While I fully understand Australia is under full Marxist attack, this story doesn’t make sense. No definition of “Native Title” I am aware of could be a vehicle for this. Only radical title. Native title is simply possessory rights. Radical title is vested in a sovereign through which all other property rights are derived in western property law. Possessory rights do not equal title or deed.
Native title became famous in Australian law from a case called Mabo v. Queensland. All sorts of fake news was written about that case. As if it were some radical departure from centuries of english common law. It wasn’t. Native title has always existed in the common law. But the doctrine of terra nullius was speciously used to avoid applying the doctrine of native title. In essence, by declaring discovered land idle/vacant, terra nullius vested title in the crown with the crown determining the possessory rights. Which was true of much land taken by the crown. But also, if the native population wasn’t Christian, they would declare terra nullius and just take it. Or kill everyone and take radical title by conquest.
Basically, if Australia wanted to give all this to another sovereign, they could. And Native Title would not be the vehicle to transfer radical title. That simply could not happen. It would be non sensical. A doctrine that grants only possessory rights subject to the sovereign could not convey radical title to another sovereign.
You are aware that the people of Australia are not privy to all the details of "The Voice to Parliament" aren't you? PM Albanese et al will not divulge. Instead we are fed "appeal to emotion" dribble designed to pull the heart strings of weak minded propaganda gobblers.
What we do know nefariously aligns with what we read in this article. I'm Australian. I was born here. There's no way in hell I'll be accepting new laws requiring payments to an unelected government entity if I want to go to the beach, a river, a national park, etc. Because that is what's on the table. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm well aware of the Mabo case. I was living in Townsville (as was he) while it unfolded. I grew up with many aboriginal and islander friends and school mates.
This "voice" bullshit is designed to sow division and encourage racism, all in the name of indigenous rights.
My family is Australian, though I have never lived there. I just have citizenship.
I don't know why the Mabo case was controversial. It didn't do anything new. Though the justices jumped through a lot of random hoops to create the impression there was something new. The Australian government could have authorized Queensland to make laws governing Mer. Instead it was like a LARP resulting in the native title act. You halfway wonder if the entire sequence of events wasn't designed to produce this.
Australia needs to get rowdy. There is too much compliance down there. During covid it was embarrassing to listen to my relatives act like all of that was necessary and none of it was bullshit. Was like 1938 Germany the redux. I know there are many who are hell bent on not putting up with this. But there are far too many eager to be governed harder by installed officials rigging elections just like here.
I agree with your first point. It was potentially, in hindsight, designed to facilitate and accomodate this planned UN agenda. The DS has always played the long game. Very interesting.
I have to set the record straight re your second point. Yes, there are compliant sheep in Australia. BUT, a huge shift occurred here in February last year, a shift that has only gained momentum. It was, in a way, inspired by the Canadian Freedom Convoy. Australians had had enough. I travelled to Canberra (21 hour round trip) along with at least 500K (conservative estimate) other Aussies to declare to the Federal Govt: WE THE PEOPLE will NOT comply with their bullshit any longer. (I personally never complied with any of it but that's beside the point). 500K is 2% of the population. Everyone who individually went there was representing at least 5-10 people who felt the same but for a variety of reasons were unable to make the journey. I honestly can not see the tyranny returning here as we saw two years ago.
Another point: Regarding the increasingly dull "but you gave up your guns:" line, this war will not be won with guns, it'll be won with non compliance and strength of character. I'm surrounded by a legion of warriors. Don't worry about Australia, The Lions are awakening.
Are you talking about the old birthright citizenship case? Or a different one?
Mabo has a lot more in common with the Marshall Trilogy SCOTUS cases of the late 1820's/early 30's than the birthright citizenship case. The same concept of sovereignty is explored.
I suppose one of the trilogy cases - johnson v mcintosh - might be similar to the birthright citizenship case. The short version is that SCOTUS held that the purchasers did not hold title to the land because the sovereign at the time of purchase was the english crown, and after getting kicked out, the US now had title and did not have to recognize grants from the old sovereign because of the doctrine of conquest. It has been awhile since I read that birthright citizenship case but I believe it had to do with the unification of the crown. Scotland and England had separate kings until something like the 1620s or so...my English history sucks so I am shooting from the hip. And because this guy was born under the new crown he was not technically a foreigner trying to own land in England.
While I fully understand Australia is under full Marxist attack, this story doesn’t make sense. No definition of “Native Title” I am aware of could be a vehicle for this. Only radical title. Native title is simply possessory rights. Radical title is vested in a sovereign through which all other property rights are derived in western property law. Possessory rights do not equal title or deed.
Native title became famous in Australian law from a case called Mabo v. Queensland. All sorts of fake news was written about that case. As if it were some radical departure from centuries of english common law. It wasn’t. Native title has always existed in the common law. But the doctrine of terra nullius was speciously used to avoid applying the doctrine of native title. In essence, by declaring discovered land idle/vacant, terra nullius vested title in the crown with the crown determining the possessory rights. Which was true of much land taken by the crown. But also, if the native population wasn’t Christian, they would declare terra nullius and just take it. Or kill everyone and take radical title by conquest.
Basically, if Australia wanted to give all this to another sovereign, they could. And Native Title would not be the vehicle to transfer radical title. That simply could not happen. It would be non sensical. A doctrine that grants only possessory rights subject to the sovereign could not convey radical title to another sovereign.
You are aware that the people of Australia are not privy to all the details of "The Voice to Parliament" aren't you? PM Albanese et al will not divulge. Instead we are fed "appeal to emotion" dribble designed to pull the heart strings of weak minded propaganda gobblers.
What we do know nefariously aligns with what we read in this article. I'm Australian. I was born here. There's no way in hell I'll be accepting new laws requiring payments to an unelected government entity if I want to go to the beach, a river, a national park, etc. Because that is what's on the table. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm well aware of the Mabo case. I was living in Townsville (as was he) while it unfolded. I grew up with many aboriginal and islander friends and school mates.
This "voice" bullshit is designed to sow division and encourage racism, all in the name of indigenous rights.
My family is Australian, though I have never lived there. I just have citizenship.
I don't know why the Mabo case was controversial. It didn't do anything new. Though the justices jumped through a lot of random hoops to create the impression there was something new. The Australian government could have authorized Queensland to make laws governing Mer. Instead it was like a LARP resulting in the native title act. You halfway wonder if the entire sequence of events wasn't designed to produce this.
Australia needs to get rowdy. There is too much compliance down there. During covid it was embarrassing to listen to my relatives act like all of that was necessary and none of it was bullshit. Was like 1938 Germany the redux. I know there are many who are hell bent on not putting up with this. But there are far too many eager to be governed harder by installed officials rigging elections just like here.
I agree with your first point. It was potentially, in hindsight, designed to facilitate and accomodate this planned UN agenda. The DS has always played the long game. Very interesting.
I have to set the record straight re your second point. Yes, there are compliant sheep in Australia. BUT, a huge shift occurred here in February last year, a shift that has only gained momentum. It was, in a way, inspired by the Canadian Freedom Convoy. Australians had had enough. I travelled to Canberra (21 hour round trip) along with at least 500K (conservative estimate) other Aussies to declare to the Federal Govt: WE THE PEOPLE will NOT comply with their bullshit any longer. (I personally never complied with any of it but that's beside the point). 500K is 2% of the population. Everyone who individually went there was representing at least 5-10 people who felt the same but for a variety of reasons were unable to make the journey. I honestly can not see the tyranny returning here as we saw two years ago.
Another point: Regarding the increasingly dull "but you gave up your guns:" line, this war will not be won with guns, it'll be won with non compliance and strength of character. I'm surrounded by a legion of warriors. Don't worry about Australia, The Lions are awakening.
Do you see any links between Calvins case and Mabo/native title acts?
Are you talking about the old birthright citizenship case? Or a different one?
Mabo has a lot more in common with the Marshall Trilogy SCOTUS cases of the late 1820's/early 30's than the birthright citizenship case. The same concept of sovereignty is explored.
I suppose one of the trilogy cases - johnson v mcintosh - might be similar to the birthright citizenship case. The short version is that SCOTUS held that the purchasers did not hold title to the land because the sovereign at the time of purchase was the english crown, and after getting kicked out, the US now had title and did not have to recognize grants from the old sovereign because of the doctrine of conquest. It has been awhile since I read that birthright citizenship case but I believe it had to do with the unification of the crown. Scotland and England had separate kings until something like the 1620s or so...my English history sucks so I am shooting from the hip. And because this guy was born under the new crown he was not technically a foreigner trying to own land in England.