For your PC needs
According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
have won.
Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
Other cities will follow.
According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
have won.
Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
Other cities will follow.
"F&C" <hallo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4510966a$0$11968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
> have won.
>
> Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
>
> If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
>
> Other cities will follow.
abo Abo ABO!
In article <4510966a$0$11968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> ,
hallo@hotmail.com says...
>
> According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
> have won.
>
> Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
>
> If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
>
> Other cities will follow.
>
it's troooooo
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...04-601,00.html
--
"What's that got to do with my KNOB?"
Bedknobs and Broomsticks
"F&C" <hallo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4510966a$0$11968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
> have won.
>
> Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
>
> If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
>
> Other cities will follow.
Our sporting chant has just been changed... abo abo abo oi oi oi
In article <4510966a$0$11968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> ,
F&C <hallo@hotmail.com> wrote:
> According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
> have won.
>
> Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
>
> If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
>
> Other cities will follow.
Aboriginal land claims DO NOT affect freehold land.
Lived in Darwin 17 years. A lot of the NT has native title claims on
it. Hasn't affected 1 suburban house, and never will.
Shame to let facts stand in the way of a good public fear campaign, huh.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:16:33 +1000, F&C <hallo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
>have won.
>
>Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
>
>If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
Did you read it all???
"In his findings yesterday, Justice Wilcox
emphasised that "the vast majority" of private
landholders in Perth would be unaffected by
the determination, as native title did not
affect freehold or most leasehold land."
--
Stubbo of Oz
Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
>
> Did you read it all???
>
> "In his findings yesterday, Justice Wilcox
> emphasised that "the vast majority" of private
> landholders in Perth would be unaffected by
> the determination, as native title did not
> affect freehold or most leasehold land."
Clearly, like most of the easily stampeded herd of non-thinking
rednecks, he did not read the judge's findings.
And in any event, a finding that Native Title subsists over a piece of
land is still a long, long way form a grant of posessory or exclusive
title in any event.
Shades of Tim Fisher and his "bucket loads of extinguishment?"
--
F&C <hallo@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4510966a$0$11968$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u:
> According to the news, the abo's have claimed that they own perth, and
> have won.
Yeah, so? Do you understand what that actually means?
> Your house could be taken by abo's at any moment.
Wrong! Mindless scare tactics on the part of someone who didn't read
the article, much less understand what it meant.
> If you want to develop some land, you will have to get abo permission.
Wrong! Mindless scare tactics on the part of someone who didn't read
the article, much less understand what it meant.
> Other cities will follow.
There's every chance that they will. If you had read Mabo v Queensland
(No 2) and the Wik Peoples v Queensland, then you'd understand that
this is *hardly* a bad thing, and is probably the *right* thing.
Here, I'll do the hard work for you:
This is the report of the judgments of Mabo v Queensland (No 2):
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/175clr1.html>
... and this, The Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland:
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/40.html>
... and finally, Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community
v Victoria:
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/58.html>
After that, read the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth):
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/>
and the amending act,
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ntaa1998227/>
Once you've read (and understood!) all of those, you have a clear
idea of what native title *actually* is, and what a terrible
threat it really *isn't* to Australian landholders, then come
back and tell us how this new decision in the Federal Court is
such a terrible thing.
If you remain convinced that the decision is a terrible thing,
then piss off and read something about the Australian Court
system. Even wikipedia will be accurate enough for your otherwise
hopelessly confused porpoises:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_court_hierarchy>
If you're *still* utterly convinced that the *Federal* Court
decision is such a bad thing, then please stop what you're doing
and report immediately to the nearest office of your choice of
The Daily Telegraph, The Courier Mail, The Herald Sun, Today
Tonight, A Current Affair or Sixty Minutes. You've just proven
your worth as a senior tabloid journaliar.
GB
--
"Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)
Logan_5 said....
> And in any event, a finding that Native Title subsists over a piece of
> land is still a long, long way form a grant of posessory or exclusive
> title in any event.
Weren't the Aborigines nomads way back when? In other words, they never
settled in any one place. If so, how can they lay claim to any land?
I wonder, if a descendent of the inhabitants who were here before them
turns up, will the aborigines accede any claims to said descendant?
It's like in Unzud. They're going through the same bullshit with the
Maoris. Funny thing there is that the Maoris committed genocide upon the
UnZud aborigines when they paddled their way from Polynesia to UnZud. If
I recall, the last of them were wiped out in the 14th century, or
thereabouts, not a coupla hundred years before the Europeans arrived and
commenced to do the same to the Maoris.
Emjaye <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in news:45183d36.00001e86.bm001@yarwho.com.au:
> Weren't the Aborigines nomads way back when? In other words, they never
> settled in any one place. If so, how can they lay claim to any land?
FTA: "Australian common law recognises a form of native title which,
in the cases where it has not been extinguished, reflects the
entitlement of the indigenous inhabitants, in accordance with
their laws or customs, to their traditional lands" [1]
Note the "in accordance with their laws or customs". Note also
that some native title claims (Wik Peoples, Yorta Yorta) have been
for particularly large areas of land, this would seem to be consistent
with the anthropological finding that the people were somewhat
nomadic, though I think a more accurate description might be that they
tended to manage far greater areas of land than is typical of other
cultures.
Not all Aborigines were/are nomadic. Those who had access to
richer sources of food did not need to cultivate wide areas of land.
In particular, the Meriam Islanders, Eddie Koiki Mabo's people, do
not have far to roam, but the sea is a rich source of food for
them! I do not know the geographical extent of their native title
claim, but it seems reasonable to me that they would claim the
Meriam (Murray) islands, and any surrounding areas that they had
traditionally fished, and continue to fish.
In any case, the 'nature' of any native title is determined by the
'nature' of the connection or occupation under traditional laws or
customs. If your people visited a particular area once a year to
pray to a particular ancestor, *and* nothing has happened since then
that might defeat a native title claim, then the nature of your
people's ongoing title to that area would likely be a right to
continue to go there to pray once per year. If a pastoral lease
had been granted to a farmer that included the sacred spot, then the
guy who holds the pastoral lease can continue to run his cattle/sheep/
whatever there. A grant of native title on the basis of an annual
corroboree DOES NOT mean that your people can get the developers in,
break the whole lot up into quarter acre blocks, hire a pakistani
to set up a sebun-elebun, get telstra and optarse to run cable,
and live happily ever after. (The nature of the native title granted
to the Meriam people on the other hand probably would allow them to
do all those things, since they have been the only persistent occupants
and users of that land since the beginning of time.)
The nature of traditional use and/or cultural significance of, and
continuing relationship with a parcel of land is a question of fact
with the onus of proof being on with the claimant.
Pastoral leases are a special case, they do not (per Wik Peoples
v Queensland)[2], without more, constitute exclusive possession,
and so do not extinguish native title in the way that other more
explicit grants of land do. Amendments to the Native Title Act
(Cth) subsequent to Wik v Queensland have changed the law since
then.
The High Court held that what the Crown realised when 'settling'
Australia was 'radical title' (and soverignty). Radical title
is not exclusive possession, and it does not extinguish other
title to land. Native title survives an assertion of radical title
"where it has not been extinguished". Native title is extinguished
where another greater title is granted. Almost without exception,
all grants of land where someone has received a right and demonstrated
intent to maintain exclusive use of the land extinguish native title.
For this reason, "the abos" can *NEVER* "take your house", and all
of the other uninformed stupidity in the same vein is just that;
uninformed stupidity.
> I wonder, if a descendent of the inhabitants who were here before them
> turns up, will the aborigines accede any claims to said descendant?
Technically, yes. In practice, it's about as likely to be successful
as a claim for native title over any part of Tasmania. (Since the
Tasmanian aboriginals are said to have died out with Truganini,
it's going to be a bit difficult for anyone to demonstrate an ongoing
relationship with the land).
> It's like in Unzud. They're going through the same bullshit with the
> Maoris. Funny thing there is that the Maoris committed genocide upon the
> UnZud aborigines when they paddled their way from Polynesia to UnZud. If
> I recall, the last of them were wiped out in the 14th century, or
> thereabouts, not a coupla hundred years before the Europeans arrived and
> commenced to do the same to the Maoris.
My take on that is that we can only really involve ourselves in
regards to the short time we've been here. The issue of native
title has been whether the legally fictitious assertion that Australia
was 'terra nullilus' ('empty land', 'no mans land', 'uninhabited')
and corresponding assertion of soveriegnty deletes the pre-existing
right to land held by the people that were here when we got here.
I don't see it as being our business to determine the claims of
anyone the Australian aboriginals may have chucked out in the past.
The same might be said to apply in unzud.
GB
[1] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html>
[2] Wik Peoples v Queensland <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/1997/5.html>
--
"Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote