Indigenous Sovereignty Demands

[Jerry_Atrick]

11 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Pretty much.

I have not heard any aboriginal spokesperson state what they mean by sovereignty. Or what they actually want as an outcome.

 

My impression is that there is a desire to be deemed as a group to be an autonomous nation within a nation, with the ability to set their own laws, etc.

 

For a start it would be their first unification of hundred or so aboriginal nations in over 40,000 years. Quite an achievement in itself.

 

Secondly, I  am confused as to how they see it working. Do they really want to set their sovereign nation administration up to oversee the present monarchic one? (I think some do). Do they just wish to charge rent as some suggest?

I doubt it, but I  can only speculate as I don't think the proponents (as a group) have any idea themselves.

I think this is where people get genuinely confused. There is a small group of Aboriginals, and I cannot remember the name, that want genuine sovereignty in terms of a nation state. Generally, though, Aboriginals, have asserted they never gave up their sovereignty, but that does not mean they want a separate nation state to co-exist. They generally want self-determination. This may give more of an insight: https://aigi.org.au/toolkit/self-determination-for-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples#:~:text=For many First Nations%2C self,want to live their lives. Particularly, 

"For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, self-determination means having genuine decision-making power and responsibility about what happens:

• on their lands and waters
• in their affairs
• in their governing systems
• in their development strategies."

This does not mean operating outside the legal framework of Australia and not does it mean sovereignty. 

 

Today, we give these rights to other religious groups, bot officially and culturally. The rather poor conduct of some institutional religions still benefit from coverups except for the more heinous conduct. They are exempt from taxes, equal opportunity legislation and the like to accommodate their cultural sensitivities. Aboriginals have definitely been granted a lot, too, but they have had a lot more of their cultural lifestyle removed than most, particularly those of Abrahamic religions, of which at least Christianity based faith culture has been mostly imported to Australia since colonisation. In addition, people who have willingly immigrated to Australia should expect to conform with the laws of the country; the Aboriginals didn't immigrate to Australia - so their culture was (attempted to be) taken away from them. 

 

I agree, the wheat from the chaff has to be sorted in terms of pursuit of Aboriginal rights - as with any group, you will find the charlatans, opportunists, rabble rousers, etc. But just like with the vegans, the trans, the conservationists, etc, the press will hone in on the more extreme participants/protagonists as the mainstream are boring and won't attract eyeballs. The problem is, this reflects to the population that consumes this information without doing their own background research, that the more extreme is the norm for these groups. 

 

I don't blame people of course; we are all too busy to research most things. But the press and the pollies, and the corporations, etc. know this, and it is sort of how one ends up with an increasingly broken political system and fragmented society we have today.. 

 

 

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I can't quote the date, but wives had to resign certain Jobs like teaching IF they married. . IF anyone came to the door about anything as they often did in those days, they would ask the woman   if they could speak to  the person in charge, Please. . Nev

It's not that long ago married women were referred to as Mrs. George Smith or whatever their husbands given and surnames were. I can't remember when that died out, but it was still around in some circles in the 70's for sure.

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

I can't quote the date, but wives had to resign certain Jobs like teaching IF they married. . IF anyone came to the door about anything as they often did in those days, they would ask the woman   if they could speak to  the person in charge, Please. . Nev

Obviously they weren't aware who was really in charge...

[facthunter]

MY "BOSS" Knows who is in charge.  Nev

[spacesailor]

One important question ! .

if Aboriginal Sovereignty happens .

Will all the none native citizens,  be allowed to claim 

Refugee status !. If they do not want to live in an 

Aboriginal Sovereignty. 

After all it was not what this country enticed us to come here originally. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

When I used to canvas around the farms for contract earthmoving work in the Wheatbelt of W.A., and a woman answered the door, in my youthful brashness, I always asked for the boss!

More than one I got told, "You're speaking to her!" 😄

[Jerry_Atrick]

13 hours ago, spacesailor said:

One important question ! .

if Aboriginal Sovereignty happens .

Will all the none native citizens,  be allowed to claim 

Refugee status !. If they do not want to live in an 

Aboriginal Sovereignty. 

After all it was not what this country enticed us to come here originally. 

spacesailor

It's a hypotehtical question as only a tiny minority of Aboriginal activists are demanding severignty. Most are after a treat that accomodates self-determination (see link above) via a treaty. Whey you boil down Lydia Thorpe's hyperbole, it is about a treaty and not sovereignty (of course, they wouldn't say no to sovereignty). Maybe if they are talking traty but we seem to have a record stuck on them wanting sovereignty, they understand the practical limitations and we just want to find a way of harking on about something they are not asking for which they know they realistically won't get to deprive them the debate of what a treaty may be?

 

"fter all it was not what this country enticed us to come here originally. "

 

If referring to the original settlers, at least you admit it was an invasion.  If referring rto yourself, maybe not, but what you did come to is a country which has in its own common law legal system admitted the original settlement was illegal. Like it or not, your adopted country should fess up and make amends. You take your adopted country warts and all. I have with the UK and I am absolutely certain it wasn't quite the country it was when I came here.

Edited Saturday at 06:34 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

One thing that has come from trump's win is that wokeism is finished there in the usa.

I reckon that is the only thing that can explain what happened there.

I wonder what they ( Trump voters ) would think of the likes of Lydia?

[spacesailor]

Hypothetical. 

Yes . But it needs an answer ! .

If, like a Fiji/ myanmar,  the army takes over & those with enough money get out . Leaving a lot of ' refugees ' 

waiting many years to seek happiness elsewhere.

spacesailor

PS. : NZ now has a Maori court system, as we as the Pakiha courts . 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

If it isn't being asked for and it isn't going to happen, why do you need an answer?

 

There are Koori courts in most states (though the names may differ) they still apply the law of the land

[facthunter]

Which Court do WE have that is "Fit for Purpose"? Only Criminals have enough money to afford a "GOOD" Lawyer. Stay out of them.Nev