Nobody has decided what faith-based, inculcated from birth, belief you adhere to! And applies to all Australians, many who have equal myth and fantasy as their basis for religious practice!

So, to select one of the oldest and most enduring spiritual belief systems and ask that they should abandon that in favour of more modern fantasy based belief, is bigoty loaded discrimination! And should be tossed into the garbage bin where it belongs!
Alan B.

As long as we don't have to make up the fall in revenue, who cares!

The spiritual beliefs that may or may not underly the decision to ban the climb are not a relevant consideration here. As a legal consequence of the Hawke government's 1985 decision to hand Uluru back to the tradititional owners, the Anangu are the legal owners of Uluru. It's their rock, their rules

Leaving aside everything else Mr Perkins, it is their bloody land.

Many people driving to Uluru, yes Uluru mate, mistake Mt Connor for 'the rock'. Lots of people inquire at the roadhouse about climbing it. They are promptly told no, it is on private property and although a tour company, the only one permitted access, can take you to its base, the owners have forbidden people climbing it.

Now when I first read your bio and seen you are of the Secular Party I thought perhaps you were just being consistent. After reading the article I am not so sure. So how about you go and clamour for public access to the quite significant geological feature of Mt Connor as well. Then I might have a little more regard for your position.

Hi SR,

You beat me to it: it's their property, they can do what they damn-well like with it, and nobody else can intrude on those standard, English-property-law rights, any more than anybody can intrude on anybody else's property, or, by the sound of it, even Mt Connor - since it's in a national park ?

Why not just sit back a few miles and admire Uluru in all its glory ? It's been here for thousands of times longer than any human being has.

As for the pseudo-religious aspects, I'm not a Catholic or even a believer, but I would never clamber all over St Paul's Cathedral in London, or St Peter's in Rome, or the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.

Cheers,

Joe

This bit of diatribe is what I brand as "secularist graffiti ".

I could tear the crap in Perkins article apart with my eyes closed, but others are doing a good job.

But a couple extra points; Aboriginal culture is Pre-literate.
Could I suggest Perkins take a trip to the Standing Stones Stonehenge, and suggest the building of a viewing platform with a chair lift on the top of those.

It was only a few thousand years past in our Western heritage culture, we were in exactly the same position as our Aboriginal culture has been set in to this day: Pre-Literate.

In that era, information was passed down in exactly the same way used by Aboriginal culture; a memory code.

Also, this situation is not in the same argument zone as the modern day trend among land councils, of extorting money for authority to transgress sacred sites with development projects.
Much of this is built on principles of blatant plunder and greed.

Another historic point to consider, is the treatment of North American Aboriginals who were mercilessly driven from reservation to reservation as consequence of similar arguments Perkins uses here.

Tourists don't and should not rule in this case.

Dan

I do find it interesting that most aborigines only discovered this fabulous heritage after anthropologists started writing about it, & they found it could generate more money or power.

"Welcome to country" ceremony is a perfect example of this bullsh1t.

The whole closing of the climbing of Ayers rock is a nonsense. The earlier elders around that area had no problems with people climbing the rock either black or white. There won't be any winners from this new made up supestitous nonsense. Caving into this rubbish is not showing respect but it is causing a further wedge in this land.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

Let's see what you have for us now.

"I do find it interesting that most aborigines only discovered this fabulous heritage after anthropologists started writing about it, & they found it could generate more money or power."

Well the Uluru example is one where the drop in the amount of money from drongos not visiting because they can't climb it will indeed hit the coffers of the traditional owners. So here it a prime example of them asserting their rights at a direct cost to them. This must blow that brain of yours.

If one believes in land-ownership, then the place is theirs, the Anangu, and nothing else need to be said.

If one does not believe in land-ownership, then the question arises: what right have you, the English invaders, over this continent of Australia?

I take the middle ground, that while no man has ownership over God's land, people may still have ownership over the development of a land through their personal effort and investment.

As for the main thrust of this article, the author promotes the modern superstition as if only the objective plain, that which can be verified by modern material science, holds any importance, arrogantly showing contempt for all other plains of experience.

Nothing new about this attitude - it is the same contempt by which China justified its invasion of Tibet... and the same contempt that they will use again when they try to invade Australia. By denying the Anangu people any say over what may and may not occur on their land, the author also gives China all the necessary ammunition it needs to conquer Australia.

If the Australian tourists to Bali & Thailand are anything to go by then yes, I can understand the Aborigines' anxiety about people crawling all over the rock.

Uhluru is a large rock that generates income for the tourist resort that is Aboriginal owned. By blocking people from climbing, the locals are shooting themselves in the foot.

I imagine that in a month or two they will have their hands out to compensate for their loss of business.

Actually Yuyutsu, it did belong to all of us, & should have been made a national park, rather be given to any special interest group.

SM says, ...I imagine that in a month or two they will have their hands out to compensate for their loss of business."

No doubt this will be duly paid so, effectively, the taxpayer will have his pockets picked to have the rock quarantined from something harmless to it.

Thank you for the comments. I think most of the criticisms are answered in the article itself.
Mt Connor: from a distance it looks like it would be impossible to climb. It seems sheer on all sides.
The Aboriginal community, the Anangu, "owns Uluru". Well it is leased to the government as a National Park. It should be for the benefit of all.
Perhaps seven million people have climbed the Rock, over the decades, until today. This has not done any real harm and has not prevented the Anangu (300 Mutitjulu residents) from believing in, or practicing their religion.
The justification is that Uluru is sacred - according to the dreamtime beliefs or Tjukurpa.
The problem I see is that these creationist myths are held to be literally true, and the actual geology of the Rock is rejected, as well as everything else we know about our origins.
Now we officially accept and promote this form of creationism, which we know is not true. As if the truth does not matter.
This ambivalence to truth is more insidious than most people realise.
Relativism has come to be the default. It won't do us any good, and it won't do remote Aboriginal communities any good either.

yep spoke to one Indigeneous guy today who climbed the rock about 20 years ago. He was unaware of any spiritual connection. Oh well here we go again.

yep spoke to one Christian guy today who wore no pants to church about 20 years ago. He was unaware of any spiritual connection. Oh well here we go again.

Dear John Perkins,

No Mt Connor is quite easy to climb. A relative did it when he was jackarooing on an adjoining station in the early 80s.

The is a gorge which comes from the south which is pretty stunning by all accounts and takes you up to the top without too much effort. Easier than Uluru apparently.

So why aren't you clamouring for this to be open to the public? The owners have decided they don't want people climbing it full stop.

Why is it okay for them to take this stance but not the traditional owners of Uluru?

By all accounts Mt Connor is a stunning geographical formation. Why are you supporting through your silence the right of the owner and his wife, 2 vs 300 people, to bar public access to climb it?

How would you answer a charge of racism if it were to be put?

'yep spoke to one Christian guy today who wore no pants to church about 20 years ago. He was unaware of any spiritual connection. Oh well here we go again.

JBSH

you certainly hang around with some creeps.

John Perkins has refused to acknowledge any of the criticisms against his biased view, judging by his response.
Those criticisms of his superficial view, are on the most part in strong support of the Aboriginal stand, based on their legitimate cultural beliefs.

Here is the atypical screaming match thrown at objectors of gay abandon mad secular fanatics-society, becoming significantly more obvious daily, and robbing their opposition with the theft of free speech.

Dan

Closed today. Well done to the Anangu.

Great article John. Yes Anangu own the land and have a right to decide how it is run. From 1985 they signed a lease agreement to run their land as a National Park. National Parks belong to the nation and as is set out in the lease agreement section 17-2, cultural heritage is to be managed, preserved and protected. The clause does not just apply to Anangu culture but applies to White Australian culture and history. The Climb is important to both cultures and Parks Australia failed in their obligations to manage it properly. It has always been a risk issue for them. National Parks are secular places that do not enforce the religious views of one particular group. If the owners do not want to enjoy the Climb or share it with their children that is their choice. Those extremist views should not be forced onto other visitors who do not believe them. If they want to enforce their own rules then they should run their land as a private park without the support of the tax payer, much like any other religious institution. With the Climb banned it is no longer a National Park.

Climbing Mt Connor would be a wonderful addition to activities in the area. It is a relatively straightforward climb from the southern side. The current lease owners do not want people climbing due to their perception that they would be sued if someone has an accident. Unlike Ayers Rock though it is not being managed as a National Park, it's a pastoral lease run without gov support. If the Anangu want to ban the climb and enforce their religious on visitors they may do so but it then ceases to be a National Park and like Curtin Springs must be run privately without government support.

Dear MarcH,

If you had listened to the ceremony yesterday one of the primary reasons given by an Anangu elder was around people hurting themselves or dying by climbing Uluru. He said it wasn't in their culture to be facilitating that on their land where they held a duty of care.

In a way the owner of Mt Connor has taken a similar stance albeit expressed in a desire not to be sued.

Why is one more legitimate than the other?

It is sad that someone has to exert so much energy (3 pages? Woow.) attempting to justify their own sense of superiority.

If you are so hell bound on desecrating sacred sites why don't you go piss up against the Wailing Wall, or scribble graffiti all over the Vatican?

Steeleredux
People hurt themselves on holidays all the time and we feel sorry for them but the majority of society recognise that people are responsible for their own safety. I would suggest the locals do some traveling and see more of the world. It might expand their minds.

Dear MarcH,

What makes you think Mr and Mrs Severin aren't well travelled?

John Perkins tries valiantly to find a path down the middle of the argument that justifies the ban. In my humble opinion he fails. Damage to cultural beliefs does not occur simply by climbing the monolith, as is evidenced by the myriad of sacred places of other cultures and religions frequently visited by intrepid persons. Given the history of the rock and the indigenous people who now claim it as sacred (a newish event) there is no justifiable reason for the ban on climbing. There is one reason that makes sense however. That reason is revenge with malice for real or assumed wrongs by European Australians since colonisation. While rational, this justification is really stupid. It will antagonise many Australians (especially taxpayers) who are continually asked to give more to Aboriginal Australians so they can continue to turn their backs on the real world they exist in called the 21st Century. They also us to fund their own form of a Parliament and continue to pay billions to support unacceptable life styles and self inflicted damage. Give me a break - not smart politics in my opinion.

You sum it up very well Pliny of Perth. If the woke mob had their way you would be charged with religous vilification. The closure is all about hatred/control and nothing about recently made up 'sacred site'. This is clearly inidcated by the large numbers of Indigenous climbers in the past.

Dear Pliny of Perth,

Bollocks old boy.

There has always been areas of Uluru out of bounds to tourists since it became a National Park. If you had ever walked the girth of the thing you would have known that. But you clearly haven't.

I have never heard a Anangu elder talk about the Uluru as sacred in its entirety. However I have heard them show concerns over the health of the people who were climbing it and about shatting tourists polluting by runoff some of the quite beautiful pools at the base. There is no doubt the majesty of the place has impacted their stories just as it has ours, and it holds a special place in their and our culture. But there is a generosity of spirit in their message that you want to ignore. I will concede that some indigenous commentators not from that country appear to have attempted to weave a story for it that doesn't fully reflect that of the Anangu people, but that is politics.

In the end the owners of the land are willing to share it and keep it a special place for all Australians to enjoy and respect, and by all accounts their motives are nothing like what you have ascribed them to be.

Your projection however does belie an underlying feeling of guilt that you should perhaps reflect upon.

And do yourself a favour and walk the base. I never climbed the thing and I am glad of that but I will remember that walk for as long as I live.

Dear runner,

You really are a poisonous little individual aren't you.

Dear SteeleRedax,

Thank you for your considered response to my post. It tells me a lot about you. Hence my brief response. I have personally walked all the way around the rock, and to my greatest joy, have climbed to the summit. I feel guilty over nothing at all concerning the rock or Aboriginal Australians. As they say in the classics - peace be with you.

Dear Pliny of Perth,

If you have indeed walked the base why are you trying to portray sacred areas as a new invention when there would have been clearly signposted places telling you just the opposite?

You also made this specific and completely unfounded statement: “That reason is revenge with malice for real or assumed wrongs by European Australians since colonisation.”

Revenge and malice? I watched the broadcast on NITV and there was absolutely no sense of that coming from the Anangu who were interviewed. I say again it is your projection of guilt and if you, through denying it, want us to deem it as a subconscious reflection from you then that is fine.

It is also an attempt to play the victim and it is singularly unbecoming.

SR,

Considering that National parks was running the Uhluru climb, the Locals had no duty of care. I just believe it was dreamt up to justify their niggardly attitude.

Dear Shadow Minister,

That is patently untrue. When I visited a relative at work who was a senior ranger there about 15 years ago he said potential harm to visitors on their land was a principal concern for the traditional owners which is why they requested people not climb it.

And for you to say; "Considering that National parks was running the Uluru climb, the Locals had no duty of care." shows just how much more generous of spirit these people are compared to yourself.

'No legal liability therefore no duty of care'? Is that really where you are going? Is this where slavish adherence to alt-right politics gets you? The Anangu people have certainly shown you up as well as a chunk of Australia that needs to go have a good hard look at themselves.

There is another argument for protecting Uluru.
Its breathtaking beauty has evolved over millions of years.
It has been here a great deal longer that we have.

In awe, respect, and humility, we should just let it
be.

"the majority of society recognise that people are responsible for their own safety".

MarcH do you believe that? When you travel, is not the car manufacture responsible for the safety of your new car, not how you drive the car that's your responability, or the airline company and plane manufacture, the cab or bus drive. The electrical wiring in your home, the ride in an amusement park, eating an icecream etc etc. Daily we take it for granted that someone else has done the right thing as far as our safety is concerned, the duty of care is well known.

I have climbed Mother, South Daughter & Vulcan, all Rabaul volcanoes, with spectacular views.

I have never been able to see the attraction of climbing a bare rock in the middle of no where, with nothing views.

They can keep it.

SR,

Generosity of spirit? Duty of care? What bollocks, if these "caring" elders really gave a crap they would divert some of the $ they are getting royalties to installing safety equipment, watering points etc instead of just showing their racism by banning non aboriginals.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You really have become a caricature haven't you.

So because a quite disadvantaged community wasn't prepared to hand back some of the around $1,000 per head per annum the were receiving as their share of the gate receipts to allow visitors to doing something they themselves weren't engaging in then they were being racist?

What a miserable take on this.

Get a life.

SR,

Not as miserable as those niggardly blocking access to an Australian icon or those agreeing with them.