Society/Culture Greens vow to move Australia Day

[Snake_Baker]

You do realise that for most of us Australia is home every bit as much as it is for you?

Interesting how the old aboriginal adage of "born of the land/belong to the land" manages to bypass others.

There's plenty of aboriginal activism that is just straight out racism.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Like I said irrelevant, ruok after your day of mourning yesterday did you show your hatred of Australians waving their flags yesterday.

Go read some history.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Why is it embarrassing ?

Let me quote former Labor deputy leader Tanya Pliberseck.

"Patriotism, like mateship, is about solidarity. It's about what we owe each other as citizens.

"Patriotism is the knowledge that we're not alone in this life; that our neighbours are there to share our struggles; that we have 25 million people in our corner when we need it.

"To love your country is not to assume it's better than others. Patriots don't need to feel superior to feel proud."

"Because patriotism is not a single act. It's not something we do in summer and forget by winter.

"Patriotism is an ongoing commitment to your country - and an ongoing commitment to the people with whom you share it."
"Without pause or hesitation, people have accepted their duty to each other as citizens, as neighbours, as fellow human beings," she says.

"This has been patriotism at its practical best; patriotism as the thread connecting us all as Australians."

Yeah like quoting Tanya Plibersek is all it takes to convince me.

I find it embarrassing and immature to apply the sort of juvenile pantomime we reserve for sport barracking into the arena of national identity.

As I said initially, whatever respect we have for Australia (and I have it in spades) must be found in its achievements, not in carrying like a pork chop about its achievements.

Specially when there are so many supposed "leaders" playing the patriotism card with one hand and phucking us over royally with the other.

Clearly you see it differently. We'll agree to disagree. All the best mate.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Go read some history.

What "history" would that be?

The one fabricated on university campuses since the early 1970's?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Same time next year?
I wonder what the latest emotive word/phrase will be?
"Pay the rent" was a fizzer.

Dunno. On the 26th I went to the Cooee Festival of Aboriginal culture at Emu Plains.

Wonderful day. Managed to simultaneously be mournful, confronting, exuberant, and joyous.

But that level of nuance might have been beyond a few on here.

 

[Present Not Past]

Personally I would have no problem with traditional land owners being able to:

• live on their traditional land, but not build permanent structures or interfere with existing structures
• access traditional areas for traditional purposes, like camping or ceremonies
• visit and protect important places and sites on their tradtional land
• hunt, fish and gather food or traditional resources like water, wood and ochre on their traditional land
• teach law and custom on country in their traditional lands.

Would indigenous people be interested in this?

 

[owen87]

Personally I would have no problem with traditional land owners being able to:

• live on their traditional land, but not build permanent structures or interfere with existing structures
• access traditional areas for traditional purposes, like camping or ceremonies
• visit and protect important places and sites on their tradtional land
• hunt, fish and gather food or traditional resources like water, wood and ochre on their traditional land
• teach law and custom on country in their traditional lands.

Would indigenous people be interested in this?

I imagine the Wurundjeri wouldn't get much out of this given there's a fairly large heavily populated city smack bang in the middle of their traditional land. Some of the more regional / rural people's already pretty much have free run of their traditional land.

The Uluru Statement asks for a voice, but it's fairly unclear as to whether there's at all a unified view as to what that voice would be used to accomplish in terms of nuts and bolts level stuff.

 

[Royal Flush]

What about the 2 million Aboriginal people who were massacred after the arrival of Europeans on January 26th 1788?

Where's your little frowny face for that, bro?

That's actually a bullshit made up number. You could never substantiate.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[ferball]

You do realise that for most of us Australia is home every bit as much as it is for you?

How many generations do our ancestors need to have lived here, since ultimately we all came from somewhere else once upon a time.

Your emotions are clouding your logic, it's clearly impossible for you to engage in this discussion.

Its got nothing to do with my ancestry. Or emotion.

Everyone who arrived or whose ancestors arrived here post 1788 chose to come here, or if they were brought here against their will chose to stay. Or their descendants did.

All of those people chose to be subject to the British Crown or Australian State.

One group of peoples didn't and no one surrendered on their behalf.

But they are subject to Australian law. Some might say illegitimately.

So in the process of somehow trying to bring some sort of fair go to the situation Indigenous law in some parts of the country is followed. I think you'll find any major clash with state or federal law will mean they apply and indigenous laws don't.

If you have a problem with that its your problem and can you please whinge about it to someone else.

 

[its free real estate]

You do realise that for most of us Australia is home every bit as much as it is for you?

How many generations do our ancestors need to have lived here, since ultimately we all came from somewhere else once upon a time.

Your emotions are clouding your logic, it's clearly impossible for you to engage in this discussion.

In the year 2300, there will be people with 1/8192th indigenous ancestry, the remainder Anglo-Celtic, telling mixed race (Greek-Chinese-Sudanese), zero indigenous heritage Australians to “pay the rent”.

 

[ferball]

That's not true either. British sovereignty did not live and die on terra nullius.

Whatever reforms that have taken place, or will take place, from native title through to treaties/recognition/voice to parliament etc. will take place within the confines of the Commonwealth, the constitution and it's systems, not beyond it.

I can appreciate how difficult that must be for some people to reconcile.

The constitution gets its authority from The Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900. It's an act of the U.K. Parliament federation get the colonies that now make up Australia into ... one nation.

The authority for that act and for the U.K. Parliament to transfer sovereignty into that constitution and Australia comes from the fact that Australia was considered terra nullius. An empty land without systems of law and land title.

The Mabo judgement in 1992 found that there were systems of law and land tenure in Australia that were effectively institutional even if they weren't written down.

That finding casts doubt on the legitimacy of the The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK) because it means thAt act was effectively beyond the UK Parliament's jurisdiction.

It's a seperate issue to whether the High Court can rule on its legitimacy (tho that particular idea and the high courts authority itself are both dependent on a UK act of parliament that is actually extrajudicial.)

 

[Scotland]

Are you Captain Kirk Scotland?

I see myself as more of a Picard. With better foliage.

 

[Roylion]

The constitution gets its authority from The Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900. It's an act of the U.K.

It is an Act of the Australian parliament now. The UK "The Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900" could be repealed by the UK tomorrow and it would have no effect on Australian law or Australia's international legal standing.

The only people than can have an impact on the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia are the Australian voting populace via a referendum.

 

[ferball]

It is an Act of the Australian parliament now. The UK "The Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900" could be repealed by the UK tomorrow and it would have no effect on Australian law or Australia's international legal standing.

The only people than can have an impact on the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia are the Australian voting populace via a referendum.

That's not the point I am making tho is it...

 

[owen87]

Its got nothing to do with my ancestry. Or emotion.

Everyone who arrived or whose ancestors arrived here post 1788 chose to come here, or if they were brought here against their will chose to stay. Or their descendants did.

All of those people chose to be subject to the British Crown or Australian State.

One group of peoples didn't and no one surrendered on their behalf.

But they are subject to Australian law. Some might say illegitimately.

So in the process of somehow trying to bring some sort of fair go to the situation Indigenous law in some parts of the country is followed. I think you'll find any major clash with state or federal law will mean they apply and indigenous laws don't.

If you have a problem with that its your problem and can you please whinge about it to someone else.

Oddly enough you're the one who's whinging and making a song and dance about violence and war.

I'm sure your argument held some water in 1788, not sure how it applies all that much to modern day Australia or anyone born here today.

If I vote for an Australian Republic does that make me suddenly more Australian because the country is no longer connected at all to Britain? As it stands I'm as British as you are.

 

[Scotland]

It is an Act of the Australian parliament now. The UK "The Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900" could be repealed by the UK tomorrow and it would have no effect on Australian law or Australia's international legal standing.

The only people than can have an impact on the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia are the Australian voting populace via a referendum.

We haven't had a referendum pass since 1984.

Say we hold another republic referendum tomorrow, and people vote the right way and it passes. What happens next? Rubber stamp from the GG then it's done?

 

[ferball]

Oddly enough you're the one who's whinging and making a song and dance about violence and war.

I'm sure your argument held some water in 1788, not sure how it applies all that much to modern day Australia or anyone born here today.

If I vote for an Australian Republic does that make me suddenly more Australian because the country is no longer connected at all to Britain? As it stands I'm as British as you are.

I'm not whinging, I'm pointing the reasons indigenous legal practises are still legitimate and practised in Australia.

That's right, if you'd comprehend those posts you keep quoting you'd have noticed there are historical reasons for the practise of traditional indigenous law in Australia. Our entire conversation happened cos you sooked about those practises.

 

[ferball]

Anyone who is genuinely interested in why this happens might want to read this.

The Integration of Customary Law into the Australian Legal System: Calma

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, the traditional owners and custodians of the land where we are gathered today, and pay my respects to their elders.

www.humanrights.gov.au

 

[Roylion]

Say we hold another republic referendum tomorrow, and people vote the right way and it passes. What happens next? Rubber stamp from the GG then it's done?

No. Referendums are only held for the Australian people to approve any changes to the wording of the Australian Constitution. What those changes specifically are is presented to the people via a Parliamentary bill prior to the referendum and from those a Yes / No question is formulated. If the referendum passes then those changes are made to the Constitution?

 

[Capriati]

That's actually a bullshit made up number. You could never substantiate.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Where the number is 200 000 or 2 000 000 is irrelevant.

Unless you're disputing that massacres of Aboriginal people happened?

 

[Roylion]

That's not the point I am making tho is it...

You replied to the comment by tandino.

"Whatever reforms that have taken place, or will take place, from native title through to treaties/recognition/voice to parliament etc. will take place within the confines of the Commonwealth, the constitution and it's systems, not beyond it."

That comment is exactly right. The UK have nothing more to do with any of that.

 

[Taylor]

Where the number is 200 000 or 2 000 000 is irrelevant.

Unless you're disputing that massacres of Aboriginal people happened?

As with most first contact circumstances, I expect the overwhelming majority of indigenous deaths were with their families from disease.

 

[Royal Flush]

Where the number is 200 000 or 2 000 000 is irrelevant.

Unless you're disputing that massacres of Aboriginal people happened?

Take a step back. It is relevant

You replied to poster who mentioned the holocaust remembrance Day.

You threw in your 2 million, as some bullshit number, trivialising the extent of the holocaust and trying to undermine and over exaggerate two independent historical occurances, to suit your political narrative.

You continue to do so.

Are you an anti-Semitic?



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Scotland]

No. Referendums are only held for the Australian people to approve any changes to the wording of the Australian Constitution. What those changes specifically are is presented to the people via a Parliamentary bill prior to the referendum and from those a Yes / No question is formulated. If the referendum passes then those changes are made to the Constitution?

As I understand it if a referendum is passed it goes for royal assent. Which is typically ceremonial.

Does the GG/monarch have any scope to influence a referendum decision?

 

[ferball]

Yeah I know it is. So what?

His original comment has nothing to do with my point.

Well other than agreeing with the idea that the HC of Oz can't make a ruling on its own illegitimacy.

The Mabo case doesn't make Australia magically disappear, just challenges the ideas about our legal legitimacy and the unbroken link with original common law.