Hi Paul,

I've never, in all its manifestations, supported the notion of a treaty. Never. My position on it is to assume a null hypothesis: i.e. THAT a Treaty is utterly pointless.

Apart , of course, from the fact that nobody has yet - it seems - even thought about what should be in one, and on top of that, long after the event. What rights would be written into a Treaty that people don't already have ? And please, please, don't say 'special rights' because Australians will never, ever support different rights for different groups [are you listening, HuT ?]. I'm starting to doubt the intelligence of many Indigenous people. Such dumb-arse ideas.

Sovereignty: people ceded their 'sovereignty' i.e. as clans and family groups, when they accepted that, perhaps after some sort of statutory period like fifteen years, their sustenance would be continually provided totally by 'the British'. Groups 'transferred' their claims to the sustaining authority. End of. Therefore no legal basis to contemplate some idiotic seventh state. By the way, where would that be, and without a majority NON-Indigenous population ? i.e. no towns ? Jesus, do people ever think through their brilliant new thought-bubbles ?

So what promises would the Commonwealth have to make, i.e. what rights would they have to grant, that people don't already have ? Too ridiculous.

Doog: genocide - prove it. Get SOME evidence, and please not out of your arse either. [Well, I AM from Bankstown]

Joe

Dear Joe,

«Sovereignty: people ceded their 'sovereignty' i.e. as clans and family groups, when they accepted that, perhaps after some sort of statutory period like fifteen years, their sustenance would be continually provided totally by 'the British'.»

So we seem to agree after all!

There is no need for a treaty between between urban traitors of aboriginal ancestry with their neighbouring urban Australians of no aboriginal ancestry. Those who eat the white-man's bread have indeed ceded their sovereignty - but not the others.

«By the way, where would that be, and without a majority NON-Indigenous population ? i.e. no towns ?»

Why assume that people can only desert the aboriginal flock but none can join in their place? Surely just as traitors can forsake the aboriginal people, others can also be accepted and embraced into their flock, thus a majority is still possible.

«So what promises would the Commonwealth have to make, i.e. what rights would they have to grant, that people don't already have ?»

No Australian jurisdiction - total freedom from the invaders' laws and regulations!

Yuyutsu,

Tell most Indigenous people they are traitors and then stand back. It's none of your damn business what people call themselves.

Joe

Hi Joe,

What a treaty should not do: Just my opinion.

1. Provide for "special" rights for Aboriginal people.
2. Cede land for the purpose of forming a separate state.
3. Give additional voting rights, which creates Aboriginal parliamentary seats.
4. Provide monetary compensation or other forms of compensation for past injustices.

"the fact that nobody has yet - it seems - even thought about what should be in one,"

What I said before was a treaty is not a freewheeling document, there are some basic parameters that a treaty between peoples has to follow.

A treaty firstly must start with a preamble setting out why a treaty is necessary, how it will be formulated. and formerly naming those to be included, The preamble should finish with a general explanation as to what will be achieved by its application.

Then comes the nitty gritty, point by point, the articles contained within, stating what one group will give up, for what the other group will give in return, in the form of compensation (not to be confused with monetary compensation).

Finally if both parties are satisfied the treaty meets their needs and objectives as far as possible, then its signed into law. End of story, very simple. It can be a voluminous document like The Treaty of Versailles. or a one pager like The Treaty of Waitangi. But above all it has to be fair to both parties, if it is not, or it is not properly enforced, its doomed to failure.

I will keep an open mind on the subject until its shown that a treaty is not the way to go. However I am not confident that a worthwhile treaty will ever see the light of day.

Yutsie: what rights would they have to grant, that people don't already have ?» No Australian jurisdiction - total freedom from the invaders' laws and regulations!

& just how would that work Yutsie. Are you saying that all Aboriginals would have immunity from Australian Law. Like if an Aboriginal come & steels my Car then that's fine. If one come & bashes my kids then he has immunity. Hmmm... they have special rooms for people that think like that. (Shakes head in wonder)

Actually, I take that back. I suggested that some time back. You know; A special State. once in the Special State they can't come out. There will be no food, medical or any white Man material good provided. No manufactured clothes are to be worn. No guns, boats, rifles , alcohol, tobacco & fishing lines & no contact with White Man under pain of being removed from their Aboriginal Utopia. Once removed they have to make their own way in a White Mans World with the same rights as any white Man. No more, no less & subject to Australian Laws without privilege.

Hi Paul,

Then why have one at all ? Sounds fine to me. What, another ten years of uselessly farting around ? Great for many committee members, sitting fees, overseas conferences, etc. But for the vast majority of Indigenous people, useless. No, not just useless, but diverting attention away from the real, crucial issues.

Hi Jayb,

If any such idiocy was ever inflicted on the Indigenous people, surely they should have the choice of where they want to live ? After all, they're Australians like you and me, and we have the freedom to live where we like, so why not them ? 80 % of Indigenous people live in our/THEIR towns and cities.

Of course, this is the point - that any demand for a separate state, to which Indigenous people have to move, is surely Apartheid at its worst ? [Indigenous 'leaders': look 'Apartheid' up on Wikipedia, or get a small South African child to explain it to you].

My bet is that almost no Indigenous would want to pack up and move out to Yalata, or Balgo, or Aurukun. Why should they ?

A confession: up to late 1972,I believed in the idea of a separate State. I put it to a visiting Native Canadian singer, and she looked at me like I was an idiot (she got that right) and asked, 'And who would leave their own country to go there ? And whose country would they be on ?' That dumb idea died in the arse, then and there.

Joe