Happy Australia Day!
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ What international law existed in 1788? And what do the words 'conquest' and 'invasion' mean in your opinion that precludes their use in this context?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ What international law existed in 1788? And what do the words 'conquest' and 'invasion' mean in your opinion that precludes their use in this context? |
That stuff was happening all around the World. It was almost a Common Thing in those Times
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | .......
At bottom, you either accept that the British settlement of Australia was lawful and legitimate, or it was not. if you do not accept that, then you need to be ready to accept some earth-shattering consequences. ....... |
Sheesh:
Terra Nulius has been determined by the courts to be wrong that was the legal premise behind colonisation. That was the legal basis for claiming Australia as belonging to the empire
One can accept that the poms came & brought with them their perceived human detrius.
One can accept openly & warmly English civilisation and its benefits
One can also accept that this caused in part murder, displacement of thousands of aborigines whether through war, alcohol, disease and government policy.
However, quite clearly & simply 26 January is not a day that can be celebrated by all Australians especially when it concerns the effects of the people who were here before us.
Having said that this does not mean one has to axiomatically reject things UK and all the positive advantages this has brought.
Change the date to a date all Austrians can celebrate Australia beyond the pommy origins (which should take pride of place too).
To support a change of day to be inclusive of all Australians does not diminish English colonization & the benefits of English colonization. After all, where would we be without toad in a hole, spotted dick and white bread? |
In all of this there is a danger that we paint ourselves into a corner. I think of what happened to those poor people with horror. For forty thousand years they lived in a kind of harmony with the land, in control of their lives. Then, one day, the white sails came and they were ravaged, harried, killed and made subject to forces they could not understand and could not resist. It is one small chapter of history's countless nightmares. It could have been worse, had the colonizer been anyone other than the British, but none of us can rejoice in the Aboriginal experience.
In the end, I can see that making 26 January our national day might be an affront to that memory. It is a critical day, from which modern Australia flows, but call it First Fleet day, and make it a celebration /appreciation of what British settlement brought. Australians have far too little understanding of why they are free and rich and how that relates to British settlement, and that might actually improve if we separated it from the flag-waving and beer-goggles of modern Australia Day. I suspect it'd be a matter of time before the SjWs would be trying to swarm first fleet day, but at least then they would have to be honest about their real motives.
Then have another day of atonement and understanding for aboriginal Australia. Call it reconciliation day, if you like. For me, what matters is the idea that modern Australia came from somewhere specific, and that we understand how fortunate we are that it was so. If there is a way to accommodate the sensitivities of aboriginal people within that, then good.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | David wrote: | | ^ What international law existed in 1788? And what do the words 'conquest' and 'invasion' mean in your opinion that precludes their use in this context? |
That stuff was happening all around the World. It was almost a Common Thing in those Times |
Yes, as were torture, slavery and genocide. It may be a statement of fact that the colonisers' own laws permitted such acts (even if they incorrectly applied them in the case of Australia), but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of their legitimacy.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Last edited by David on Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:26 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ What international law existed in 1788? And what do the words 'conquest' and 'invasion' mean in your opinion that precludes their use in this context? |
They do their own thing. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just scrap it, you'll never please everyone,
Big Hoe was right, political correctness is a $$%^%%$ disease
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ What international law existed in 1788? And what do the words 'conquest' and 'invasion' mean in your opinion that precludes their use in this context? |
It isn't my opinion. Mine is irrelevant in this as yours.
How bout you read the links I posted, and then stand corrected. Again.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | In the end, I can see that making 26 January our national day might be an affront to that memory. It is a critical day, from which modern Australia flows, but call it First Fleet day, and make it a celebration /appreciation of what British settlement brought. Australians have far too little understanding of why they are free and rich and how that relates to British settlement, and that might actually improve if we separated it from the flag-waving and beer-goggles of modern Australia Day. I suspect it'd be a matter of time before the SjWs would be trying to swarm first fleet day, but at least then they would have to be honest about their real motives.
Then have another day of atonement and understanding for aboriginal Australia. Call it reconciliation day, if you like. For me, what matters is the idea that modern Australia came from somewhere specific, and that we understand how fortunate we are that it was so. If there is a way to accommodate the sensitivities of aboriginal people within that, then good. |
I think we can and should celebrate the First fleet landing as the birth of this country as we now know it but it shouldnt be called " Australia Day" - we need a national day that we can ALL celebrate together and give thanks that we were born here or moved here and that we live in the best country on earth IMHO!
It's funny that the conversation is about the manipulation of the " date" by the left, the right, the whatever's when the current date of Jan 26th it seems resulted from no more than a lobby group with power!
The tradition of having Australia Day as a national holiday on 26 January is a recent one. Not until 1935 did all the Australian states and territories use that name to mark that date. Not until 1994 did they begin to celebrate Australia Day consistently as a public holiday on that date.
To summarise, New South Wales Sydney especially has long celebrated 26 January to mark the beginning of British occupation of Australia. Victoria and the other Australian states and territories, persuaded by the Australian Natives' Association, came to accept Australia Day by 1935, celebrating it together with a long weekend.
Since 1979, federal government promotion of an Australia Day that was less British and more Australian gave the day a higher profile in the hope of unifying Australia's increasingly diverse population. The long weekend gave way to the day itself in 1994, and ten years later Canberra displaced Sydney as the day's focal point.
http://www.australiaday.org.au/australia-day/history/australia-day-26-january-a-day-for-all-australians/
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I spent the weekend visiting museums and beautiful beaches around Denmark and Albany in WA. It was a great way to appreciate our history and environment. I couldn't care less about how and when AustralianDay is celebrated. Sanitising our history is more of a concern |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | ^ What international law existed in 1788? And what do the words 'conquest' and 'invasion' mean in your opinion that precludes their use in this context? |
It isn't my opinion. Mine is irrelevant in this as yours.
How bout you read the links I posted, and then stand corrected. Again. |
In 1788, the norms of customary international law acknowledged conquest, cession and "occupation" of practically uninhabited lands as the (potentially relevant) 3 means of acquiring sovereignty.
The High Court could not, of course, at any time since 1903, make a decision as to the "legality" of British sovereignty at that time. Such questions are non-justiciable in domestic courts (that is, they are not capable of being entertained or determined). It should be obvious why - the Court's authority is ultimately derived from that sovereignty and it would be put into an existential dilemma by being called upon to decide whether British sovereignty was lawful. In any event, sovereignty is a political, not legal, fact.
The Court in Mabo 2 neatly avoided determining whether Australia had been invaded by the British by resolutely sticking to the use of "settlement" (that is, the process of that which occurred after the Brits got here), rather than answering the 1788 international law question. Thus, the Court abrogated the doctrine of terra nullius and ruled that the same principles about reception of British property law apply to a "settlement" (irrespective of its more or less violent antecedents) as to a conquest.
That said, of the 3 potentially relevant means of acquiring Australia at the pertinent time, if Australia wasn't (as the High Court held it wasn't) "practically unoccupied" land and it wasn't ceded by treaty (as it plainly wasn't), that leaves only one alternative under the applicable international law of the day - Australia was settled after a conquest and invasion (as, eg, occurred in England on or about 14 October 1066).
So, it may or may not advance your argument but it seems that the British acquired sovereignty under international law over Australia by conquering and invading it. These are not, in a legal sense, controversial propositions and it is really 25 years too late to debate it.
Also, if I might respectfully suggest, when one reads a High Court judgment, it is always advisable to do so in light of the arguments advanced by the various parties - in the authorised reports (that is, the Commonwealth Law Reports) but not on Austlii, those arguments are summarised at the commencement of the case, immediately after the conclusion of the headnote but before the first set of reasons for decision. In our system of law, the courts decide cases between (more or less and with some rather marginal exceptions) the competing submissions that were advanced at trial by counsel. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Thank you Counsel, I'll cede to your superior knowledge of the law and it's workings.
However, I'm pretty sure that the info I read, not on Austlii, certainly gave the "vibe" that the settlement was considered peaceful (obviously relatively so) and that Conquest and Invasion would have essentially wiped out any claim to native title and changed the application of common law as it now applies.
Possible I may have misinterpreted.
This is the specific piece I was referring to.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/5.%20Recognition%20of%20Aboriginal%20Customary%20Laws%20at%20Common%20Law%3A%20The%20Settled%20Colony%20Debate/se
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
1 January should be Australia day however that ain't gunna work for obvious reasons that is the day of Federation.
26 January should be both: A celebration of our English heritage & remembrance of the invasion.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I think that's a pragmatic solution WPT, though I think it is unlikely to satisfy the "change the date" folks. I would also support a separate reconciliation holiday in celebration of aboriginal culture. Perhaps surprisingly, in view of my general outlook, I would support offsetting that by cancelling the Queen's birthday holiday, which seems to me a real anachronism. Britain does not have a Queen's birthday holiday, interestingly.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Excuse me, like a sacrificial offering to assuage the British entertainment industry's collective guilt and shame for turning a blind eye to or condoning such behaviour on a widespread basis for the past half-century. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | .....I would support offsetting that by cancelling the Queen's birthday holiday, which seems to me a real anachronism. Britain does not have a Queen's birthday holiday, interestingly. |
God no. In Vic it's the only public holiday between Anzac Day / Easter & late September early October 
Then again I'd support a "Harvester Judgement" day in winter.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
