freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2023 at 11:55am:



yes, "Australians should be one, together. Not two, divided".

....especially,  no group in Oz should be forced into morale-destroying, destructive welfare dependency, while everyone else can find employment.

https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/

The Case for a Job Guarantee

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 9^th, 2023 at 2:04pm:


Nice pic; is it you, graps?

But just to remind you, Price has said "the nation must close the gap".... therefore welfare dependency is not a "separate issue".

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2023 at 11:55am:


A Country Liberal Party Senator.  She, and her (dubious) Petition can get fuqqed.

No surprise you are flogging her band wagon Effendi.  If you get Mt Warning back to risk your neck on, will you stop sulking and tell us what sound a jellyfish makes??

And if you want to pull out 'Uncle Toms' I'll raise you with an Ash Barty, a Cathy Freeman, a Buddy Franklin, a Patty Mills, a Jonathan Thurston and an Adam Goodes, just for useless, pathetic celebrity starters at least as 'worthy' as your wanker, Jacinta.

If I wanted to get a little further up the credibility ladder from the lowest rung, I might even throw in a Noel Pearson, but...I'm not much of a fan of his.

Not too keen on any of the Abo pro or con lot except one, a bloke.......Ken Wyatt.  I do take him seriously.

Aussie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:


Or, you could develop some principles Aussie.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 9^th, 2023 at 1:47pm:

"end of a gun", you say?  Surely that is the last resort... but if the ballot box will not yield the proper result that will unite the country instead of plunging it into endless conflict, some may see that as the only solution.  Get into it and get it over fast.

The counter-revolution would be better served staying low and simply doing to the Indigenous Occupied Zones what they have been doing for the past few years... burning, smashing cars in car parks, stealing from them, making absurd claims about them and about ownership (nobody owns crown land without our approval - government holds it in trust for all equally, and if they want to change that, they need to ask us first via a referendum - all land handovers should be via referendum) ..

Indeed there will be changes stemming from this silliness ...... and most of them will not be in favour of those promoting it as they seem to imagine... more likely it will be changes brought about by increased awareness of the majority and demands from that majority for REAL changes that suit all and not just a small lot here and there.

Judgment:

In Coe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 4 (Coe (No. 2)), Isabel Coe on behalf of the Wiradjuri Tribe asserted that the Wiradjuri people were a sovereign nation in the external sense, meaning that they were a sovereign nation independent of the British colonisers.

In the alternative, they claimed to enjoy a subsidiary or internal form of sovereignty as a 'domestic dependent nation, entitled to self-government and full rights over their traditional lands, save only the right to alienate them to whoever they please' [8].

Mason CJ, whilst noting the importance of Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] [1992] HCA 23 (Mabo (No. 2)) held that the findings in that case were 'entirely at odds with the notion that sovereignty adverse to the Crown resides in the Aboriginal people of Australia' [27]. His Honour held that the decision was 'equally at odds' with the notion that a limited kind of sovereignty resides in the Aboriginal people [27].

The decision is important as it shows the limitations of Mabo (No. 2), whilst also dispelling the notion that Aboriginal sovereignty could exist alongside Crown sovereignty. The issue raised in Coe (No. 2) is also important due to the context of the time in which it was decided. It followed the decisions in Coe v Commonwealth [1979] HCA 68 (Coe (No. 1)) and Mabo (No. 2).

...

Details of the judgment

Relying on the decisions in Coe (No. 1) and Mabo (No. 2), Mason CJ held that the sovereignty claimed by the plaintiffs did not exist. His Honour also held that there was no legal consequence for the acts that referred to as genocide.

The sovereignty claim

Mason CJ held that Mabo (No. 2) is at odds with the notion that sovereignty adverse to the Crown is held by the Aboriginal people of Australia. Instead, he held that Mabo (No. 2) found that land in the Murray Islands was held by means of native title under the paramount sovereignty of the Crown. This principle applies to the entirety of the Australian mainland, including the territory claimed by Coe on behalf of the Wiradjuri Tribe.

The genocide claim

The Wiradjuri Tribe relied on international law and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Convention) to argue that the forced settlement of Australia constituted genocide.

With respect to the Convention, Mason CJ held that international conventions do not give rise to rights under Australian law in the absence of legislation giving effect to the convention. In any case, he stated that the Convention post-dates most of the acts complained of.

His Honour also held that there was no reason why the acts that referred to should generate an entitlement to damages or compensation against either the Commonwealth or NSW. Both of those parties, in their form at the time of the case, had not been party to many of the alleged acts, which occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Dismissing the claim

The plaintiffs sought to derive further support from the minority judgments of Murphy and Jacobs JJ in Coe (No. 1) However, Mason CJ preferred the reasoning of Gibbs J, who had dismissed the appeal.

Gibbs J had considered:
a)��� that it was settled law that the Australian colonies were acquired by Great Britain by settlement and not by conquest; and
b)��� that the amended statement of claim did not plead sufficiently or appropriately a claim that the Aboriginal people had subsisting rights and interests in land which were recognised by the common law.

As a result, Mason CJ held that Coe (No. 1) provided no support to a surviving Aboriginal claim to sovereignty and dismissed the claim.

Implications

The concept of sovereignty as it has developed in the common law, through cases such as Coe (No. 1) and Mabo (No. 2), is of importance for several reasons. Aside from being a central part of the debate about Australia's history and future, it also has implications for how a treaty process can be negotiated between Australia and its Indigenous people.

Academic literature notes that the dismissal of sovereignty in cases such as Coe (No. 2) is unlikely to pose a roadblock to moving forward with 'innovative new settlements' (Brennan et al., 2004). However, it does suggest that the matter of acquisition of sovereignty is one for international law, whereas the consequences of that acquisition of sovereignty is a matter for the domestic legal and political sphere (Brennan, et al., citing Mabo (No. 2)).
https://database.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=8719#:~:text=In%20Coe%20v%20
Commonwealth%20%5B1993,independent%20of%20the%20British%20colonisers.