Society/Culture Climbing Uluru to be banned in 2019.

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Don't understand the fuss. I can pay money to enter and look around Westminster Abbey but that doesn't give me the license to muck up the place or climb onto its roof.

If the Aboriginal people in the area view it as a sacred religious monument then who am I to tell them to get stuffed?
 
Oh s**t. White Australians being outraged that they cant literally walk all over aboriginal culture amymore. Super suprising
White Australians? Nice touch of racism there. Ayers Rock belongs to ALL Australians, not just those who live locally and identify as indigenous. ALL Australians, not just the White ones, have the right to climb that rock.
 
White Australians? Nice touch of racism there. Ayers Rock belongs to ALL Australians, not just those who live locally and identify as indigenous. ALL Australians, not just the White ones, have the right to climb that rock.

Something being there does not give you an automatic right to do whatever you want with it.

I don't have any right to climb on the Australian War Memorial in Kings Park.
 
Something being there does not give you an automatic right to do whatever you want with it.

I don't have any right to climb on the Australian War Memorial in Kings Park.

Well, not with THAT attitude
 
Uluru is the name. It’s actually a great irony that right wingers insist on naming things after 19th century public servants.
And what does Uluru mean?

In Victoria we also had to change The Grampians to Gariwerd.

Apparently they also own that......
 
Are you a Kidd Vicious clone?

The rock is part of nature, and no one owns nature........

Governments control access to nature all the time.

There are certain bits of Kings Park (using Perth as an example) that I cannot access as a member of the public. If the indigenous peoples that have been recognised as the traditional custodians of Uluru and the area around it express a wish for people not to climb it because they view it as sacred, then why do I have to be a dick about it?

Conservative posters on this board are all about that - being dicks just because they want to be dicks. Demanding empathy for their views while not dishing it out in return to those requesting theirs. Hypocrites.
 
Governments control access to nature all the time.

There are certain bits of Kings Park (using Perth as an example) that I cannot access as a member of the public. If the indigenous peoples that have been recognised as the traditional custodians of Uluru and the area around it express a wish for people not to climb it because they view it as sacred, then why do I have to be a dick about it?

Conservative posters on this board are all about that - being dicks just because they want to be dicks. Demanding empathy for their views while not dishing it out in return to those requesting theirs. Hypocrites.
They control access, not deny access......
 
If someone could just point me in the direction of a similar ascent of a similar mountain in the area as was talked about earlier I'll be on my way.

Sent from mTalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Refer to my earlier post. One romanticises about superstitions around a big rock. The other establishes democracy, law and order, free speech, social security, scientific advances.

As long its achieved by raping other countries all over the world :rolleyes: .The flag bearer of democracy in the world the United States of America and the British empire is a great example of "civilised" western society.
 
I never thought I'd see one of you go to the lengths of rejecting private property to put a finger in the eye of blackfellas.

Oh well. Welcome aboard comrade.
A rock is private property?

So is a shell on the beach I assume?

Grass in a paddock?

Never going fishing again, someone owns that snapper out there in the bay.

Don't go skiing anyone, that river and snow you ski on are privately owned.

Any pilots out there, the sky and clouds are not to be touched please.

Anyway, bedtime, think I'll get a glass of water, who do I ring to get permission......
 
"Own" is probably a stretch.

They are granted certain controls.
The traditional owners hold the land title. I have no idea how its determined who the traditional owners are though

They agreed to lease it to the Parks service on the condition of no climbing in 1985.
 
We're heading towards the same destination most of the time, just in different cars. You fail to realise that North supporters hover over all of you omnisciently and are your intellectual masters.
So GWS is an abbreviation of Nth Melbourne.
Never knew that......
 
its so easy for lefties to be onside with aboriginals when it comes to Uluru or Arnhem Land for native titles etc. "oh they are the original custodians of the land so ill respect their sacred beliefs". But when the native title claim went in for the whole ******* southwest region in 2015 they were all like "yeah nah * that my house is in this spot. Kudos to the government for buying them out for a billion dollars".

If youre going to stand on your moral pedestal and say you respect the original custodians of the land then follow that to the dot and be prepared to give up your house and land to any aboriginal that wants it. Otherwise stfu and stop pretending to be some holier than thou awakened campaigner. Bloody pretenders fair dinkum.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top