High Court Citizenship case

Remove this Banner Ad

I am unaware of the push for an ethnic indigenous state; but I would give it consideration if they wanted one, and made laws like this for themselves.

There are multiple indigenous states in Australia with limited autonomy already. It's very limited but none the less it's there. A treaty would be more useful tho. The whole point of a treaty is that it will enable things like the deportation of these two if it's negotiated properly.
 
Prove it.


 

Explain how that proves it using lay mans terms.

(I've just read it and disagree with you. With basically one potential exception which is essentially adoption.)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Explain how that proves it using lay mans terms.

(I've just read it and disagree with you. With basically one potential exception which is essentially adoption.)

Now you are changing the goal posts

Please act in good faith
 
Now you are changing the goal posts

Please act in good faith

Unless I'm wrong..

That doesn't prove your point, except in one limited circumstance which relates to adoption. Given adoption is also a western legal process that gives someone without a genetic connection access to the benefits of that genetic connection and legal recognition of that access. Then technically you don't need dna however you do need acceptance as a member of a family with the same rights and responsibilities.

So technically, in very limited circumstances, the legal definition of aboriginality doesn't depend on dna, but only if the person without the genetic connection has effectively been adopted into a community (indigenous communities are also families, most indigenous people know exactly what their relationship to everyone else in their mob.)

Other wise descent is a fundamental part of it.

If Im wrong can you explain why in laymans terms?

(And how is that shifting the goal posts?)
 
Unless I'm wrong..

That doesn't prove your point, except in one limited circumstance which relates to adoption. Given adoption is also a western legal process that gives someone without a genetic connection access to the benefits of that genetic connection and legal recognition of that access. Then technically you don't need dna however you do need acceptance as a member of a family with the same rights and responsibilities.

So technically, in very limited circumstances, the legal definition of aboriginality doesn't depend on dna, but only if the person without the genetic connection has effectively been adopted into a community (indigenous communities are also families, most indigenous people know exactly what their relationship to everyone else in their mob.)

Other wise descent is a fundamental part of it.

If Im wrong can you explain why in laymans terms?

(And how is that shifting the goal posts?)

Please re read your initial post and then re read the government link presented
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dustys dad is a great example of the joke aboriginality has become. Moves here at 20 in 89, gets deported in Apr 16, suddenly becomes aboriginal during his appeals....
He still has to prove his aboriginality doesn't he?
I'm not sure how he does that if he moved here at age 20 - he wouldn't have been accepted by a mob under the authority of a recognised elder which has the been the rough working definition for some time.

It would be incumbent on Dusty's dad to fulfil his claims rather than a 'balance of probability' proposition.
 
I can't say I'm a massive fan of this decision, but the growing number of those on the lunatic right using it to push for a full-blown US-style politicisation of High Court appointments is bizarre.

I don't necessarily support that, but the judiciary has shifted too far in favour of criminals' rights for my liking and I believe reform is needed.
 
He still has to prove his aboriginality doesn't he?
I'm not sure how he does that if he moved here at age 20 - he wouldn't have been accepted by a mob under the authority of a recognised elder which has the been the rough working definition for some time.

It would be incumbent on Dusty's dad to fulfil his claims rather than a 'balance of probability' proposition.

He has the certification signed by Aboriginal elders in Tasmania and has had it since 2016. It states he is recognised as a member of the Manegin Aboriginal community. He previously had different certification from South Australia but it was (apparently) withdrawn by the Aboriginal body under pressure from Dutton's department.

The Tasmanian mob was deregistered in 2018 so it's a question of whether the certification is still legally valid. The potential for "shopping around" to gain this certification has been touched on but nobody is game to really call it out.

The situation was resolved but the recent High Court decision has left the door ajar.
 
He still has to prove his aboriginality doesn't he?
I'm not sure how he does that if he moved here at age 20 - he wouldn't have been accepted by a mob under the authority of a recognised elder which has the been the rough working definition for some time.

It would be incumbent on Dusty's dad to fulfil his claims rather than a 'balance of probability' proposition.

find a sympathetic aboriginal community, or pay a would be sympathetic aboriginal community, and suddenly anyone can be aboriginal
 
find a sympathetic aboriginal community, or pay a would be sympathetic aboriginal community, and suddenly anyone can be aboriginal
Any evidence of that? The mobs I've known wouldn't even consider anything like that.
 
There are multiple indigenous states in Australia with limited autonomy already. It's very limited but none the less it's there. A treaty would be more useful tho. The whole point of a treaty is that it will enable things like the deportation of these two if it's negotiated properly.
One of the judgements clearly outlined how it can be done, apparently the govt might introduce the required legislation. No need for a treaty for that.
 
He still has to prove his aboriginality doesn't he?
I'm not sure how he does that if he moved here at age 20 - he wouldn't have been accepted by a mob under the authority of a recognised elder which has the been the rough working definition for some time.

It would be incumbent on Dusty's dad to fulfil his claims rather than a 'balance of probability' proposition.
He was accepted in 2016 (after deportation) by a Tasmanian aborignal council rep (who if the photos and media stories are correct has a very distant aborignal heritage himself and has a very interesting past).

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Any evidence of that? The mobs I've known wouldn't even consider anything like that.

Been hinted at.
One of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's top indigenous advisors, Warren Mundine, thinks they are too easy to get and a higher standard of evidence is needed.

'You just need to get an Aboriginal community to sign off the confirmation of Aboriginality and Bob's your uncle, off you can go,' he said.

https://es-es.facebook.com/UMCQld/p...ate-of-aboriginality-shanes/1557511564276676/
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre chief executive Heather Sculthorpe said his claims were “astonishing”.

She said she was aware of Tasmanian groups issuing certificates of Aboriginality for money.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/v...t/news-story/7fa0b6297ebc3776db04d548766ce1a3
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top