Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice referendum is 'for the Australian people'" video.

@positivepawpaw7564 The Hight court of Australia says you are 100% wrong.
3
@Voigt465 A voice has absolutely zero, nil, ability to create legislation. What you are suggesting is in fact impossible. The Mabo and subsequent Wik decision in the High court proved beyond all reasonable doubt freehold land rights can not be dissolved by native title.
2
@Labor Shill Irrelevant comment. Which mob/clan/tribe/family groups internal conflicts are a separate issue to land rights. No treaty or treaties were ever sort from indigenous groups in Australia unlike say in the US where numerous treaties were negotiated with disparate Indian tribes all with different languages and culturally different. How and when aboriginal lands were taken is historical fact and right up to the late 19th century CE colonial governments were using “terra nullius” to obtain land.
2
@jackturpin7828 fair cop then.
2
Seriously
1
Count up how many morons use the word “apartheid” in the comments
1
@jackturpin7828 Factually incorrect. Australia was not taken by force. An Engish law known as "Terra nullius" was used to claim land. This is just common public knowledge and is beyond reasonable doubt. Also many indigenous groups in Canada the US negotiated treaties over land that they succeeded and were not taken by force.
1
@jackturpin7828 it was not considered to be resistance it was considered by the colonies and their governments at the time as criminal behaviour. At no stage was it even considered by any colonial government to be organised resistance. You are just factually wrong. Once again land in Australia was claimed using the English law "Terra nullius". Your interpretation of history is just wrong.
1
@jackturpin7828 Because the language you use to describe how the British colonies claimed land is fallacious. Yes indigenous groups to varying degrees attempted to defend their land, but this was never acknowledged by the settlers/colonists. It is just factually wrong to suggest land was taken by force, it wasn’t. A dodgy English law was. This dodgy English law finally was shown to be false in the 1992 Mabo decision.
1
@jackturpin7828 Because although in some instances there was an attempt to defend thier land (which although you and i may agree on, most historions don't and most Australians dont) legally the colonists never recognised any attempt to. What happened in reality and what happened legally were no the same.
1