The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > When Australians are unwelcome in their own country ... > Comments

When Australians are unwelcome in their own country ... : Comments

By Ross Barnett, published 9/7/2010

Do the ill-conceived 'Orwellian' regulations of our national parks actually protect our environment and biodiversity?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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.
Posted by Snaps, Saturday, 10 July 2010 10:22:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Snaps, Saturday, 10 July 2010 11:00:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:11:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 12 July 2010 12:07:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JL Deland, Monday, 12 July 2010 12:13:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 12 July 2010 5:27:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy