Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Her dad called for sterilisation of Aboriginal women and Gina has never condemned that statement so yes.You reckon there isnt one single other family in australia who is more racist than Gina's?
I am still waiting for my free toyota cruiser.Perhaps you should do some investigation into how much support Aboriginals do receive from Gina Rinehart.
no but I can call out BS if I see itthat distressed you? to the point where you are incoherent?
hahahahah actually laughableIt's none of your business what he said, he can say what he likes, it's his land.
So it's not stolen land? Are you Andrew Bolt using an alias?hahahahah actually laughable
no not stolen land and no I don't watch sky or Andrew boltSo it's not stolen land? Are you Andrew Bolt using an alias?
Not stolen? Sorry was there a treaty? I must of missed that.no not stolen land and no I don't watch sky or Andrew bolt
It took until the Mabo decision in 1992 for the English common law system to recognise the fact that Indigenous Australians, at least in such a common law sense, were the owners of the land pre-1788, and as such the act of the British colonising took land away from Indigenous AustraliansNo they weren’t. It was nowhere near what it is now then, but still was the most fair and progressive system in the world then. English Common Law was always and still is the most fair and progressive of all the known systems there is. That is why there is and can be reconciliation under it now. Nothing was ever perfect in history. What we do from now is important. Equality before the law should always be the goal, that is peak progress. Equality of outcomes is a retrogressive concept to rectify past wrongs in a backwards way.
Not saying that it is perfect, it’s is by far the best the world has to work with. We are getting to a fair opportunity for all, not there yet. And many ideas put forward by ‘progressives’ aren’t necessarily the best ideas either. That’s why the English Common Law system has democratic ideals built in, and these move slowly (not fast enough for many) but must move from the bottom up, not top down, to be effective and genuine.It took until the Mabo decision in 1992 for the English common law system to recognise the fact that Indigenous Australians, at least in such a common law sense, were the owners of the land pre-1788, and as such the act of the British colonising took land away from Indigenous Australians
In some respects the "fair and progressive" system you describe took until 1992 to catch up
seems like some sort of agenda you are on, not sure what "stolen land" has anything to do with anythingNot stolen? Sorry was there a treaty? I must of missed that.
It's their land that was stolen why can't you admit that?seems like some sort of agenda you are on, not sure what "stolen land" has anything to do with anything
Taking 204 years resulting in a throwaway statement of "far from perfect" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and hand-waving away here.Not saying that it is perfect, it’s is by far the best the world has to work with. We are getting to a fair opportunity for all, not there yet. And many ideas put forward by ‘progressives’ aren’t necessarily the best ideas either. That’s why the English Common Law system has democratic ideals built in, and these move slowly (not fast enough for many) but must move from the bottom up, not top down, to be effective and genuine.
I don’t believe the ‘Voice’ was the correct approach and neither did the populous. Because it didn’t treat people equally before the law, it took in their ancestry/bloodlines. This is the opposite of the move towards liberation and freedom. Liberty and justice are blind.Taking 204 years resulting in a throwaway statement of "far from perfect" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and hand-waving away here.
Consider also the Uluru Statement of which the first political step is a Voice to Parliament and an amendment to the constitution and for there to be co-sovereignty heading forward. This recognises the fact that initial sovereignty was never ceded and in the interests of moral fairness that should considered in the metaphysical construction of our country, but also the need to balance the moral fairness of realities of the fact that the vast majority of the 98% of non-Indigenous people don't have a claim to live anywhere else but Australia, are not racist and also did nothing morally wrong in taking that sovereignty in the first place and being present in Australia, leading to the political realities of co-sovereignty through an acceptable-to-the-majority-of-Indigenous people through a Voice, Treaty, Truth principle outlined in the Uluru Statement.
Indeed, initially, when it was more of an abstract idea rather than something that had to be non-abstractally implemented, a majority of Australians agreed with the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum or even going back to 2018: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the...rt-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678
However, the "English common law" foundation meant that the transition from majority abstract support to practical reality rejection meant that it failed to achieve something that a majority of Australians can agree upon in the abstract sense of our country being co-sovereign heading forward (even though debates can be had about the ways in which that's implemented), as the debate over the referendum, and the practical nature of the implementation meant that support tanked, and therefore, was not the best way to achieve the goal.
Go argue with these types of people then.
Mate, there were literal civilizations in Mesopotamia going back twice as long as 3000 years and more. Crops were being planted from 11,000 BCE.
And it depends on how one defines 'civilization'.
Should I give it back?It's their land that was stolen why can't you admit that?
Other than a few extremists, even the Indigenous community that wants people to accept that the land is stolen, is not asking you the above question. It's a pointless question.Should I give it back?
Are your Beds Burning?Should I give it back?
I’d suggest there is a better way to describe the situation than a simple trope of ‘land is stolen’ then.Other than a few extremists, even the Indigenous community that wants people to accept that the land is stolen, is not asking you the above question. It's a pointless question.
You should at least listen to Welcome to Country for 2 mins and vote yes to the Voice.Should I give it back?
Read my previous posts.You should at least listen to Welcome to Country for 2 mins and vote yes to the Voice.