Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are almost impossible to talk to. You don't listen, you don't try to understand, you think that only you are bestowed with the capability to know what REALLY is going on.What inequalities are you talking about then?
That's what a disparity is....an inequality measured at some point as an outcome.
If you start bringing up disparities....You're talking about inequalities of outcomes.
You are almost impossible to talk to.
I've tried several times to explain things to you, but your resistance to listening is very strong and your capability to grasp some concepts is extremely weak. What's the point?
You can't share sovereignty. I'm curious as to how you would argue that you have the right to deny them sovereignty over their own lands?
It seems odd to me that a thread about whether atheists are Democrats has devolved into a thread on race.
It seems odd to me that a thread about whether atheists are Democrats has devolved into a thread on race.
The Native Title Act of 1993 (following on from Mabo v Queensland) clarified the situation. It declared that Australia was not Terra Nullius when the Brits arrived and that native title to any land would, and does, remain. But as the judge in the case that led to the act said:
'However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared. Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.'
So almost half of Australia is formally recognised as native land as we stand today. But as I said earlier, it's a difficult decision to decide when the 'tide of history' has resulted in a loss of land when there are competing interests. It's an ongoing discussion. And vastly too complex to use metaphorical bikes being stolen to illustrate it.
As our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says:
'As the Hon Sir Francis Gerard Brennan held in the lead judgment, "it is imperative in today 's world that the common law should neither be nor be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination."
Mabo threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius and paved the way for the Native Title Act. The Government continues to work on reconciliation and the long overdue recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution.
As former Prime Minister Paul Keating said in his Redfern Park speech, "by doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice."
We have come a long way, as a nation, since Mabo, but we are painfully aware of how much further we still need to travel before we have true reconciliation.'
The Native Title Act of 1993 (following on from Mabo v Queensland) clarified the situation. It declared that Australia was not Terra Nullius when the Brits arrived and that native title to any land would, and does, remain. But as the judge in the case that led to the act said:
'However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared. Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.'
So almost half of Australia is formally recognised as native land as we stand today. But as I said earlier, it's a difficult decision to decide when the 'tide of history' has resulted in a loss of land when there are competing interests. It's an ongoing discussion. And vastly too complex to use metaphorical bikes being stolen to illustrate it.
As our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says:
'As the Hon Sir Francis Gerard Brennan held in the lead judgment, "it is imperative in today 's world that the common law should neither be nor be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination."
Mabo threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius and paved the way for the Native Title Act. The Government continues to work on reconciliation and the long overdue recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution.
As former Prime Minister Paul Keating said in his Redfern Park speech, "by doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice."
We have come a long way, as a nation, since Mabo, but we are painfully aware of how much further we still need to travel before we have true reconciliation.'
Yeah you guys still live on stolen land.
I bet no one even remembers how it got started.
Otherwise you're willing to hand back the large parts that are mostly uninhabitable anyway.
"We were wrong....this land definitely had prior owners....but you know, we're keeping all the good parts on the coasts."
Page 4....
But you know, when you only have 1 way to address any criticism of values or beliefs....and that's by attacking the person making the criticism....you end up pretty far from the OP.
Yeah, no argument there.
Are you going to give it all back?
I can't believe you still live there.
See, yet again, the judges comments upstream. How long should anyone wait before claiming freehold? A nice topic for debate. Discuss, using other examples from New Zealand, the UK and anywhere in the Americas.
It doesn't matter. They all owned everything until you guys came along. They shouldn't have to prove anything. All the land was theirs. All they should have to do is prove their ancestry and then get whatever they want. Cause it belonged to them already.
They've lived where you consider to be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. And many areas are mineral rich. From the central Land Council (an Aboriginal organisation):
'The mining provisions in Part IV of the act give Aboriginal landowners meaningful control over their land while providing mining and energy interests with an ordered, transparent and equitable access procedure.
The act protects and advances the interests of traditional owners of the land, setting out the principles and processes that allow us to support free prior-informed decision making and, where Aboriginal people consent, to make mutually beneficial agreements with resource companies.
Traditional owners typically gain sacred site and environmental protection, financial compensation and employment and training opportunities.'
They class the Land Rights agreement as 'the most effective Aboriginal land rights legislation in Australia for Aboriginal people and resource developers alike.'
Making mining agreements - Central Land Council
But lots more work to be done. It's a work in progress.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?