CJ Morgan, The only point I agree with you is that the Larvatus Prodeo is the "most comprehensive and balanced discussion" available. I recommend you read this comment, link below, #94 & then #96
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/23/tower-of-hope-or-vale-of-tears/#comment-846322

The remainder of your comment is personal vile, ignorance & prejudice in relation to farmers & management practices.

The core of this issue is not about the virtues of landclearing, nor whether Peter Spencer is a perfect character but whether when many farmers have held a right that has a direct impact on production & income that has been removed with no compensation

Hmmm,
The government is theft crowd are out in numbers early today.
Funny how there was no outrage from the writer and the rest of you mob about Aboriginal land rights and theft when Howard dudded the Aboriginal people with his 10 point plan.
What was that? Oh it's a case of do as a say not as i do.
But hey that won't stop us getting all hot and bothered with confected outrage.

barney25, you have assumed much. Does the trampling on aboriginal peoples in the past mean that modern day wrongs are to be ignored? I think not. As a society we must address all injustices. Does your outrage in regards to Aboriginal land rights extend to a modern day displacement of aboriginal rights in Cape York Peninsula?
"What was that? Oh it's a case of do as a say not as i do."

http://www.cylc.org.au/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=50

“The land council's chairman, Michael Ross, says the rights of Indigenous people are being undermined because too much land is being locked up in pristine areas where economic growth is restricted”

CJ you are correct there is a bit about on this one, I must have missed it while planning various activities over the last few weeks.

Thanks for the link, very informative and eye opening - the comment that still@downfall links to is interesting.

It's not clear whether Peter has done this all as you say, but he does seem to believe and has had advice that has led him to this action.

The action itself is worrying, the Greens and eco types with their tactics have introduced such emotional tools into the community - so every time someone is not happy with government or whomever, we'll now see this sort of behavior.

At least he is not organizing the overthrow of police vans and attacking police lines - nor is he demanding as much as the AGW hunger strikers did in Canberra - new world order no less.

I fear country folk, farmers and landowners are feeling disenfranchised with the system, watching how the AGW, ETS and green crowds behave to get attention. The governments complete lack of sensitivity to this part of the community must contribute to this mess.

Is he right or wrong, don't know but I reckon a lot of people are watching to see how the government deals with this. I suspect it will get bigger before it goes away and PM Rudd is conspicuous by his absence, no surprise there. If it was an actor up there I'm sure he'd be along by now.

Another poor call by the government, they should have dealt with this by now.

fedupnortherner,

The terms of the loan will indicate whether the landholder can use their own land or not.

The principle being advocated is the following - and this applies to aboriginal land as well.

If the "community" through its actions change the rules of ownership that disadvantage an owner then the owner should be compensated. The compensation should be related to reason for the change of rules. For example in the case under discussion the reason for the change is to encourage the sequestration of carbon and reduce the level of ghg in the atmosphere. The compensation should in the form of funding for an investment - either through a zero interest loan or as a grant - but the compensation must be invested to amplify the reason for the change in ownership.

We can use the same principle to compensate fossil fuel power station owners who can build a new asset that will give them income and reduce ghg concentrations.

The same idea can be used for water. Instead of buying back water rights give farmers zero interest loans to "increase" the available water - perhaps by pipes, perhaps by seeding clouds, perhaps by planting different types of water and salt tolerant plants.

This approach is fair to all - both to the person who loses the utility of an asset by replacing the asset with something of equal or better value depending on their investment skill and to the community as a whole who also have rights as a community for land to be used for the best use of all.

It is an example of what is a general solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons".

This is a landmark case under what intended to be numerous forced acquisition of property rights to fulfill AGW agendas based upon mythological carbon pollution theories and inflicted Western guilt.

UN Climate treaties re carbon debts > Federal Govt compliance > State compliance > forced individual land acquisition.

What happens when a country cannot comply? Under a legal treaty some of a country's land is ceded to the UN. No, I'm not joking, I wish I was. That's why we can never sign such a treaty.

This whole thing can be traced back to the UN and its carefully crafted extreme left agenda to rid the world of private property ownership and force countries to cede land to it to pay imaginary carbon debts. All the Carbon Debts will be processed through Carbon Trading companies run by ex UN officials and people like Al Gore who will make billions and acquire huge power as in any Communist system. As you can see we will have no rights.

I used to think this stuff was from the imagination of conspiracy theorists but no, here we are and its really happening.We are all in for a massive battle, so keep your wits about you.