Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Is there an Atheist preference for the Democratic party going on here?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bradskii" data-source="post: 76855394" data-attributes="member: 412388"><p>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:</p><p></p><p>'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.'</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>As our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says:</p><p></p><p>'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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.'</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bradskii, post: 76855394, member: 412388"] 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.' [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Is there an Atheist preference for the Democratic party going on here?
Top
Bottom