Hi Mr Opinion,

"You convince me that you know what you're talking about."

I would have thought that the sheer force, and obvious truth, of my arguments would have been enough.

No, I still don't know what you mean. What would convince you ? Perhaps you could show me yours first, to give me an idea, then I'll show you mine :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Jay, "Where the British found a system of laws and evidence of an actual society in the lands they settled they respected those systems and offered treaties"

The only treaty I have any knowledge of is the 'Treaty of Waitangi'1840, between the British and the Maori, a document which left out more than it included. A one page effort which left a lot to be desired from a Maori point of view. Firstly I must say, I do not believe there was any malice on the part of William Hobson the British Lieutenant Governor who was given charge to make a treaty with the Maori, or any other of the British involved. Hobson had no experience in treaty making what so ever, and had only a few days to come up with something. Hobson relied on a few other treaties and agreements he had in his possession along with the input of a local British resident James Busby (from Sydney). After reading Hobson's first draft, Busby told him the Maori chiefs would not wear it, so they drew one up together with some help from James Freeman, Hobson's secretary.
Then Hobson had to rely on two Methodists Missionaries father and son Henry and Edward Williams to draw up a Maori translation, although they were fluent speakers of the Maori language, their translation contained a number of errors, particularity around the words sovereignty (British version) and governance (Maori version) this was a mistake and i don't believe it was done intentionally. Some say many Maori Chiefs would not have signed if they believed they were seeding sovereignty of the land to the British. The Waitangi Tribunal has been trying to deal with this issue and many others, including Maori clams of treaty violations, for years.

p/s My partner "T" is proud of the fact her ancestor (from her whakapapa) Paramount Chief Hone Heke (born around 1800) was one of the original signatories, believed to have been the first to sign, the Treaty Of Waitangi.

Let's hope that this thread doesn't turn into an Opinion-ated one.

Is Mise, why do you say that? After all this is the 'Online Opinion' site. If you removed all the opinion, and left the rest, there wouldn't be much of interest, now would there. This is my opinion.

"Let's hope that this thread doesn't turn into an Opinion-ated one."

Is that your opinion?

I guess that the excerpts from the actual Mabo judgement have settled the argument.

1 There was no invasion,
2 Australia was settled on the Basis of Terra Nullius as the law stood in 1780, based on the lack on any discernable government.
3 The Mabo Judgement recognised that Australia was inhabited prior to settlement, and according to the original basis of Terra Nullius had rights to the land that the judges rectified by awarding Native title.

Loudmouth,

Its advised (by whom is unclear) that you shouldn't "argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Which btings us to Mr O. Its futile to argue logic or facts with the man since he has no respect for either.

For example he wrote "President Xi has already told Australia that China has a greater claim over Australia than the Anglo-Australians when he addressed the Australian Parliament". Yet here (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F35c9c2cf-9347-4a82-be89-20df5f76529b%2F0005%22) is that address and Xi said nothing remotely like it. Now, will pointing this out give Mr O pause? Not a bit of it. He'll carry on as though what he said was true because he wants it to be true.

The best idea is to ignore these types.