. It would be wonderful if the Ayers rock people worked as hard as the Kakadu people in promoting genuine aspects of their culture, and developed a commercial sense of effort and reward as opposed to getting a cut of the action purely on the basis of ethnicity.

And remember kids, with National Parks it is always easier to get forgiveness than permission... Geez, I didnt realise Im not allowed to ride my trail bike here... I thought you were allowed to dig up cycads in National Parks... Im only after geological hand specimens... My mate Dave reckons you're allowed to shoot feral animals in Parks... etc. etc.

JL and Ginx, Fsnag may be right of me, or I of Fsnag, but I vote for policy and on track record. This means that I have wandered on both sides of the fence, so no political allegiance at all. My opinion on social issues is that the minority must give way to the majority except if their physical comfort or their physical being is threatened.

JL the gulag reference is sound, even though it was light hearted. If you disagreed with the Soviets you got gulaged. I know.

Ginx you say many valid things. Could the solution that you say Fsnag is reaching be called "the final solution?"

Use your own powers of observation SOG.

Ginx:> Use your own powers of observation SOG.<

Ginx I am fairly new around OLO but I have observed that most posters are partisan. The left agrees with the left and the right with the right, so the left and right interaction is conducted along party lines.

Whereas I agree and disagree with both camps, I sort of vote with my conscience regardless of previous allegiances. I find enough of Fsnags thoughts practical and valid to give the kudos I believe are due. So you will find me kissing ass one minute and supposedly backstabbing the next.

Would you consider Fsnag and AlGoreisrich similar in their views, because I sensed hostility from some others when I agreed with some thoughts he expressed on another thread....Apology for being off topic

I am not comfortable answering this SOG, though I have a view.

I have come back and logged in again because I hadn't responded to your question in any manner, and I suspect I will not get an opportunity to do so again.

I am about to be banned. It's called suspension, which is really nothing more than an attempt to bring a poster 'to heel'.

That I won't do. I've done nothing wrong. So banning it is.

All the best, we have many differing views, but also some similar ones!