Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "'We are sick to death of talking about Australia Day': Warren Mundine" video.

Racial hatred was created with illegal means was used to claim land. Racial hatred was created when very specifically indigenous people were left out of our constitution and not consulted about Federation. If you honestly wish to end racial hatred then support a voice to parliament and right the wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, don’t be so ridiculously selfish.
2
@echelon2k8 His personal journal dated August 22 1770. He claimed the land in the name of the King.
2
@ayianaarthur2551 If we had of declared conquest then yes you would have a point, but we didn't we used a now thoroughly debunked English law called "Terra Nullius". In a 6 to 1 ruling by our high court the concept of Terra nullius was thrown out. Now if we had of declared conquest then a whole different set of English law would have come into effect part of which would have required a treaty of some sort. But that didn't happen. Your understanding of Australian history is just factually wrong.
1
@ayianaarthur2551 There is absolutely no evidence that there was anyone here before Aboriginals approx 65000 years ago. If you think otherwise you are wrong.
1
@ayianaarthur2551 Factually wrong on all counts. Local indigenous groups did mount insurgency type activities, however they were technologically outclassed by the British. English law required treaties with defeated enemies. Your basic understanding of the laws of armed conflict, is nil, zero, zip. Your entire last comment is a work of nonsense.
1
@anthonymorris5084 If you had read the thread of the comments you would realise your attempted point is nonsensical. You created a strawman that I did not say. You reply is nonsensical gibberish by nature.
1
@echelon2k8 No the wording was specifically used and repeatedly to take ownership of land right up till Federation. Your opinion is what is fantasy or imagination. I mean Cook and Banks both used the term and Governor Bourke used it in a document to expand the Sydney colony. Terra nullius is a legal term used in numerous European countries and as the name implies has Roman origins that's how long it has been around as law.
1
@seaworldsocialartslecturer4160 OMG this old one. DNA from Denovisions is in all humans. It is more so in some ethic/cultural groups. All it is evidence of is that the two species intermingled. It is not evidence of prior occupation of the Australian mainland even remotely. Do some proper research on the subject. The rest of your point is just a non-sequiter.
1
@anthonymorris5084 OK fair point, in my defence my reply was aimed at Ayiana and her absurd notion we came and conquered the land. This is blatantly false. You are correct we settled as colonisers and used "Terra nullius" to unrightfully claim land. I think I am at times condescending and yes disrespectful of opinions that are factually incorrect but I am not disrespectful of the individual only their argument. I will tone down my rhetoric for you.
1
@echelon2k8 Who is they and if so present the evidence. You can't there is none, and even if there was some other DNA it is proof of nothing.
1
@echelon2k8 Yes on August 22 1770 Cook claimed the territory of Australia as British. Years later in 1835 Governor Bourke put into into official government records. Cook recorded his claim in both the ships.log and his personal diary. What exactly are you disputing in this well recorded part of Australian history? The National museum has his original journal.
1
@echelon2k8 I mean it took me all of a two minutes search on the internet to find Cooks journal and his entry for August the 22 1770. The NLA has copies. It is everywhere. Cook declares he is taking possession and the marines fire a volley of shots. Jeez it not hard unless you are being deliberately obtuse.
1
@echelon2k8 Ah I see what you are on about. No he doesn't use those words. He was not a lawyer you will be surprised to learn. He was a sailor. He doesn't need to use the words it is the legal principle he was using by claiming the East Coast of Australia. If your argument is he didn't use the exact words Terra nullius only the action then you are just wrong, both from a legal and practical viewpoint. If I murder someone I have still murdered them even if I don't say I murder you. Your argument is naive nonsense.
1
@anthonymorris5084 Don't get me wrong either, western civilisation is the best it my opinion and the secular liberal social democracy we have developed here in Australia is the best. As for land rights, it is not opinion it is the legal opinion of 6 of the 7 high court justices who decided the "Mabo" case and then 4 to 3 in the "Wik" case. In the example in North America various US and Canadian governments formed treaties with the native Americans, they then went on a almost universally brake those treaties but at least they tried. Here in Australia we didn't even try. If we had of used treaties then constitutional recognition would be unnecessary as a treaty is recognition of land ownership and the problem would have been solved 200 years ago. But we didn't we ignored a group of land owners and just took the land illegally without any recognition. That injustice needs to be fixed for a our democracy to be complete.
1
@echelon2k8 WTF terra nullius is a Latin term and as a legal principle goes back over 2000 years. There is nothing modern about it. It has been used repeatedly over thousands of years.
1
@echelon2k8 Cook knew there were people here and he still claimed Australia for Britain. That's the whole point he was legally unjustified in doing so. I even pointed out in his journal where they had a small ceremony in doing so. What are you finding so difficult to understand about this?
1
@echelon2k8 No, wrong, factually incorrect. The legal principle of "Terra nullius" had been used repeatedly from 1770 onwards to dispossess indigenous people of their land in Australia.
1
@echelon2k8 The High court Mabo decision.
1