Boat People (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

Well Im not to knowledgable in this area, but one avenue includes compensation to the victims of kidnappings, seperation etc etc etc. This has also been echoed by the Prime Minister before.

Who is suing who for what now? I believe kidnapping is public criminal law.

 

[Jiga]

It is quite obvious that they want the 'sorry' for legal reasons.

The government HAS offered apologies, but the thing is these are seen more as a moral thing, so theirs abit of a loop hole

Saying sorry on the other hand admits liablity, and I THINK thats what opens up some legal avenues like compensation.

So realistically, if the aboriginals wanted recongisition etc, the apology would suffice, but their intentions are quite obvious. Besides, its ridiculous for them to ask generations down the track to say sorry, I might go ask someones relative of whom 1000 years ago killed a relative of mine to apologise

 

[erawamai]

.. aborigines.. to exploit, because lets face it, our apology by itself won't be of much value to many aborigines..

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE

 

[erawamai]

Saying sorry on the other hand admits liablity, and I THINK thats what opens up some legal avenues like compensation.

No it doesn't. On the issue of compensation the state governments have all apologised. However no one has brought action against the states. Also the states had control of aboriginal affairs when much of this stolen generation stuff was going on. Aboriginal people for most of the century were the responsibity of state governments. As such it would be pretty silly to sue or bring some kind of legal action against the Federal government for something they didn't adminster before 1967.

The Federal government has also expressed 'regret'. Also saying sorry is not an admission of liability. If anyone goes to the court with a case based around the notion of sorry being an admission of laibility they would be laughed at for the idiots they are...no matter what it is. Also people like to cite the canadian example. Compensation claims in Canada are based on interpretations of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. Also a number of silly native title claims have been knocked back by the courts over the years. There has not been a culture amoung the lefties you hate on the bench to grant stupid native title claims.

Also there is no chance of anyone making your give back your suburban haven mathmite. Your parents most probably have either fee simple over your land or are registered proprietors under the Real Property Act. As such native title is extinguished forever. This was stipuated in Mabo. Not to mention the Native title amendment acts which essentially extinguished native title in all but the most remote areas.

 

[Generator]

In Canada there also existed a number of treaties between the first nations and the settlers/the Crown.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Oh good. Taking children from people isn't a bad thing, fancy that. I think when you have your first child I might come around and steal him -- how would you like that? According to you, it is perfectly acceptable.

If i'm an alcoholic/abusive parent who neglects my child or something, then DOCS will take my child......

Were the Aborigines at the time alcoholics or abusing their children? No.

(Incidentally, who gave them alcohol again?)

This is the problem with all your arguments: you completely exaggerate and misrepresent everything said by the other side. Look at what I said. I'm sure you can read, so it may just take some concentration for you: "There were people with their own customs, rules, religion and society."

But they didn't? Saying that they had customs etc is ridiculous. They didn't have a system of society or anything. What we took was rightfully taken under the name of King George.

1. Firstly, history disagrees with you. Ask any history student. Read a history book. Read the Mabo decision.

2. You obviously have no idea what the doctrine of terra nullius is anyway. Even if we rejected the idea that Aborigines had no social structure, laws, customs, etc, Mabo held that it applied only to literally empty land. So terra nullius does not apply.

Again, in what way did they not own the land?

Ok you give up your house to them and all your posessions tomorrow, then i'll believe that you actually believe what you're saying and that you're not just trying to be some do gooder.

1. Again you make completely irrelevant statements while failing to address my question. Please at least learn that you are making the tu quoque fallacy. No matter what I do, my argument may be correct.

2. I never proposed that anyway. You have this ridiculous notion that anyone supporting Aborigines wants to force all white people to leave their homes and give all the land back to them.

They made use of the land - they had roving societies and they returned to places over and over again

So.. They were nomadic and didn't put the land to any use.

From the Mabo decision, his honour Toohey J states at Para 18:

In particular, the view that a nomadic lifestyle is inconsistent with occupation of land is at odds with reality. It pays no regard to the reason why people move from one area of land to another. Often people move, not because they lack any association with the land over which they travel but to follow the availability of water and food in a harsh climate.

Just because they were nomadic does not mean that they had no ownership.

Yes it does, because in our legal system.. which is all there is in Australia.. ownership exists through written documents.. The aborigines had none. If they did.. they wouldn't have been declared terra nullius.

The master scholar of property law strikes again! Behold Mathmite, the all-knowing God of legal knowledge who likes to lecture a law student deeply familiar with Mabo about the law -- without having read the decision!

1. Again, you have no idea what terra nullius actually involves, see my above comment.

2. You're wrong (surprise). Property is not just about written documents. Ever heard of adverse possession?

Again you look at this from a completely Eurocentric perspective of the world.

Funny that, me being a descendant from Europe and all.. What way do you look at it? From an Aboriginal perspective? They must train you well at university.

Yes, at university we learn to think without bias. Don't know whether that's your type of place though.

Actually they did. It is now known they did have complex social arrangements.

There are only tiney traces, and what ever it was that they had.. It was not substantial enough.

To me, a rock which represents a stone axe does not represent civilisation.

Again, read a history book.

 

[Jiga]

No it doesn't. On the issue of compensation the state governments have all apologised. However no one has brought action against the states. Also the states had control of aboriginal affairs when much of this stolen generation stuff was going on. Aboriginal people for most of the century were the responsibity of state governments. As such it would be pretty silly to sue or bring some kind of legal action against the Federal government for something they didn't adminster before 1967.

The Federal government has also expressed 'regret'. Also saying sorry is not an admission of liability. If anyone goes to the court with a case based around the notion of sorry being an admission of laibility they would be laughed at for the idiots they are...no matter what it is. Also people like to cite the canadian example. Compensation claims in Canada are based on interpretations of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. Also a number of silly native title claims have been knocked back by the courts over the years. There has not been a culture amoung the lefties you hate on the bench to grant stupid native title claims.

Also there is no chance of anyone making your give back your suburban haven mathmite. Your parents most probably have either fee simple over your land or are registered proprietors under the Real Property Act. As such native title is extinguished forever. This was stipuated in Mabo. Not to mention the Native title amendment acts which essentially extinguished native title in all but the most remote areas.

So the governments legal council has no idea for giving the advise that saying 'sorry' could result in legal action? I think not. Its well documented that they fear saying sorry will result in opening the federal government up to compensation claims.

 

[erawamai]

So the governments legal council has no idea for giving the advise that saying 'sorry' could result in legal action? I think not. Its well documented that they fear saying sorry will result in opening the federal government up to compensation claims.

No. its well documented that its popular to think that saying sorry results in compensation claims. Widespream ignorance of the legal system allows your view to be popular. If you say it it also makes rednecks like you just that little bit aroused. It makes you vote for the party would feeds you what you prejudices want to hear.

How can the Federal government be liable for something which was a state responsibility up until 1967? And what exactly are these people going to sue the government for? I think you said something about 'kidnapping' before.

 

[Jiga]

No. its well documented that its popular to think that saying sorry results in compensation claims. Widespream ignorance of the legal system allows your view to be popular.

How can the Federal government be liable for something which was a state responsibility up until 1967?

Like I said....

So the governments legal council has no idea for giving the advise that saying 'sorry' could result in legal action?

Let us assume for a second that their are no legal avneues available to decendants of those victimised, what is the governments motive behind not saying sorry? To lose votes?

 

[erawamai]

Like I said....
So the governments legal council has no idea for giving the advise that saying 'sorry' could result in legal action?

When and where has the Attorney Generals department advised the government that saying sorry will lead to compensation?

How come no one has sued the state governments after they apoligised...? How can anyone sue the Federal government when aboriginal affairs were the responsibility of the states before 1967? And what would the ATSI people be suing them for (oh and you cantinvent private law action categories).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How come no one has sued the state governments after they apoligised...?

You know that's silly.

 

[erawamai]

You know that's silly.

yes i know its silly to say the states could be sued. Thats why no one has sued them.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Were the Aborigines at the time alcoholics or abusing their children? No.

They were actually.. It was worse, because Aborigines often ostracised half-cast children, so they were in even more danger by leaving them there.

Proof? I think not.

2. You obviously have no idea what the doctrine of terra nullius is anyway. Even after rejecting the idea that Aborigines had no social structure, laws, customs, etc, Mabo held that it applied only to literally empty land. So terra nullius does not apply.

But it doesn't just apply to completely empty land.. It applied to peoples who had no set social structure, and vacant land. The aboriginies had no substantial set social structure.

Ah, no. What you are stating is the enlarged version of terra nullius that was incorrectly applied by colonial legislatures to try and justify their claim to land. It was rejected in Mabo. As long as there were occupants of the land, then terra nullius did not apply.

And .. all cases are absolutely correct aren't they. They made that decision.. it must be correct. because the legal system is never wrong. Oh except for when they arrest minorities.. Then they are ALWAYS wrong!

So you offer no actual criticism of the point, other than to say it is wrong?

If I can make an observation here about your posting habits. Your whole attutide, your empty statements, your "arguments" -- are illustrative of a profoundly weak or ignrant mind. You fail time and time again to put up any critical response. All you do is procede to degrede people without discussing their actual argument.

Yes, at university we learn to think without bias.

What you say/believe is not viable.. In many aspects, not just this one on aboriginals. It is completely incompatible with civilised society.. Especially your view that all prison punishments should be abandoned (yes.. even for murderors and rapists! ) because *sad face* it doesn't help the offender. Ohhh noooo.. Please noooo!

I have said over and over that I never said that.

 

[Jiga]

When and where has the Attorney Generals department advised the government that saying sorry will lead to compensation?

How come no one has sued the state governments after they apoligised...? How can anyone sue the Federal government when aboriginal affairs were the responsibility of the states before 1967? And what would the government be suing them for (oh and you cantinvent private law action categories).

Government sueing them? I thought it was the decendants of the stolen generation etc that would sue?

Apology = Moral, being nice
Sorry = Admtting they f*cked up and were wrong, even for the ideoligies of that time

Despite the potential legal avenues, I think this statement by the PM sums the moral situation up perfectly:

"I have never supported the notion of a formal apology, because I have never believed that the present generation of Australians should be forced to accept responsibility for what happened in earlier times, for which they were not directly responsible"

 

[erawamai]

Government sueing them? I thought it was the decendants of the stolen generation etc that would sue?

Sorry. I meant

How come no one has sued the state governments after they apoligised...? How can anyone sue the Federal government when aboriginal affairs were the responsibility of the states before 1967? And what would the ATSI people be suing them for (oh and you cantinvent private law action categories).

"I have never supported the notion of a formal apology, because I have never believed that the present generation of Australians should be forced to accept responsibility for what happened in earlier times, for which they were not directly responsible"

He means it would be electorally unpopular to apologise because rednecks would get upset.

G
Sorry = Admtting they f*cked up and were wrong, even for the ideoligies of that ime

So...um...why hasnt any sued the state governments since they had responsbility for aboriginal affairs before 1967 and have as a result said sorry?

 

[stainmepink]

This is most probably what the land can sustainably support. Overcrowding is a subjective issue. It's also not like once we reach 50 million everyone in Australia will just stop having babies. 40 million people is a lot of people though. Can you imagine everywhere you go there is twice the people?



John Howard has never told the truth about anything ever? Riiiiiiiight. You know, not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes things are just the way the government says things are. All I'm asking for is some examples of situations where you think the 'race card' has been played (preferably with some sort of link to back up what you're saying).

EDIT: missed the 2nd part.

lol, the children overboard affair? now was that howard lying or what.

 

[stainmepink]

welllll i dunno

hey um .. no offence but are you just pretending to be stupid or something to get a guy? if it is, its not working.

 

[Generator]

There's nothing to be gained by responding to age-old posts in a manner that suggests that you are expecting a reply.

 

[erawamai]

In a recent trip away from Straya I was informed, by the locals at the thai border, that Thailand keeps refugees out with landmines. I wonder if John Howard would be open to the suggestion? *Sarcasm*

Oh and maybe birdflu...

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6296/dsfsdfdsafsed0rh.jpg

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yeah, we'll line our, umm, borders, with landmines. Good one.

Hopefully it'll keep them there Queenslanders out!