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 > Is Native Title recognition enough? > Comments

Is Native Title recognition enough? : Comments

By Brad Saunders, published 15/7/2013

Since the determination some are now asking will recognition be enough and how will it or can it provide sustainable outcomes for the future Gunggari generations?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
So they needed to waste 16 years of the court's time to.... "know who they are" and have "conversations" with their family and friends!
Really?!

Oh, but wait.
You then admit you've already been doing all these cultural projects for years anyway (no doubt with a heavy helping of public funding)!

It seems your "symbolic" "piece of paper" makes no *real* difference at all.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:03:21 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
It took 16 years for an Australian court to recognise first nation's peoples right to the land which was and always will be their land. The piece of paper is only worthless if the people do not exercise the rights that the court decision provides which is far less than Aboriginal people had before invasion. It is time that this country fully recognises the rights of first nations people have always existed and exist with other rights afforded to all via the constitution.
Posted by maranoa, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 6:48:52 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
I am sick of the guilt-fuelled leftist pathetic moral relatiovism arguments which have resulted in taking a perfect Cosmopoloitan system theoretically, politically and legally, in which
the potential for ALL individuals in every society that has such a system can be theoretically considered equal and given fair chances, obviously with Rawlsian type provisions in place for those unfortunate enough to have been trampled by history and other factors at play prior to birth which can drastically affect their chances tof lourish (e.g. poor, mentally ill etc.); they take this potentially perfect egalitarian system and add little "ethnic pockets" like "black-holes" where (most strongly intrenched already) in every Act and piece of legislation which exists SEPERATE sections with different or otherwise "special" rules and considerations for the so-called "first peoples" - that is, the natives in English colonies (Aus, US, NZ, Canada etc.).

How can true equality ever be achieved if we in a fundamental and principled way (such that we insert it in law) treat Native peoples different in some ways, perhaps given them more help or special understanding for tribal ethos etc.

What would these leftists say if Socts or English people wanted such provisions in the UK, since afterall they they are Natives in their homelands no different to Aussie natives etc? I often wonder if the UN would recgonize my right to return to my Native Celtic lands and gain some sort of Native title, recognition, possibly even land?

I can't imagine a decent excuse why my Celtic native rights would be any less than Koorie's rights in Aus
Posted by Moiteeki, Tuesday, 23 July 2013 11:04:35 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
In any case, the acceptance of a fundamental seperation of a group of people based on some contingent factor like genetics or shared culture from other groups is in essence, a divisive, ethnocentric and frankly, a selfish and racist policy and those who desire to have it (Natives) are selfsish to believe thay have more right to a particular piece of land due to their genetics or more understanding of the earth than another culture, a inherently seperatists, which implies they think they are superior, which implies they are racists by believing all others inherently less.

And the western Leftists who desire these laws but not for white natives, only coloured ones in English Colonies, have the same mentality of racism and superioty, believeing their ways (western ways of freedom and debate and equality) to be superior to all else but cannot honestly and opently speak those words to a Native, meaning that they feel that the native isn't just different, the Native is somehow less than them, perhaps docile like a down-syndrome, such that the leftist will never speak ill of non-white peoples. They cannot even attack openly racist and homophobic and mysoginist traits strongly present in muslim culture, yet Christians get battered all day over debates for abortion.

This means that, the white man to the Leftist can handle being tested and debated and ridiculued, because he may need to learn a lesson. But if the Leftists cannot treat Muslim clerics identically to christian/white clerics, then this indicate that they believe the Muslim is somehow deranged, maybe stupid, perhaps a wild animal and is unable to handle the test of debate, ridicule and inspection - of honesty.

Leftists are racist elitists. The solid proof lies in the way they openly, wantonly and extremely unfairly and visciously attack poor whites for anything they wish. "Bogan" scum they think.
Posted by Moiteeki, Tuesday, 23 July 2013 11:15:54 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

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