Thank you John. Well said. It cannot continue.

Well its like this....

Australia, like the rest of the world, has been subject to the tides of people migrations for centuries

Now it is currentkly settled by what some call "Newer Australians", as well those deemed the "Original Australians"

Multiculturalism is a fiction,

So too the notion of "separate peoples within a single state".

History observes one single process

Assimilate

and the alternative to "Assimilation" is simple

Die (out)

It is the process which can be observed as having "happened" for centuries

and we individually get to decide what choice we make,

and that choice is entirely independent of some "piece of paper" or "treaty" or "Sorry" or any other bunch of left wing bunkum aka "side-show of the irrelevant".

Funny thing that where I worship we have Indians, Kiwis, coloured and non coloured South Africans, Islanders and even an occasional Aussie. It seems like our 'first people' have a chip on their shoulder. They are the only ones that won't join in. It must be those rotten Africans, or Indians or Asians. Certainly would not be worth having a look at oneself.

I wonder what life would be like for aboringines if whites had not arrived here over 200 years ago. Would they be living in lovely houses, with seafood overlooking the beach. Or would they be just where they were for the previous 80,000 years, roaming the country, hunting for food, occasionally killing each other and living till about 35 years of age. Really if things had not changed in the previous 80,000 years, why would they have changed in the next 200. They clearly would be worse off without us.

The inhumane conditions of the few Aborigines pale when compared with the enormous unfairness lamented by Mr. Michael Kirby, an ex judge of the High Court of Australia, in the funding of Schools, or worse, the mistreatment of Atheists who cannot get the same privileges the State accords to other religions.

Why call for a Bill of Rights when we have a superb Constitution drafted by the ones who, to their discomfort, came here to try to civilize those natives?

Silly old bugger isn't even an Ozzie anymore yet he acts the expert.

From his London residence he describes a highly complex Australian situation in overly simple terms, helping no-one - as though it was the Australia in which he last lived - forty years ago.

We have the Stolen Generation and the equivalent, mainly white, Forgotten Generation, and many other deserving groups.

Perhaps we should give them all the usual 20%, their lawyer/consultants the usual 40% and the distributing bureaucrats their standard 40% cut...

What is Pilger the Brit suggesting?

Pete

Ozzie asks:

"I wonder what life would be like for aboringines if whites had not arrived here over 200 years ago."

That's an easy one to answer. Look at the fate of the natives of West Papua at the hands of Javanese settlers.

Had Europeans not arrived here first the Javanese would have colonised Australia. Having no border protection capability the Aborigines would have been powerless to resist.

The fate of the vanquished is never a happy one. Australians would do well to remember that.

It's the white aborigines that are doing university, the ones that their parents were stolen. If it weren't for steeling those kids, there would be a bigger problem now.
White Aborigines are only aborigines, when it suites them.
As far as the black aborigines go they are a lost cause. Their way of life does not allow them to integrate.
The only thing i can suggest is to let them roam free in the outback as they were meant to. One tribe will not mix with another tribe, They can not understand each others lingo, they are nomadic.

An excellent well thought out article pilger ,
Well done more of it please

Desmond,

Why on earth do you think that all that many ofthe 25,000 Indigenous university graduates were part of the 'stolen generation' ? I worked for years in Indigenous student support programs at unis and worked with only a tiny handful of students who had been 'stolen'. The vast majoirty of students had never been take naway or put into care or whatever. Please get that stereotype out of your head.

I don't understand what you mean - white Aborigines. Can you also get it into your head that Indigenous people can come to uni and succeed - as Indigenous, before and after ?

And what's this 'let them' ? billshut ? Pig-ignorance reigns supreme !

To get back to this article: Pilger seems to be content with the usual symbolic stuff. I hope that I will never, never spend a second of my time on symbolic gestures, but I have spent most of my life trying to do something useful, 'practical' if you like, and I hope I will never stop. My wife was Indigenous, our kids are Indigenous, we made the first Flags in the early seventies, and as far as we were concerned, they were not just symbolic but had a very practical intent of pulling people together as one people. Practical, not just symbolic.

Once the gaps are closed, then we can talk about symbolic reconciliation - and even then, it will be up to Indigenous people to make the 'symbolic' gestures, not some ponce writing comfortably from the UK.

Joe Lan

Ozzie makes the most sense.
If the Aborigines had been left alone to hunt and gather in isolation the bleaters would now be calling for government assistance during lean times, health intervention for child birth, complaining that their life expectancy was even shorter and calling for internet access for their young, etc, etc.
Of all the possible scenarios, the original inhabitants got lucky with the Brits.
Even now, they have welfare for life if they choose, free tertiary education if they choose, decent housing if they could only look after it, etc, etc.
Why is it always blame whitey when their kids go off the rails?
There are plenty of people who do it tough and don't go delinquent.
It's called responsibility.
I met a member of the "stolen generation" who never felt the need to find her roots until her adoptive mother died.
She eventually found her biological mother who claimed that she'd been stolen from her.
She spent a long time scouring the historical record before determining that she had not been stolen and she was mighty glad for the chance that she'd got.
Obviously not everyone's story is the same but it is telling that the courts have not found in favour of any stolen claims.
Pilger tells a good story and I suppose you have to spin a few good ones to keep the grants rolling in.
But imagine if all those employed in the grievance industries were put to productive work.
Now there's a worthwhile goal.

I wonder what life would be like for aboringines if whites had not arrived here over 200 years ago.
Ozzie,
I imagine it would be almost the same as all the other pockets of isolated societies of Europe in the past. Inevitable inbreeding (sorry I'm not aware of a politically correct version of this word) followed by the conflicts of which we have saturation accounts as recently as ten years ago.
I believe migration/occupation/mixing it is nature's way of keeping the human race from regressing from a physiological aspect. So far as the psychological aspect is concerned nature's still in the early stage of evolution.
Yes, all you feigning racism bleaters you'll still have a few more generations to endulge before we all look the same.

Individual,

In Peter Bellwood's magnificent book, 'First Farmers: ... ', he notes that the Out-of-Africa experience was fifty or sixty thousand years of DE-globalisation, of human fragmentation and differentiation - and I would suggest, of hyper-parochialism, 100,000 languages each spoken by a few hundred or a few thousand people, each group against its neighbours, each group seeing itself as the only human beings and all others as progressively more sub-human the further away they were from themselves and only good for the mutual exchange of women.

So it would be wonderful to be alive in a hundred years, with such a beautiful mixture of people right across Australia: as Darwin pointed out, the mixture of groups usually produced more healthy, more beautiful and more intelligent children. Most of our great-grandchildren and GGGchildren will have Indigenous, Mediterranean, Central Asian, East Asian, Polynesian and African ancestries and they will be the most beautiful people in the world. I can't wait !

Joe Lane

Aboriginals, other Australians born here and recent immigrants all receive the leagacy of the Australian occupation.

Before, the whites there were waves of black folks about every 15,000 years owing to land bridges. The fourth or fifth occupation was by the English, who themselves were invaded on many occasions by the Romans and Vikings. The Normans who invaded England in 1066, we lead by the descendants for King Rollo who invaded Normandy (Norse-Man-Day) in 911.

So, the Australians believed to have occupied Australia c. 60,000 BP were invaded other black peoples three or four times before the whites in 1788 (forgetting the explorers). Whites also with a history of being invaded over-and-over again. Behaps more so the aborigines.

What followed the 1788, occupations was genecide, often by farmers and squatters. In the US there was a similar situation where the earlier Christian groups killed of the American clans with smallpox laced blackets given as gifts.

I see the Crown and colonisation to the key perpetrator. Exploitation by the British is significant here. Soon (1601) after the defeat Spainish Armada (1588), Elizabeth I can trading companies "monopolies" of territories (other pwers followed.

What modern aboriginals do realise is that white "on the street" could have been press-ganged, England would not educate the Irish. that is, the State (and the Church) was allowing white to die in hulks on the Themes at the same time as squatters shooting aboriginals for stealing a sheep. Early aboriginals closer to events pittied the treatments of the white convicts, whom could be beaten senseless for looking-up when they were not meant to do so.

Should we be treating the Aboriginals as separate special group apart from the rest of Australians anyway? This policy is making them more alienated from the rest of society and not feeling part of it.

Aborigines have to rise above victim status and be more responsible for their own destinies.Sit down money has destroyed them.

Pilger is like some mascot for those who want to delude themselves, or live in a world of illusion, about Australian Indigenous realities. Primarily, Pilger is an economic determinist who imagines a mining company poised behind every bush on Aboriginal land in the NT.

"An undeclared agenda is straight from Australia’s colonial past: a land grab" he bleats endlessly. "... Jenny Macklin, has decreed that unless certain communities hand over their precious freehold leases they will be denied basic services."

In fact, Macklin is asking for leases, not freehold, over tiny portions of Aboriginal inalienable freehold land so that the government can invest hundreds of millions of dollars on developing adequate infrastructure to meet Aboriginal aspirations for their children in the towns and villages sprinkled round their lands.

The Aboriginal traditional owners will still own 99% plus of their country - all the land surrounding the town centres will still be theirs, to permit or with-hold from mining prospecting and exploration as they determine.

But according to the prophet Pilger, "The Northern Territory contains abundant mineral wealth, such as uranium, and has long been eyed by multinationals as a lucrative radioactive waste dump. The blacks are in the way, yet again: so it is time for the usual feigned innocence."

Deluding yourself, John: the efforts to secure leases over town areas, and thus develop reasonable living standards for the population will help, not hinder, Aboriginal health and self-determination and control of land. It will enable the growth of a healthy, educated Aboriginal society, whose members will be more able to manage their own affairs and judge their own best interests, without your sage advice.

Well say something truthful and constructive about the methods issued to solve the aboriginal Australian issues and outcome the bigots.
That s the bigots that don’t know there bigots of course because there safe ad snug in tier wasp homes deliberating on what’s best for the AA.
The ones that stereotype and categorize and stereotype their answers into tidy little put on a shelf and forget boxes.
Where would the AA be if whites hadn’t arrived? A lot better off than now that’s for sure. The problem here is with bigots are bigot are against whites also which basically means you’re a bunch of w888kers.
If Pete wasn’t such an ignorant burke finishing his reply with a?
“What’s pilger suggesting “. Well Duh he brought your pig ignorance to the fore didn’t he!
As for this famous constitution I would challenge any of you bigots to find it. Then you could allow me to read it.
From a country thatis NOT a signatory to the international bill of rights (I wonder why) to the country that doesn’t have bill of rights and went to the polls to see I f it NEEDED a democracy. What a joke.
Your all hypocrites and don’t know it.
Just remember the whole world is hissing them on that one. Do we need a democracy geese Louise.
I’m roflmao on that one.

thomasfromtacoma,
we all make the occasional spelling mistake but please, can you pull up your socks ? :-)

Good morning, thomasfromtacoma,

I see you are at your scintillating best again today.

After tiptoeing between your bursts of belligerence, I have ascertained that you have some sympathy for the plight of indigenous Australians - a point of view shared by many of us.

If you took a breath and ceased hurling invective around like confetti, you might find a little more positive feedback from fellow members.

A treaty is an agreement between two sovereigns or sovereign powers. The big problem with a treaty with Aboriginal people is that there was and is no sovereign to enter into a treaty with.

If it were done, then it would have to be done either by the Aboriginal people themselves establishing and ordaining their own sovereign, which seems highly unlikely.

Or it could be done by the government setting up an Aboriginal body that would supposedly have the sovereignty or authority to agree and to act for and on behalf of Aboriginal people. The problems and self-contradictions in this should be obvious. To start with, it presupposes the invading power having the moral legitimacy to set up a representative body for the invaded. It could not help but be politicised and inflamed. And it must assume a separate set of race-based rights both as a premise, and as an objective, otherwise why would it exist?

The subject of treaties is usually property rights as between sovereign states. But the differences between Aboriginal and European people as regards property rights were enormous enough in 1788. The situation has got more problematic since then. It is commonly said by and of Aboriginal people that they didn't own the land, the land owned them. In these circumstances, what could property rights mean? What it means is that the traditional Australian, and therefore British definitions would apply, which derive from feudal land law, and common law contracts and trusts. How could this be anything but a colonisation of Aboriginal values and people?

No sir the idea is bad in principle and would be bad in practice. By far the more ethical and practical solution is to abolish all of Australia's race-based laws and policies whatsoever, as should have been done in the first place.

the transformation europeans have undergone on Aboriginal lands is nothing short of a miracle.

from the criminal dregs of european society to co-leadership of the global community, the pox
ridden and often mentally deranged pioneers of antipodean imprisonment have come a long way,
not the least the family of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose ancestor Mary Wade
received a death sentence when aged ten years at the Old Bailey in February 1800 for stealing
clothing in a public toilet, a sentence commuted to transportation for life to New South Wales.

from executing children to granting women franchise and appointment to leadership, Aboriginal
lands have favoured europeans in the extreme.

all cultures change over time, sadly those rat bitten, lice infested, diseased and deranged convicts,
the original european Australians, have all been wiped out.

the half bad and quarter bad convicts still remain, Ivan Milat and his mates in Goulburn Supermax,
Gordon Bryant, even Russell 'Mad Dog' Cox and the Dennis Fergusons of this world, the living icons
of true blue european Australians.

then there's a whole industry of not very bad at all freeloaders living in prisons across the nation
rorting the public purse with complimentary board and lodgings, all with spurious claims to the
status of original european Australian.

but the assimilation of europeans into Aboriginal community values of respect and equal rights for
women has been one of the true miracles of the modern world.

there is still work to be done, european Australians cling tenuously to their patriarchy but not for
much longer with a republic on the horizon.

a preoccupation with material culture over social welfare remains in dark corners that harbour the
convict legacy, although the return to country for Aborigines is assurred with the all but complete
assimiliation of europeans on Aboriginal lands.

Yes, statistics are still poor when it comes to Indigenous health, education and access to employment. A treaty is not the answer nor is a Bill of Rights. What will they achieve that will be anything different to the Now.

History shows us that the way out of these problems is through some level of self-determination and ability to influence outcomes in one's own community.

I have watched over many years, both Liberal and Labor Governments struggle and fail miserably when it comes to Aboriginal affairs. I remember speaking to a political staffer in the 80s who declared the job of Aboriginal Affairs Minister was drawing the short straw. Not because of any lack of care for Aboriginal people, but because it was often a no-win situation.

Governments and public servants often too scared to raise concerns over misappropriation of funds in some communities for fear of being seen as racist. Oversight of monies on Aboriginal programs was often haphazard and lacked any real teeth to fix problems. Oversight can be a problem with many government programs not only those directed at Indigenous people, but it is made more difficult by political factors.

Throwing money at the problem has not done much to help, perhaps in isolated cases it has improved conditions in some communities.

Alcohol is the biggest problem in isolated communities along with boredom and lack of employment opportunities.

I partly agree that the way out has to include assmimilation into the the broader community. However this does not mean we forget our history and the rights of the first people.

One idea might be more Indigenous MPs in both State and Federal Parliament. One possible way to achieve greater representation is to divide Aboriginal communities into smaller electorates with Indigenous candidates who can speak on behalf of their people, and by doing so perhaps better target those public monies to creating employment and a sense of self-worth.

It may seem racist and undemocratic (for non-Aboriginals), but sometimes to correct a wrong it is necessary to recognise an inequality and do something more proactive about it.

whistler,
Your punctuation wouldn't get you through a more rigorous discipline so I'm guessing a degree in the victimology field.
Probably gender studies with some indigenous disadvantage and gay discrimination electives thrown in for diversity sake.
How am I going?
I'm not sure why you've tarred Gordon Bryant with the same brush as other European-descendant, white male degenerates like Ivan Milat and his mates in Goulburn Supermax, Russell 'Mad Dog' Cox and Dennis Ferguson.
Gordon Bryant was an early champion of indigenous rights.
http://www.indigenousrights.net.au/document.asp?iID=398
Maybe his attitude was too patronising or was it just the white male connection?
But that can't be it because that would almost be racist.
Whoops, I nearly forgot one of the first rules of Victimology 101:
Only white males can be racist.
Or perchance did you mean Martin Bryant, of Port Arthur massacre fame, now living at taxpayer expense in Risdon, when he should have been taken out by sniper fire while police had the chance?
Whatever, according to you they’re all “living icons of true blue european Australians”.
Is that icon, as in “a symbol representing or analogous to the thing it represents”?
Meaning that these mass murderers and paedophiles are representative of white (presumably male) Australians?
You must have topped your gender studies class with such an objective and well-balanced assessment.

IT never ceases to amaze me how those who are most ignorant seem to scream the loudest.

*Peter Hume's* comments re Sovereignty are repugnant in the extreme and I note that the Dutch made similar arguments in relation to their claims over Indonesia.

I note further from the BBC's Race Scientist documentaries that the Nazi attrocities were nothing new. Many of the other Euro nations and most especially the "Transplanted Genocidal Poms" were also guilty of terrible crimes against Humanity, and I personally subscribe to the view that once a so called Sovereign party commits such acts, that it no longer has the right to make Sovereign claims and should disband.

Hello *Oliver* I appreciated some of your comments.

For *Everyone* there is a PHd from U.W.A. that wrote a book entitled, from memory, "For their own Good." For my 2cents worth, I recommend it as a good read for anyone really interested.

Apart form drawing attention to the highly suspicious hoards of missing contentious legal documents from the archives in W.A. and I can confirm something of this from my own investigations, it does highlight how keen the Original Australians were to get involved with farming way back when land was being giving away for nought but the requirement to make improvements to it.

The improvements however were contingent on getting finance from the banks .. and so it goes on. The BlakFellas were never given a chance, relegated to camps, sensorially deprived and corrupted with booze and nicoteine. Little wonder some of them have gone a bit wayward.

..

Hmmm .. Haven't seen *JohnO Pilger* since a talk at Curtin Uni. I thought he was a tad shy when prodded about the issue of U235 Enrichment Waste Munitions though. ;-)

He has some excellent articles on his web, did a great doco on Indo "slavery" not so long ago which was also discussed here and featured in a recent most excellent doco on the "war journo's" What was the name of that book on the Vietnam war again?

..

Jiwa sosial sekali kata orang miskin di sini.

Just for those of you that couldn’t find any references to the
“Superb Constitution drafted by the ones who, to their discomfort, came here to try to civilize those natives”
Mentioned by skeptic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitution

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Constitution was approved in referendums held over 1898 – 1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Commission of Assent was signed by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900, upon which the Constitution became law. The Constitution came into force on 1 January 1901. Even though the Constitution was originally given legal force by an Act of the United Kingdom parliament, the Australia Acts removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution, and only the Australian people can amend it (by referendum).
Other pieces of legislation have constitutional significance for Australia. These are the Statute of Westminster, as adopted by the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and the Australia Act 1986, which was passed in equivalent forms by the Parliaments of every Australian state, the United Kingdom, and the Australian Federal Parliament. Together, these Acts had the effect of severing all constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom. Even though the same person, Queen Elizabeth II, is the monarch of both countries, she acts in a distinct capacity as monarch of each.
No wonder the government hides it from the world as if it doesn’t exist. IT DOESN’T!
No wonder you guys voted out a democracy by referendum.
Just think of the embarrassment of not having anything but an act of the English parliament to fall back on if there were a challenge to the constitution.
You make me laugh. You bunch of hypocritical bigots.

What’s so repugnant about saying “there was and is no sovereign to enter into a treaty with”?

Who was or is it, according to you?

I believe that the law of england at the time the "sea rogues" first arrived here was such that they were either required to make a declaration of war or alternatively a treaty with the original people.

Of course, they did neither. As said in this place on a number of occasions, what they actually did was to classify the Original Australians as animals, pursuant to the "Flora and Fauna Act."

However, since the overturning of "Terror Nullius" it is now recognised that indeed there were actually people here.

I think perhaps that the high court partly erred in *Mabo* and should have forced a constitutional crisis on this point.

Current native title legislation which denies other than traditional activities to an evolving people is a great travesty of justice.

And to deny the return to country for those who cannot demonstrate an ongoing connection due to the arguably genocidal policies inflicted upon them, such as the "forcible transference of children from one group to another" in breach of the post wwii principals, goes to legitimise these abominable acts.

And in the dark heart of my cynicism, when acts such as the suspension of the racial discrimination act are perpetrated again under the guise of "For their own good" I do have to wonder whether the ugly australian crown is in desperation trying to generate evidence to support its defence that it was always only attempting to do good by the BlakFellas. But again, if that was the case, those families torn and ripped apart would also have legal recourse for a return to country, but alas, I believe they do not.

Add to the mix that the denial of appeals to *Lizzy Winza in Council* by way of the australia act (which remains enshrined in the constitution incidentally) was not done with the consent of the australian people and what do you end up with?

Little more than a tin pot rogue state crying out for
Enshrined Human Rights, a new Constitution and a Head of State that actively cares for all the people.

yes of course,
my apologies to the family of the late Gordon Bryant.
thank goodness for the editors of this world.

so which is your favourite living original european Australian icon?
are you a Dennis Ferguson man,
or perhaps mass murderer Martin Bryant is more to your taste?

Individual
And I thought it was my attitude that was being criticized. My apologies :)
Hume
That’s what I love about the indefensible argument. You assume a position of superiority and then justify it with BS.
We’re talking about a country that was INVADED by the English.
Or are you saying that you’re a died in the heart colonialist. Stiff upper lip and al that rubbish eh chaps.
We’re talking about the fact that the Australian Aborigine is without a doubt the worst treated minority group in the world. Even worse than the 45% Afro Americans that doesn’t have a complete education.. Get real and talk some sense

thomasfromtocoma“We’re talking about a country that was INVADED by the English.”

Just as most of the world has been “Invaded” one way or another.. England particularly, the last time successfully by the Normans in 1066 but who is counting.

Regarding “We’re talking about the fact that the Australian Aborigine is without a doubt the worst treated minority group in the world. Even worse than the 45% Afro Americans that doesn’t have a complete education.. Get real and talk some sense”

Well you can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink….. lilewise you can throw all the social services and educational services at an ethnic subgroup and you whilst you will get the odd gleaming light, you still end up with a lot more dim glimmers of indolence and indifference.

and as a point of fact, I thought the way Muslim Bosnians and Rwandan Tutsis have been treated far worse (by their fellow countrymen) than Aboriginals have been treated, in the past 100 years at least.

There is nothing “unreal” about expecting people to be first “accountable for their own, personal well being”, including aborigines and African Americans.

That a lot of folk remain completely indifferent to their own well being is not and never can be considered the fault of those who do behave in a personally responsible manner.

whistler,

<so which is your favourite living original european Australian icon?
are you a Dennis Ferguson man,
or perhaps mass murderer Martin Bryant is more to your taste?>

It's not strictly correct to say I'm offended by your above comments.
After all, who could possibly take seriously such a moronic retort?

You are, however, revealing your true colours as well as the fact that
you've got real problems, girlie.

I suggest once again that you get help.

Or maybe you've just never met the right man.
I wonder if thomasfromtacoma is already taken. It hardly seems likely.
Grab your chance whistler, while the opportunity presents itself.

Thomas
“We’re talking about a country that was INVADED by the English.”
I know we are but that’s not the issue, which is, assuming we are to have a treaty, *who* would we have it with?

Dreamon
“I believe that the law of england at the time the "sea rogues" first arrived here was such that they were either required to make a declaration of war or alternatively a treaty with the original people.”

That’s not correct. The law of England at the time was different according to whether or not there was an existing civilisation (think ‘ciwis’, Latin, city). If there was, with towns and farms and so on, then the native law subsisted unless and until it was overruled by inconsistent English law, such as happened in India. If there were no people there, or no settled people, then English law was received in its entirety, according to the developing circumstances of the English community. So for example, the law of mortgages would not be received until someone first mortgaged something.

But in both cases, in English law, English law overrode the native law.

“However, since the overturning of "Terror Nullius" it is now recognised that indeed there were actually people here.”

It was always recognised that there were actually people here. The question was, what was the status of their law, relative to English law. Sovereignty was not in issue in Mabo’s case. This means that it has never been in issue, in English law or its Australian successor, that the imperial law overrides the native law. Mabo’s case didn’t change that. It only establishes that, *to the extent there has been no inconsistent overriding European law*, the native law continues to exist, rather than being unrecognised.

Of course the whole thing is absurd. How can you sail up one side of an island and claim ownership of all the land and control of all the people in it? Cook’s orders didn’t authorise him to do that, and he said so. Philip’s did, but who had such authority to give it to him in the first place?

*Peter*

There is a beautiful multimedia web site, or at least there was, attached to the Murdoch Uni Original Aussie studies department. I suggest that if you want to get some appreciation about how Australia was prior to the invasion of the "t.ransplanted g.enocidal p.om" then have a look.

Fantastic artwork and evidence based presentations on the cultures of the hundreds if not thousands of different language groups, their civilisation and their method of interacting, trading and sharing wisdom, both temporal and spiritual.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about certain interpretations of the law, but it has been a long time since I read the full text of Mabo and I would like to refresh myself. Thereafter, perhaps you would care to provide the legal basis for your contrary assertions with appropriate links, and we'll then cut all this to the quick.

(*Thomas* would perhaps appreciate that much of the early law is not easily available OnLine, but I should be pleased to stand corrected on that point. No prizes for guessing why. By all means mate, hurl it around like confetti, it helps to highlight those with GoldFish in the Bowel syndrome.)

A couple of points though - the Original people were classified as animals pursuant to the "Flora and Fauna Act" which is available for reading in the law libraries and that is how they got around their own law.

As in N.America when the "t.g.p." first arrived, there were significant signs of civilisation, from log cabins to you name it. Perhaps *Thomas* is familiar with this? However, the "t.g.p." simply slaughtered raped and pillaged and then put up the flag.

As someone who has a little experience outside Australia, and speak something of Japanese, Thai and Indonesian, it is quite plain that not everyone shares the shame values as white anglo saxon protestants. Not everyone wants *Col World* and that is their right.

I have a friend who wrote a thesis on the so called "Dumming of America." Alas Australia ..

Here's a quick shot off the hip *PeterH* taken from Austlii:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html

" ... The system of local administration, established prior to annexation, proved to be tyrannous in its operation and, in October 1882, Captain Pennefather reported that he had dismantled it. (It appears from later history, however, that Harry, the Mamoose, continued to exercise considerable authority.) At the same time, he reported:

"The natives are very tenacious of their ownership of the
land and the island is divided into small properties which
have been handed down from father to son from generation
to generation, they absolutely refuse to sell their land
at any price, but rent small portions to the beche-de-mer
men and others. These natives, though lazy like all
Polynesians on their islands, build good houses and
cultivate gardens, they are a powerful intelligent race and
a white man is as safe if not safer residing amongst them,
as in Brisbane." ... "

Great link dream on,
Shows how out of touch the incoming pommes were with the Australian aboriginals’ rights. Also the obvious intention of not respecting them if I may quote
"Queensland has not affected native land tenure which is
upheld in the Court of the Island. In a few instances it
is not impossible that English ideas, especially of
inheritance are making themselves felt. There is no common
land and each makes his own garden on his own land at his
own convenience."

Shows the oblivions approach to anything but the English way.

Quick Hack + Re-Sequencing:

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) ("Mabo case") [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html

TREASON and APPEALS to *LIZZIE WINZA* in COUNCIL?

29. In discharging its duty to declare the common law of Australia, this Court is not free to adopt rules that accord with contemporary notions of justice and human rights if their adoption would fracture the skeleton of principle which gives the body of our law its shape and internal consistency. Australian law is not only the historical successor of, but is an organic development from, the law of England. Although our law is the prisoner of its history, it is not now bound by decisions of courts in the hierarchy of an Empire then concerned with the development of its colonies.

Some ORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS:

12. …

"The natives are very tenacious of their ownership of the
land and the island is divided into small properties which
have been handed down from father to son from generation
to generation, they absolutely refuse to sell their land
at any price, but rent small portions to the beche-de-mer
men and others. These natives, though lazy like all
Polynesians on their islands, build good houses and
cultivate gardens, they are a powerful intelligent race and
a white man is as safe if not safer residing amongst them,
as in Brisbane."
Moynihan J. found that there was apparently no concept of public or general community ownership among the people of Murray Island, all the land of Murray Island being regarded as belonging to individuals or groups.

TYRANNY Pre ANNEXATION:

12. … The system of local administration, established prior to annexation, proved to be tyrannous in its operation and, in October 1882, Captain Pennefather reported that he had dismantled it. (It appears from later history, however, that Harry, the Mamoose, continued to exercise considerable authority.) …

Neither CONQUEST nor TREATY!

24. The defendant's submission is founded on propositions that were stated in cases arising from the acquisition of other colonial territory by the Imperial Crown. Although there are differences which might be said to distinguish the Murray Islands and the Meriam people of 1879 from other colonial territories and their indigenous inhabitants when those territories respectively became British colonies, the propositions on which the defendant seeks to rely have been expressed to apply universally to all colonial territories "settled" by British subjects. Assuming that the Murray Islands were acquired as a "settled" colony (for sovereignty was not acquired by the Crown either by conquest or by cession) …

…OH REALLY!?

12. In September 1879, Captain Pennefather on the instructions of H.M. Chester visited the Murray Islands where (as he reported) he "mustered the natives" and informed them "that they would be held amenable to British law now the island was annexed".

B.S. Stories:

20. Without pausing to enquire into the legal support for the "system of self-government" instituted by Douglas or for the jurisdiction of the Island Court, it appears that the Meriam people came peacefully to accept a large measure of control by Queensland authorities and that officials of the Queensland Government became accustomed to exercise administrative authority over the Murray Islands. Formal annexation had been followed by an effective exercise of administrative power by the Government of Queensland.

So referring back to point 29. of the *Eddie "Koiki" Mabo* case, whilst the high court may be restricted, *Lizzie Winza* of course is not, and thus the significance of "Appeals to Queen in Council" as enshrined in the australian constitution and also its non constitutional closure by way of the australia act.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/0/19541afd497bc2e4ca256f990081e2cf/$FILE/Constitution.pdf

Chapter III – The Judicature

74 Appeal to Queen in Council
No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council. The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave. Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such
limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty’s pleasure.

..

So, for arguments sake, given that their was no official conquest, no treaty, actual people (no not animals) and quite clearly non acceptance of the settlers as evidenced by Yagan's severed head, *Lizzie* in council could exercise her authority to instruct the guvment to right the wrongs of the past and present, recognise the various Sovereignties of the Original people and create a TREATY in accordance with Her Pleasure.

But the guvment gremlins from australia conspired with their counter parts in england to invalidate this mechanism of appeal by having them write up the Australia Act, which apparently some are of the opinion trumps the Australian "Clayton's" Constitution:

Australia Act 1986
No. 142, 1985

..

11 Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, no appeal to Her Majesty in
Council lies or shall be brought, whether by leave or special leave
of any court or of Her Majesty in Council or otherwise, and
whether by virtue of any Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, the Royal Prerogative or otherwise, from or in respect of
any decision of an Australian court. ...

..

But of course, this constitutional change was not effected by:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/0/19541afd497bc2e4ca256f990081e2cf/$FILE/Constitution.pdf

Chapter VIII – Alteration of the Constitution
128 Mode of altering the Constitution

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives. ...

..

So, as much as I am a Republican, I more and more come to feel that it is more important for the Original People to have their day with *Lizzie in Council* before any new era.

And of course, she has little to worry about, as any trouble from the red knecked race scientists and she can cut loose

*Harry PotHead and the Line of Death*
(Snicker, snicker)

Whilst I am no monarchist, anyone who speaks up against the gross waste of funds by so called charities as well as speaking against the use of australian resource made by red chinese into arms to be used against our own troops, is worthy of a bit of respect and admiration, in my not so humble opinion.

All of these Aboriginal uni graduates that have been spoken about, what is there role in doing something for their country men.
That is a hard ask, because they are tribal.
They are not one voice, in fact they cannot understand each other.
The educated white Aboriginals use the education to better themselves, and good luck to them.
I have never seen a real Aborigional, uncomtaminated with white blood,go through any kind of school from start to finish.
If schooling were enforced away from their elders we would not have a problem.

scratch my head if i can think of a whitefella
who can read bush like a black.
the scholars who've achieved use their skills
to live culture just like whitefellas.