General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sky News Australia
comments

Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Stand against it’: Welcome to Country is ‘ceding of sovereignty’" video.

@FindAReason-mi7go How? A majority decision by the High court is final, no appeals, that’s it. Final. You literally haven’t got a clue about what you are commenting on
3
@echelon2k8 Put it this way. Who is more likely correct? A 6-1 decision by the High court that established indigenous land rights as per English common law or an anonymous nobody on YouTube comments that claims it’s all a fiction. Who would you trust?
3
No way, if it is offending RWNJ snowflakes then I say more of it. But in all seriousness yes I see your point. Clearly educating RWNJs on welcome to country isn’t working. What would be clearly the best for the country would be the indigenous people just accepted their lot shutup and just moved back into the shadows, where us non indigenous didn’t have to see them. Put them in missions like we did in the 19th century when we took their land. That would fix the problem.
2
Repealing Native title which by the way restricts indigenous land rights would open up all land titles because you can’t change the High Court Mabo decision.
2
@marcusrwalker No factually incorrect. The Mabo decision by the High Court is irreversible. It established indigenous land rights in Australia through English common law rights. Native title legislation of course can be changed but to what. Legislation can't negate constitutional law rights. Any attempt to negate indigenous land rights would be unconstitutional. It is never going to happen.
2
@echelon2k8 Yes I understand that's your opinion, however you are wrong.
2
@turnyourbacktoit No we can't. Mabo and indigenous land rights are fixed in law. You go right ahead and change common law ownership rights. Just try. Please gather your lawyers and off you go. Please do it. I dare you.
2
@echelon2k8 No you can’t change the reality of indigenous land ownership, that is simply a fact. You can attempt to create an Apartheid with laws that could certainly deny the existence of indigenous people. Go right ahead give it a shot.
2
Instead of posting comments why don’t we all just count the racist ones
2
So Cook in his ship diaries of 1788 records the use of smoke fires as a means of signalling his approach to land by indigenous groups. Smoking ceremonies are well documented in indigenous culture as they are in many others. I don’t understand why you feel the need to denigrate indigenous culture. Does it make you feel like a big man?
2
@maddogmorgan8737 Yeah, my bad. I meant his ship diaries from Endeavour in 1770. Good pickup.
2
@turnyourbacktoit Seriously, you think a possible change in government will see a LNP government attempt to dissolve native land title. Hilarious.
2
@Leosarebetter So sorry to offend you with the facts of reality.
1
@Leosarebetter Cleary you are not Australian or live in this country to have such a breathtaking lack of Australian history.
1
@Leosarebetter Yes as I mentioned in my first comment educating RWNJ has clearly failed.
1
@Leosarebetter If you say so.
1
@Leosarebetter I have achieved the first aim in my original comment.
1
@Leosarebetter wrong again I got the first sentence spot on.
1
@Leosarebetter Yes I definitely scored a hit on that one. Hilarious.
1
@marcusrwalker No it most certainly doesn't. The Mabo decision by the High Court is irreversible. It had nothing to do with Australian legislation, what it did was establish English common law land rights for indigenous people. You can't change that decision. Native title and its amendments that flowed from the Wik decision which were all explicitly designed to limit indigenous land rights can be changed or negated but that goes for everyone or are suggesting Apartheid.
1
@dmrftg6000 You could completely rewrite a constitution and dissolve all English common law. You could institute Apartheid and deny indigenous people any rights and grant non indigenous people whatever. Of course we would no longer be living in Australia
1
@echelon2k8 Reality
1
@derekmottley3656 No we can't.
1
@echelon2k8 And again that's your personal opinion it is anecdotal and as worthless as a fart in the wind.
1
@echelon2k8 on the other hand you obviously understand the meaning of a fart in the wind.
1
@echelon2k8 Do it then, I dare you to attempt to change common law ownership rights. Gather your RWNJ political forces and give it a go again I dare you to. I’ll sit back a wait for hell to freeze over.
1
@echelon2k8 Uluru wasn't given. Under Australian law it was always owned by the local indigenous group. Your entire comment is false.
1
@echelon2k8 I'm not denying that ceremony took place, what I'm saying is that ceremony was completely unnecessary as was proven in the Mabo decision Uluru was already owned by the local indigenous group. Stealing property and returning it is not giving anything.
1
@echelon2k8 No you are factually wrong in law. Take up your stupid opinion with the High Court. You are incorrect, you are stating a falsehood. You are not in the realm of reality.
1
@echelon2k8 No I understand you think it is a fraud. However the other 27 million of us and the High Court of Australia in a decision that is irreversible ie your opinion is worthless, decided different. You are wrong in fact and wrong in reality.
1
@echelon2k8 Hilarious “truth will out” clearly you and Keith Windschuttle share the same delusion. The High Court Mabo decision 6 to 1 is finale. It established indigenous land rights that are irreversible. You have nothing but your own little bubble of delusional bush lawyer illogical nonsense to live in, enjoy it.
1
@echelon2k8 "truth will out" hilarious. Off in your little delusional world of bush lawyers. Comedy gold.
1
@echelon2k8 The entire legal and political system completely disagrees with you, and there you stand sucking your thumb and demanding like a three year old, I must be right. So unbelievably laughably stupid.
1
In 1770 Lieutenant James Cook claimed ownership of the east coast of Australia on behalf of Great Britain. This claim was based on the concept of terra nullius, or land of nobody, whereby Britain assumed that Aboriginal people did not have any form of political organisation and therefore no leaders with the authority to sign treaties. It meant in effect that, according to British law, Australia’s Indigenous population had no legitimate claim to the land on which they had lived for thousands of years. In 1835 grazier and explorer John Batman used a treaty to buy land around Port Phillip Bay (present-day Melbourne) directly from its Aboriginal inhabitants. However, Governor Bourke’s Proclamation of 10 October that year stated that people found dwelling on land without the authority of the government would be considered trespassers. This proclamation quashed the treaty and codified the concept of terra nullius. Aboriginal people therefore could not sell land, nor could individuals acquire it, except directly through the Crown. Four people standing in front of a statue of Lady Justice. - click to view larger image From left: Dave Passi, Eddie Mabo, barrister Bryan Keon-Cohen and James Rice outside the Queensland Supreme Court, 1989 Challenging terra nullius In May 1982 a group of Meriam from the Eastern Torres Strait including David Passi, Sam Passi, Celuia Mapo Salee and James Rice, led by Eddie Koiki Mabo, lodged a case with the High Court of Australia for legal ownership of the island. Over a period of 10 years, 33 Meriam people, including the plaintiffs, generated 4,000 pages of transcripts of evidence. The evidence presented included proof that the eight clans of Mer (Murray Island) have occupied clearly defined territories on the island for hundreds of years, and proved the continuity of custom on Mer. The High Court resolved that the Supreme Court of Queensland should determine the parameters of the case. While this decision was underway, the Queensland Parliament passed the Torres Strait Islands Coastal Islands Act 1985, which ‘extinguished without compensation’ any Torres Strait Islander claims to their traditional lands. In February 1986, the Meriam challenged the legislation and in December 1988 the High Court ruled in the Mabo No. 1 case that the Act contravened the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This enabled the High Court to begin hearing Mabo No. 2, the Meriam’s land rights case. On 3 June 1992, six of the seven judges agreed that the Meriam held traditional ownership of the lands of Mer. The decision led to the passing of the Native Title Act 1993, providing the framework for all Australian Indigenous people to make claims of native title.
1
✔️ That's two
1
@AndysAppleFarm-aaf ✔that’s a confirmation.
1
@SueNicholls-95 More ignorance. Dingo and Malley merely westernised an indigenous greeting that has been around for thousands of years. It was not invented by Dingo and Ernie himself has said this on numerous occasions publicly. I do not understand why you feel the need to denigrate indigenous culture. Some welcome to country ceremonies involved wiping the sweat from under arms and then rubbing the sweat onto the shoulders of the person you were greeting. Is that what you want? By the way Australians didn’t invent poetry so take that back to wherever.
1
@fringedweller5425 Again you misunderstand the use of the word country by indigenous people. All cultures have forms of greetings, what I find astounding is your belief that a culture or any culture wouldn't develop a means by which to communicate a greeting. I generally say hello and shake somebody's hand.
1
@Didigetitwrong Because that is their culture and the connection they have with the land. You either fail to understand this or deliberately don't want to. Country to indigenous people is different to how you and I use the word Country which to us means Australia, that's not what indigenous mean.
1
@Didigetitwrong No, all indigenous people want is recognition. For the vast majority of our history since 1788 they have been marginalised, and now a simple acknowledgement of their presence and history seems to cause offence. Why?
1
@ayianaarthur2551 I don't understand why you feel the need to denigrate another culture. What are you terrified of?
1
@turnyourbacktoit Vacuous garbage that has gibberish at its heart
1
No you are factually wrong. No war was declared. Now Britain could have declared war and a whole set of legal parameters would have com into play, but they didn’t. They declared the land practically unoccupied without settled law. This was proven in to be false in the 1992 High Court Mabo decision. Not only is your language incorrect your understanding of Australian history and law is lacking.
1
@turnyourbacktoit No you are factually and demonstrably wrong. No war was declared if it was please reference that document (you can’t so let’s move on). Government edicts in the mid 19th century and Privy council rulings in the late 19th century document the concept of terra nullius. This concept was proven in 1992 to be false. The High Court of Australia decided in an irreversible decision terra nullius is regards to Australia was a legal fiction. Your opinion is as stupidly funny as are your emojis.
1
@glenpudney just pure ignorance. To indigenous the word “country” merely means the land on which they live ie their local community, they don’t mean country as you know it. You need to read a book.
1
The definition of racism is attributing a single opinion (factually incorrect as far as we know) to an entire ethic group to denigrate them. Well done.
1
Nice bigoted comment, how to feel about jews and muslims?
1
A complete misunderstanding of the welcome to country.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 And there you have it. Your ignorance of indigenous culture is obvious and clear. Typical of bigots who wish to denigrate other’s cultures.
1
And there you have it, pure ignorance. Typical of bigotry is the attempt to denigrate other cultures
1
@ThatGuy-ze5kk If you are referencing the Ernie Dingo/Richard Walley westernising of traditional indigenous welcoming ceremonies then you have to understand then that this has also been westernised further as it has evolved. 100000 footy fans at the AFL final are not going to rub the sweat from under their armpits and rub it on the person beside you. There is literally no harm in an indigenous person welcoming you onto their country (country to indigenous people doesn’t mean Australia). It is not obsolete for an indigenous person to offer you a friendly greeting. It is nothing different than a handshake. Don’t be such a snowflake.
1
@ThatGuy-ze5kk Fair cop. I should have referred more to the snowflakery of the entire content. Can you reference a particular welcome to country that was deliberately toxic? A recent one at the AFL certainly wasn’t toxic is was misinterpreted because again people don’t understand the ceremony at all, and ignorance creates fear. The terrified lawyer in this clip is a perfect example.
1
No way, if it is offending RWNJ snowflakes then I say more of it. But in all seriousness yes I see your point. Clearly educating RWNJs on welcome to country isn’t working. What would be clearly the best for the country would be the indigenous people just accepted their lot shutup and just moved back into the shadows, where us non indigenous didn’t have to see them. Put them in missions like we did in the 19th century when we took their land. That would fix the problem.
1
No way, if it is offending RWNJ snowflakes then I say more of it. But in all seriousness yes I see your point. Clearly educating RWNJs on welcome to country isn’t working. What would be clearly the best for the country would be the indigenous people just accepted their lot shutup and just moved back into the shadows, where us non indigenous didn’t have to see them. Put them in missions like we did in the 19th century when we took their land. That would fix the problem.
1
Welcome to country has a history in indigenous culture going back thousands of years as do many other cultures with greeting ceremonies. I have no idea why you feel the need to denigrate another culture. The ceremony you refer to is acknowledged by Dingo and Malley as their interpretation of welcome ceremonies and that they westernised. You ignorance of indigenous culture is quite sad.
1
@rayden9014 I don’t understand your willingness to denigrate a culture you clearly don’t understand. Does attempting to belittle a people make you feel like a big man? To receive a government benefit an indigenous person must provide proof of aboriginal genealogy, they must identify as indigenous, and finally provide evidence they have been accepted by an indigenous group.
1
@rayden9014 Name the individual otherwise your claim is just unsubstantiated garbage. As explained evidence of aboriginality is required by law to gain a public benefit. You are describing private income, so you clearly don’t understand the subject. No individual is required by law to share their personal private income. All you have provided is unsubstantiated personal opinions which are literally worthless. Do you actually have any facts?
1
@turnyourbacktoit Nice racist tirade. Spectacular in its stupidity.
1
@Toadie-t9u You wouldn't know reality if it jumped out of your lower colon
1
@Toadie-t9u Yes I understand the knowledge you have gained from your lower colon is considerable, and you continue to share it.
1
@turnyourbacktoit In Cook’s journal of 26 April 1770 there is a page long entry that explicitly describes signal fire and smoke being used. Not just by Cook but his crew as well. You are demonstrably and factually incorrect. Your personal opinion of indigenous culture is as worthlesss as is one of your farts.
1
@KeithLyons-z4h The use of smoke and burning has bèn used by multiple cultures and ethnic groups going back thousands of years. Catholics regularly burn incense as part of their religious practices. I have no idea why you feel the need to denigrate other cultures religious practices, is it to make you feel like a big man or something?
1
@Toadie-t9u Just vacuous garbage that displays an astounding lack of knowledge of indigenous cultural practices and merely seeks to denigrate a culture that, for some reason, you hate.
1
Not a signal word of your claim is remotely true. The AFL pay $500 for a welcome to country. The stupidity that you honestly think someone gets paid $12000 for a 5 minute ceremony is so laughably idiotic that is in a kind of a way it is endearing.
1
@rayden9014 Yes I accept various people at various times have disputes over property rights. People are in conflict over all manner of things, so what. I personally have no interest in religious practices be it indigenous, catholic, or Hindu. There was nothing in any of the research or the reference you identified that refutes my comment. I do acknowledge that an indigenous smoking ceremony costs more than a welcome to country. You can see how much the AFL pays if you investigate its website. A smoking ceremony costs somewhere around $1000. Personally I wouldn’t pay a cent for a religious ceremony, but I understand many do, as most Australians are religious according to the census. I don’t understand why would would take joy in two groups or individuals in conflict over a religious ceremony, does it make you feel good?
1
@rayden9014 Yes I assumed as much. That a lovely character triat you have picked up. I particularly enjoy exposing racists. They always seem willing to engage.
1
So just disregard someone else’s culture and expect them to pander to you. Does that make you feel like a big man, denigrating another person’s culture?
1
@AndysAppleFarm-aaf My comment was in reply to the original comment.
1
OK so the point I was making was by insisting that we just shake hands (which by the way I personally always do) and forcing a greeting that western people are comfortable with on a culture that may not be comfortable with that practice is essentially what is called casual racism.
1
Factually incorrect. New Zealand and Canada both recognise co-sovereignty with indigenous people. It can and has been done. Also according to the dictionary and the United Nations the definition of nation is easily applied to pre and post 1788 indigenous groups. You need to read a book and get out more.
1
No factually wrong and international law in 1788 demonstrates you are wrong. Not only that but a High Court decisions again demonstrates that you are completely wrong. Please reference the your bush lawyer degree.
1
@turnyourbacktoit Go on try it. I dare you to.
1
@Chris-wj8fz Latin: nullus meaning no one. Latin: terra meaning earth. By the mid 19th century "terra nullius" was accepted as meaning "land belonging to no one".
1
@Chris-wj8fz vacuous gibberish
1
@Chris-wj8fz meaningless garbage
1
@Chris-wj8fz unsubstantiated waffle
1
@Chris-wj8fz And more waffle.
1
@Chris-wj8fz well you have played quality waffle, and an emoji to top it off. Comedy gold.
1
@Chris-wj8fz Sorry I hurt you feelings. Please serve up more of your waffle that is clearly generated in your upper colon. It is hilarious, don't forget to chuck in an emoji or two.
1
@Chris-wj8fz “A fly in the ointment Hans, a monkey in the wrench, a pain in the arse”
1
@turnyourbacktoit Which majority decision by the High Court are you referring to?
1
@turnyourbacktoit So jack shit.
1
@turnyourbacktoit So you finally understand a decision by a majority of the High Court is final. It's decision is then binding on all other courts in Australia. The Mabo decision established indigenous land rights in Australia. That decision is irreversible. Deal with it.
1
@turnyourbacktoit Incorrect. The Chamberlain case worked its way through the NT court system and she was eventually acquitted by its Supreme Court after the High Court made a decision that the NT Supreme court decision could be set aside by the Federal court. The High Court majority decision as previously advised was final and the Federal court and the NT Supreme court had to do what it was told.
1
@Chris-wj8fz In 1889 the Privy Council made a decision in regard to Cooper v Stuart. In that decision it decided that at the time of British acquisition of sovereignty, the continent (Australia) was "a tract of territory practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law" In 1992 the High Court put an end to that fiction and Native title was established in law. That decision is irreversible, final, end of debate.
1
@Chris-wj8fz I have literally no interest in the waffle that is your personal life.
1
@turnyourbacktoit Currently the scientific research estimates indigenous occupation at 60000 years +/- 5000 years. Any other opinions are just speculation or in the case you mentioned someone who was expressing a view that indigenous people have been here from the beginning of the dreamtime. This is not supported by the science. You will find Christians who honestly believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Do you denigtate them?
1
@turnyourbacktoit The Gwion Gwion paintings and rock art go back about 20000 years, but as technology improves so does our ability to date these works. So what?
1
@turnyourbacktoit I perfer Thai, again so what?
1
@turnyourbacktoit That's what I said.
1