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 > Returning to a secret country > Comments

Returning to a secret country : Comments

By John Pilger, published 4/12/2009

Australia must summon the moral and political imagination to offer its first people a genuine treaty; and respect.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by HermanYutic, Monday, 7 December 2009 8:26:58 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
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?
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 7 December 2009 11:35:55 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
*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 ..
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 10 December 2009 7:19:58 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
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." ... "
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 10 December 2009 7:39:25 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
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.
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Friday, 11 December 2009 2:53:11 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
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.) …
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 12 December 2009 11:43:57 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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