Australia - you're standing in it
southernraw wrote:views from the cockpit wrote:Agree VJ and good post udo.
One of these two people in the media right now is a very well educated, intelligent, considered, sensitive and humorous individual.
The other one is a dullard, a bogun blinkered bore. To tie your mast to the Thorpe train is to tarnish oneself imo.Disagree. I think sometimes it takes a radical outburst, or ten, ruffle the feathers, keep the establishment uncomfortable, to get the spotlight shining and to help effect change. Granted, it doesn't shine a great light on Lyds, nor those who support it, i support it. But i don't think it's about shining a good light on her in the view of the Australian public. I don't think she cares and i think she'd have alot of supporters that aren't Nova Perris.
Just my opinion, and yeah, great post and points above VJ. I reckon Charlie would be keen to see change anyway. He doesn't strike me as the kinda fella that would feel comfortable with the way things are here.
Yep it will be fascinating to see how sovereignty is returned to the Aboriginal people. So much extra has been added onto the land in the form of roads, titles, dwellings, whole cities - I wonder if there will be a dual system of sovereignty, a bit like incorporating Native Title within the Crown's system of land and title. Ie two end up existing at once. A path will have to be found between the two.
And - if we are going to get deep - the whole system of title to land itself, is deeply flawed because it rests upon a great theft and huge lie and dispossession. I am of course talking about the Enclosure Acts, which nicked the common land of the peoples of the British Isles (and Ireland too? - plantations had been doing this for ages beforehand). What resulted was hundreds of thousands of dispossessed, hungry people, some of which resorted to poaching game on the Lord's new sheep farms. So many were imprisoned there needed to be an outlet - which was transportation.
This is a great wrong that the system has not corrected, 300 years later. It is also the system that gives many of us personal wealth today, when we go pledge a title as security for a new loan, etc... So again, a dual solution might be the only way.
*Final point - there are two systems of law that I know of, common and statutory existing simultaneously within the system, again a fascinating development of history ("Policeman, I identify as a Man and your statutory laws will not apply in our interaction," - lol). One thing in all the Brexit hoo-ha was that EU law (around for a grand total of up to 70 years) was beginning to override the UK courts in places and for worse or better, this will be unwound and Westminster law will continue back there.
Extra final point - at Federation the Australian constitution was framed by a similarly talented group of people to the US one, it's continued on it's own way from the Westminster system and is evolving as we go.
Good insight there VJ thanks.
To be clear, and this is all in the other thread, but sovereignty of land isn't something i've ever thought of as the ultimate solution.
Sovereignty of culture within that land, and a fair and just amount of autonomy within that land. That's more where i see healing and growing together taking place and that's where i see all of us from both sides can work towards.
Less of a taking away one from the other and more of a giving of one to the other and vice versa, if that makes sense.
The ins and outs, legalities, i can't say how that works but that's what seems fair to me.
The Voice was going to be the very first stone in the foundation of that, but it got rejected, and now you have Thorpy throwing bombs in parliament because, i'd imagine she seemingly feels this is alls that's left to do, as do the people she represents.
I said during the voice, if No got up, expect a pretty negative and maybe violent backlash and i'd say this is the start of it.
You really couldn't expect anything less nor blame them in my opinion.
southernraw wrote:The Voice was going to be the very first stone in the foundation of that, but it got rejected, and now you have Thorpy throwing bombs in parliament because, i'd imagine she seemingly feels this is alls that's left to do, as do the people she represents.
I said during the voice, if No got up, expect a pretty negative and maybe violent backlash and i'd say this is the start of it.
You really couldn't expect anything less nor blame them in my opinion.
Thorpey voted No in the referendum.
If Lydia's actions are viewed as violent ( aggressive ) and a reaction to a NO vote , the average Australian won't be happy .
The Foundation Stone of sorting out the Many Issues , is 2 listen and understand the Magnitude of What Needs 2 B done imho .
The Big Solution 2 The Big Problem , IS out there .
We need a Big Plan 2 sort out Hundreds of Years of festering problems .
I Vote Yes , to set Up a Group , 2 make a Plan .
Will a Royal Commission help ?
ahh true, she was in the it doesn't go far enough camp yeah Stu?
southernraw wrote:ahh true, she was in the it doesn't go far enough camp yeah Stu?
Not sure. TBH I don't pay that much attention to her.
From Wiki:
"In August 2022, when still Greens Indigenous affairs spokesperson, Thorpe called for Treaty before Voice.[127] Defecting from the Greens in February 2023, she said that she wished to lead the "Blak sovereignty" movement and campaign for such a treaty[128][129][130][131] before implementation of the Voice, which would be "powerless".[132][133][b] In May 2023, she ruled out supporting the No campaign and said she would consider abstaining.[135] On 20 June Thorpe joined the official No campaign,[136] after she had voted No to the referendum bill in the Senate on 19 June.[137][138] On 20 July, Thorpe released her own pamphlet advocating against the Voice, criticising both the official Yes and No pamphlets, and claiming that she had been unfairly excluded from contributing to the official No case, which she condemned as racist.[139]"
Make of that what you will.
velocityjohnno wrote:southernraw wrote:views from the cockpit wrote:Agree VJ and good post udo.
One of these two people in the media right now is a very well educated, intelligent, considered, sensitive and humorous individual.
The other one is a dullard, a bogun blinkered bore. To tie your mast to the Thorpe train is to tarnish oneself imo.Disagree. I think sometimes it takes a radical outburst, or ten, ruffle the feathers, keep the establishment uncomfortable, to get the spotlight shining and to help effect change. Granted, it doesn't shine a great light on Lyds, nor those who support it, i support it. But i don't think it's about shining a good light on her in the view of the Australian public. I don't think she cares and i think she'd have alot of supporters that aren't Nova Perris.
Just my opinion, and yeah, great post and points above VJ. I reckon Charlie would be keen to see change anyway. He doesn't strike me as the kinda fella that would feel comfortable with the way things are here.Yep it will be fascinating to see how sovereignty is returned to the Aboriginal people. So much extra has been added onto the land in the form of roads, titles, dwellings, whole cities - I wonder if there will be a dual system of sovereignty, a bit like incorporating Native Title within the Crown's system of land and title. Ie two end up existing at once. A path will have to be found between the two.
And - if we are going to get deep - the whole system of title to land itself, is deeply flawed because it rests upon a great theft and huge lie and dispossession. I am of course talking about the Enclosure Acts, which nicked the common land of the peoples of the British Isles (and Ireland too? - plantations had been doing this for ages beforehand). What resulted was hundreds of thousands of dispossessed, hungry people, some of which resorted to poaching game on the Lord's new sheep farms. So many were imprisoned there needed to be an outlet - which was transportation.
This is a great wrong that the system has not corrected, 300 years later. It is also the system that gives many of us personal wealth today, when we go pledge a title as security for a new loan, etc... So again, a dual solution might be the only way.
*Final point - there are two systems of law that I know of, common and statutory existing simultaneously within the system, again a fascinating development of history ("Policeman, I identify as a Man and your statutory laws will not apply in our interaction," - lol). One thing in all the Brexit hoo-ha was that EU law (around for a grand total of up to 70 years) was beginning to override the UK courts in places and for worse or better, this will be unwound and Westminster law will continue back there.
Extra final point - at Federation the Australian constitution was framed by a similarly talented group of people to the US one, it's continued on it's own way from the Westminster system and is evolving as we go.
Most want existing structures dismantled but have nothing to replace them with. My warning is; you can drive for change but your proposed solution needs to bring more value to broader population. And make sure you can demonstrate that. Brexit was a disaster, you lost EU governance and markets and replaced it with what? With nothing really, UK has detoriated and gone backwards. This is why the voice failed. Never in my life have I seen such terrible and ambigious proposal. Life in Australia is good and no one is keen to jeopardise it unless the offer is really good. Personally, I love the idea of the republic but I'm very keen for Aus to stay as monarchy to keep the status quo. I might change my mind if someone comes with a clear cut, very implementable republic design. But until then, life is too short to take such risks and I, like most people, like for things to stay as stable as possible.
Thanks Stu.
Ultimately its a moot point. 3.8% of the population is indigenous, perhaps 2/3 of voting age, and say half of them voted ni for abovementioned reasons. Its not my place to say if it was right or wring of them to vote ni, but ultimately thats probabably less than 1% of a 60% no vote.
Pretty sure majority of non indigenous didn't vote no because they favoured the black sovereignty movement.
southernraw wrote:Fijian government overthrown by military. Not a republic.
Isn't their head of state their President?? Ours is some pompous grey haired geezer. If we tried to overthrow him it would be called a war of independence and not a coup d'état.
Not sure if Brexit has anything 2 do with how Far the UK has fallen Flollo .
I wouldn't like Australia , 2 be Governed by an EU , no way .
The UK Westminster System has gone Gaga in the UK and has Changed .
The US has gone backwards 2 and seems to be Dragging us ALL down imho .
I am with U on US becoming a Republic and having an Australian Head of State .
As soon as someone works out how we can choose , a good 1 .
Someone who will protect Free Speech in Australia !
Lidia's position on the Voice is consistent with the argument she and others have that Cook's proclamation was and is insufficient at law to constitute an act of claiming sovereign possession or the transfer of sovereign possession, it's consistent with the High Court's finding in Mabo that terra nullius was a legal fiction, and consistent with the position that sovereignty therefore still resides with FNP.
Customary International Law at the time of Cook's proclamation had the mechanism of treaty and ceding of sovereign possession. A mechanism used elsewhere by English monarchs.
The argument runs that it should have happened here, and Cook's acts were not sufficient.
And what flows from that logically is that every act of sovereign possession based on that since is therefore invalid. Including establishing a Voice, which is why Lidia said no.
It's an argument with merit.
There is a counter argument too.
What you do about the hot mess created by the (disputed) fact the whole thing is found to be not legit is another story.
some appropriate replies when the bank asks you why you are withdrawing your cash...
good on lidia for doing lidia...
but geez, she just comes across as a dumb bogan
and a bit of an attention slut
being in that room, with ol' kingo, was a golden opportunity to do something smart...
but nah, she just did hysterical and shouty shouty
he supporters should feel ripped off... her constituents should feel ripped off, given the salary and benefits she reaps...
when you have the likes of marcia langton and linda burney saying she just pushed more people away than achieving any net benefits... ya gotta go... yep...
good on her, someone has to be the biggest dickhead in the room...
but what is her real goal?
she's spot on with her legal argument and some other stuff, but then other times she just drifts into pure fiction
just seems to her the attention is more important than anything...
re. blak sovereign movement... good on em... they made their point... and to cede to what was offered, gives up on decades of dedication...
and, my suspicion is they all voted yes once in the booth anyway...
why wouldn't they?
nothing to lose once you're in the privacy of the booth
get to make their point, save some face, and fuck it, vote yes anyway...
You know who Lidia reminds me of?
You remember that serial pest "peter hore" in the late 90s early 00's.
Both just do crazy stunts to gain attention.
Okay Peter was more loopy but Lidia isn't all their either.
&t=21s Curious to know why a female pollie who has a polarising way of expressing herself gets referred to as a “slut” and especially by someone who routinely holds people to his perceived standards and likes to call out all out others for real and confected misdemeanors!!
My my @sippy your misogyny is showing …. shameful
@sypkan true, it was brash and in your face and bogan like, but the question is, what is it she could have done any different that would have drawn the same attention? She couldn't have approached him. No way. If she'd talked calmly she'd be talked over and quietly escorted away. A sign. A banner? no way. Really the only choice she had and i think reflective of not having a voice in general in Australian society in regards to these matters.
@Adam12, thanks for the headsup on the legalities and hence her no vote. I didn't know that.
@lowinfo. Pot, kettle, black. You're in no position to make judgements on nutjobs.
GuySmiley wrote:Curious to know why a female pollie who has a polarising way of expressing herself gets referred to as a “slut” and especially by someone who routinely holds people to his perceived standards and likes to call out all out others for real and confected misdemeanors!!
My my @sippy your misogyny is showing …. shameful
very good points GS. I was going to say something yesterday about him being a woman hater after reading his Kamala rants but let it go, but this is getting a bit much. Showing your true dislike for women here syp. But don't worry,...it's a safe space...right?
@GS & @SR, I think you are focussing too heavily on the one word rather than the two in the sentance ie "attention s*^t", as in attention seeker. I actually don't believe Sypkan is referring to her as a "s*^t". That's how I read it anyway.
Yeah i dunno @fitzroy. I reckon Syps smart enough to know that 'slut' is dangerous territory to label any woman, no matter its context. I'd say theres an underlying intention to his words. Words have power yeah. Probably not a great idea to be using that kinda language about females in any context.
GuySmiley wrote:Curious to know why a female pollie who has a polarising way of expressing herself gets referred to as a “slut” and especially by someone who routinely holds people to his perceived standards and likes to call out all out others for real and confected misdemeanors!!
My my @sippy your misogyny is showing …. shameful
Yes I’m sure a lot of the Trump no matter what. mentality , in another thread
Is due to some misogynistic tendencies.
I get why Sypkan's comment has triggered some.
But to be fair it's a slang term that isn't really sex/gender related it can be used for both sexes or for any of the 72 genders.
"attention slut
An attention slut runs from person to person in attempt to satisfy a deep need for attention that they can never fulfill.
It doesn't really matter who they get attention from, just as long as they get lots of it.
They don't normally enjoy attention from one single person for very long and skillfully seek attention from as many people as they possibly can in any given day. Often brags about how many people they got attention from and purposely sets goals to establish new records that are realistically unattainable.
This helps the attention slut reinforce how shitty they feel about themselves.
Wow, for someone who has so much attention, Carla is really hard on herself. I think she might be an attention slut."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attention%20slut
Attention whore is the more commonly used term though.
nothing you write is worth reading or even considering @lowinfo.
next...
southernraw wrote:nothing you write is worth reading or even considering @lowinfo.
next...
Yet here you are reading my comments and always mentioning my name, funny that.
southernraw wrote:Yeah i dunno @fitzroy. I reckon Syps smart enough to know that 'slut' is dangerous territory to label any woman, no matter its context. I'd say theres an underlying intention to his words. Words have power yeah. Probably not a great idea to be using that kinda language about females in any context.
Oh well, apparently and obviously smart enough to know a single word would trigger the pair of you.
fitzroy-21 wrote:southernraw wrote:Yeah i dunno @fitzroy. I reckon Syps smart enough to know that 'slut' is dangerous territory to label any woman, no matter its context. I'd say theres an underlying intention to his words. Words have power yeah. Probably not a great idea to be using that kinda language about females in any context.
Oh well, apparently and obviously smart enough to know a single word would trigger the pair of you.
ha. Apparently! And whatever indo said that i didn't read ;-)
FS, Im not triggered in the slightest, I just think it’s very poor on @sippy’s part, as I said he is here day and night pulling others up on how they express themselves especially from his hyper vigilant position on his “woke left”
Let’s talk about this senator and examine how offensive what she has said
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/senior-liberals-jane-hume-sus...
I saw Southern raw posted again, im not reading his post or talking to him, so someone tell him, im not talking to him or reading his post, and if he says bad things about me, tell him i will met him behind the bike sheds after the bell at home time.
fitzroy-21 wrote:@GS & @SR, I think you are focussing too heavily on the one word rather than the two in the sentance ie "attention s*^t", as in attention seeker. I actually don't believe Sypkan is referring to her as a "s*^t". That's how I read it anyway.
I read it the same as you fitz . She managed to get a headline but her approach wasn’t well thought out . Turns more people off , including fellow aboriginals . An attention seeker doesn’t care where the attention comes from hence the behaviour.
@lowinfo if i wanted to talk to monkeys i'd go to the zoo.
Skimread the first line is the best i can give ya sorry.
The rest is just zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
sypkan wrote:some appropriate replies when the bank asks you why you are withdrawing your cash...
I had to get $15k out of my bank earlier this year, the money was being used to buy my wife a car, and it was like I was getting a full on interrogation.
They had to call some guy who was higher up in the bank to decide whether I was legit or not and if I could get MY OWN money out!
Apparently there are only 4 of those people in the country who can authorise it so I stood there at the teller for about 15 minutes while the bank employee was on hold… The employee has worked at the same bank since I started my apprenticeship so he was telling the higher up knob head that he knows me, trusts me, I’m not being coerced into saying this…. Etc etc. Had to pretty much vouch for me.
I’ve banked with CBA since primary school and it seriously made me want to go elsewhere. Lucky for them I couldn’t be fucked!
fitzroy-21 wrote:@GS & @SR, I think you are focussing too heavily on the one word rather than the two in the sentance ie "attention s*^t", as in attention seeker. I actually don't believe Sypkan is referring to her as a "s*^t". That's how I read it anyway.
fitzroy-21 wrote:@GS & @SR, I think you are focussing too heavily on the one word rather than the two in the sentance ie "attention s*^t", as in attention seeker. I actually don't believe Sypkan is referring to her as a "s*^t". That's how I read it anyway.
well I'm glad some are smart enough to see it in context
I was gonna throw a disclaimer in there, but I thought it pretty self explanatory
maybe I should have said 'media attention slut' ... either way it's gender neutral...
I would never call her slut in isolation
and some women - nice women - I wouldn't even call attention seeking slut...
but lidia's always using the most crass miserable nasty ip obsessed language when referring to 'old white men' and the like...
so fuck her... you reap what you sow...
goofyfoot wrote:sypkan wrote:some appropriate replies when the bank asks you why you are withdrawing your cash...
I had to get $15k out of my bank earlier this year, the money was being used to buy my wife a car, and it was like I was getting a full on interrogation.
They had to call some guy who was higher up in the bank to decide whether I was legit or not and if I could get MY OWN money out!
Apparently there are only 4 of those people in the country who can authorise it so I stood there at the teller for about 15 minutes while the bank employee was on hold… The employee has worked at the same bank since I started my apprenticeship so he was telling the higher up knob head that he knows me, trusts me, I’m not being coerced into saying this…. Etc etc. Had to pretty much vouch for me.
I’ve banked with CBA since primary school and it seriously made me want to go elsewhere. Lucky for them I couldn’t be fucked!
How fucking ridiculous. Like all the fraudsters are coming in to the branches and proving who they are upon request.
NAB aren’t like that although you’d be lucky if they had $15k on hand. Gotta order it in a day early.
as to her stunt, she just looked like an ill prepared uni student on presentation day...
not even ill prepared... just waltzed in, armed only with her own self importance, ranting and raving...
she could have worn a smart slogan t shirt or something - AOC and melania trump style - to get her point across... she could have rolled out a banner... or even just had some good lines prepared... maybe a DK's adjustable S shirt type thing...
her 'material' just seemed lacking
I don't know her background, or if she's studied any thing beyond her own self importance... but she just rambles and raves... deliberately inflammatory...
a bit like you know who...
I know she's smart, and not nearly as bogan as she presents herself
not nearly as unhinged clueless activist as she presents herself
the best thing I've seen her do was her appearance on annabelle crabbe's 'kitchen cabinet' - she's actually pretty switched on, politically savvy, and even reasonable... talking about cooperation and mutual respect with libs etc...
so I know she can be better than she presents herself
which is why I have no time for her attention seeking games and deliberately divisive and inflammatory language
if ya getting $300k or whatever it is to represent in the senate... It's time to put the 19 y.o. unhinged uni activist routine to rest...
southernraw wrote:@lowinfo if i wanted to talk to monkeys i'd go to the zoo.
Skimread the first line is the best i can give ya sorry.
The rest is just zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Hi Southernraw, thank you for reading my post and giving me a reply, i really enjoy your attention, and interested in learning about how to talk to monkeys at the zoo.
sypkan wrote:I know she's smart, and not nearly as bogan as she presents herself
not nearly as unhinged clueless activist as she presents herself
I beg to differ, i think the bogan unhinged clueless activist is the real Lidia
The other Lidia is just an act she was forced to play, i bet she felt like the shackles were taken off when she left the Greens.
Did Indo just get called a monkey??????? Ok for some I guess.... Not that i give a fuck... just saying
oxrox...ahh i knew someone would jump on that and try that card.
Well done. You're that one.
indo-dreaming wrote:southernraw wrote:@lowinfo if i wanted to talk to monkeys i'd go to the zoo.
Skimread the first line is the best i can give ya sorry.
The rest is just zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.Hi Southernraw, thank you for reading my post and giving me a reply, i really enjoy your attention, and interested in learning about how to talk to monkeys at the zoo.
2 lines is actually nearly bearable Indo.
I like!
southernraw wrote:oxrox...ahh i knew someone would jump on that and try that card.
Well done. You're that one.
Aren't I the lucky one. The jumper gets jumped.
oxrox wrote:southernraw wrote:oxrox...ahh i knew someone would jump on that and try that card.
Well done. You're that one.Aren't I the lucky one. The jumper gets jumped.
hahaha!
On Lidia, and I don't want to appear like I keep jumping to her defence here, whatever her methodology, her performative nature, or whether she is any kind of "slut" or "bogan" or "activist" the fact remains that King Charles' hereditary claim to sovereignty over the continent of Australia remains deeply flawed at law.
She is actually speaking a truth to power, an important truth not just about our past but our future.
Charles' claim rests on the flag raising and unilateral proclamation of sovereign ownership in the name of his ancestor King George at the ceremony conducted by Cook at Kurnell in 1770.
The legality of that ceremony rests on the legal concept of terra nullius, "nobody's land". In other words you can legally claim sovereignty by proclamation if it is nobody's land.
In fact and in law and so held by the High Court in Mabo, it was somebody's land, the FNP nations.
So you can't or legally it shouldn't be valid to just show up and proclaim you are the sovereign power unilaterally. You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it. as Hobson did on behalf of his King, with the rangatira Maori in NZ in 1840.
The issue of sovereign possession and authority by the British Crown is not live in NZ because of this.
The issue is still very live here, and unless and until is is resolved FNP like Lidia Thorpe and others will continue to raise it, and correctly so.
Whether you agree with how they raise it is up to personal interpretation.
And in spite of the abhorrence felt by many at the idea and the complexity of how it would work, the concept of a treaty that retrospectively cleans up this anomaly is actually a practical solution. A solution to this and other matters.
Never gonna happen with the current leadership or the alternative we have at present, or the public mood evidenced by the Voice vote. But the chant "always was always will be" holds a solid ring of truth unless and until this issue is resolved.
There is a dark shadow over the legal legitimacy of how power is derived and exercised in this country that has existed since 1770. It needs to be dealt with.
Brilliant post and brilliantly articulated @adam12.
Thankyou.
adam12 wrote:On Lidia, and I don't want to appear like I keep jumping to her defence here, whatever her methodology, her performative nature, or whether she is any kind of "slut" or "bogan" or "activist" the fact remains that King Charles' hereditary claim to sovereignty over the continent of Australia remains deeply flawed at law.
She is actually speaking a truth to power, an important truth not just about our past but our future.
Charles' claim rests on the flag raising and unilateral proclamation of sovereign ownership in the name of his ancestor King George at the ceremony conducted by Cook at Kurnell in 1770.
The legality of that ceremony rests on the legal concept of terra nullius, "nobody's land". In other words you can legally claim sovereignty by proclamation if it is nobody's land.
In fact and in law and so held by the High Court in Mabo, it was somebody's land, the FNP nations.
So you can't or legally it shouldn't be valid to just show up and proclaim you are the sovereign power unilaterally. You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it. as Hobson did on behalf of his King, with the rangatira Maori in NZ in 1840.
The issue of sovereign possession and authority by the British Crown is not live in NZ because of this.
The issue is still very live here, and unless and until is is resolved FNP like Lidia Thorpe and others will continue to raise it, and correctly so.
Whether you agree with how they raise it is up to personal interpretation.
And in spite of the abhorrence felt by many at the idea and the complexity of how it would work, the concept of a treaty that retrospectively cleans up this anomaly is actually a practical solution. A solution to this and other matters.
Never gonna happen with the current leadership or the alternative we have at present, or the public mood evidenced by the Voice vote. But the chant "always was always will be" holds a solid ring of truth unless and until this issue is resolved.
There is a dark shadow over the legal legitimacy of how power is derived and exercised in this country that has existed since 1770. It needs to be dealt with.
Adam12. A very fine, accurate and simple but succinct explanation . You’ve made it sound very basic and easy to interpret.
Why the heck don’t we as a nation, just resolve this whole matter and lay beside our wonderful FNP people and ease their pain and turn it into pleasure.
From where I’m standing, a Treaty or resolution would surely go a long way to bringing some kind of peace to our country.
I’ve a fair idea why a Treaty won’t be resolved and if it’s what I’m thinking it is, well, how shallow are people, here and in England.
Because, as it stands, it’s not peaceful, far from it . Good stuff mate. I love reading information from people who know their shit. AW
I will defend Lydia .
Her constituency would have been disappointed if she acted differently .
Her Style has worked for her , why change ?
I have no idea how some Senators get in , but like Hansen , Thorpey will be around 4 a while .
I agree with AW , a Treaty is a Foundation Stone for a Resolution .
What's so hard about Giving the Land back to the Original Cultural owners and then , they Gift back 99.9% of Australian homes and starting a new title .
Crown Land can become Australian Land .
Then we start the Hard work , the Detail of a final Resolution , that enables us ALL to be proud of our Nation .
A Native Title Future Fund , $100b , is established and is a Gift to our FNP , 4 all the hurt they have endured since Cook first set foot on our great company ,
AlfredWallace wrote:adam12 wrote:On Lidia, and I don't want to appear like I keep jumping to her defence here, whatever her methodology, her performative nature, or whether she is any kind of "slut" or "bogan" or "activist" the fact remains that King Charles' hereditary claim to sovereignty over the continent of Australia remains deeply flawed at law.
She is actually speaking a truth to power, an important truth not just about our past but our future.
Charles' claim rests on the flag raising and unilateral proclamation of sovereign ownership in the name of his ancestor King George at the ceremony conducted by Cook at Kurnell in 1770.
The legality of that ceremony rests on the legal concept of terra nullius, "nobody's land". In other words you can legally claim sovereignty by proclamation if it is nobody's land.
In fact and in law and so held by the High Court in Mabo, it was somebody's land, the FNP nations.
So you can't or legally it shouldn't be valid to just show up and proclaim you are the sovereign power unilaterally. You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it. as Hobson did on behalf of his King, with the rangatira Maori in NZ in 1840.
The issue of sovereign possession and authority by the British Crown is not live in NZ because of this.
The issue is still very live here, and unless and until is is resolved FNP like Lidia Thorpe and others will continue to raise it, and correctly so.
Whether you agree with how they raise it is up to personal interpretation.
And in spite of the abhorrence felt by many at the idea and the complexity of how it would work, the concept of a treaty that retrospectively cleans up this anomaly is actually a practical solution. A solution to this and other matters.
Never gonna happen with the current leadership or the alternative we have at present, or the public mood evidenced by the Voice vote. But the chant "always was always will be" holds a solid ring of truth unless and until this issue is resolved.
There is a dark shadow over the legal legitimacy of how power is derived and exercised in this country that has existed since 1770. It needs to be dealt with.Adam12. A very fine, accurate and simple but succinct explanation . You’ve made it sound very basic and easy to interpret.
Why the heck don’t we as a nation, just resolve this whole matter and lay beside our wonderful FNP people and ease their pain and turn it into pleasure.
From where I’m standing, a Treaty or resolution would surely go a long way to bringing some kind of peace to our country.I’ve a fair idea why a Treaty won’t be resolved and if it’s what I’m thinking it is, well, how shallow are people, here and in England.
Because, as it stands, it’s not peaceful, far from it . Good stuff mate. I love reading information from people who know their shit. AW
Adam12,
Another exceptionally articulated post, putting forward the cold hard facts.
If anything, Thorpe has given the subject international attention and must be commended for that.
The USA has treaties with its indigenous people, as does New Zealand who also have had indigenous representation in parliament since 1867. Neither country has imploded.
Even the most optimistic would have to admit, such a treaty here is a long way off.
On Sky News recently, Gina Rinehart, was telling Panahi, Morrison and Dean the top end should be opened up for development. Yes, proclaimed Dean, “Get rid of the Red tape (bureaucracy, I assume), get rid of Green tape (Environmental protections, I assume), and Black tape (what could that be???)”. The other two clowns nodded in agreement.
And this came out of the mouth of someone who kept telling us acknowledging our FNP with two lines in the Constitution, was racist.
Yes, there is a long way to go before we see any sort of formal recognition.
Should be surprising to noone that I think Lydia's actions were great, drew attention to an issue in a way she wanted to, satisfied her base as well as brought in more to the more radical cause (even if it put others off), and was also quite funny.
The real takeaway for me is how things like this continually expose how boring and obedient some Australians can be. They talk big of larrikinism, on anti-authority, on freedom of expression, on being a ratbag, on the underdog, and all this other cultural nonsense but when push comes to shove they love law and order, they do what they're told, and think any diversion from the norms of public decency is an enormous insult. The calls for 'good manners' from some of the same voices that decry the "woke left and cancel culture" is so embarrassing.
@DDD , I agree she drew attention but what will the majority of people be talking about ? Would it be her approach and behaviour or the subject she was trying to make the world aware of ? If people write her off as a nutjob then I doubt they will take the time to be educated about the issue .
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.