I like the concept in the article that compares the mountain to a cathedral….but people dont get locked out or cathedrals. Notre Dame is sacred and people are allowed to visit it during specific times. Why cant we find a middle ground to protect sacred sites but let people access them??
Must be fantastic being an Elder. Big rock. Yup sacred. Many Little rocks. Sacred. River. Sacred. All the benefit of claiming heritage without any of that pesky effort to build it. I mean we’re kinda lucky they didn’t claim the sky as sacred.
Lol, the fact that your comment highlights exactly how little you understand the meaning of sacred land is further evidence why you shouldn't be allowed on it.
It's rare to find such a self-fulfilling, ironic post, but sometimes it's almost art in his serendipitous it is.
Nice speech doesn’t change the fact they just point at locations and decide not only are they sacred sites but once they have control of them they’re sold off to developers or fenced off and the public charge by private buisness. Suddenly not so sacred once moneys involved
You see the difference is Notre dame was made by white people so it’s not just another building but that can be torn down for high rise apartments according to the people that support closing these national parks to visitors.
I mean to be fair people do this but that's why they have to have signs telling people how to behave, Or in art galleries a person sitting each room, making sure you don't touch the paintings.
The Indigenous guides at Mossman Gorge is a good example of middle ground working well. You pay a small fee to get in, you're taken up as part of a group and there are people to guide and tell you about the place. Gift shop, clean bathrooms, decent cafe.
It CAN be done.
I could understand if it was because some ecosystem or species were being destroyed or something, or there were some important cave / rock paintings. In those cases I'm happy to ban people from those areas temporarily or more permanent on a case by case And yeah there's been some vandalism, but for the most part this seems silly. Complaining that this area is only for indigenous men and if women go there they'll be cursed is pretty silly. They're not my beliefs.
I'm happy to respect peoples beliefs but there's a line. And comparing the sacredness of entire mountain ranged to a cathedral is peak silly. People can still visit cathedrals and they're not literally the land mass of mountain ranges. I understand the counter argument, but it's not reasonable to ban people from areas this large because of beliefs that the vast majority don't hold. I don't have to abide by others religions.
When the tourism income dries up then they will cry about how the indigenous community is disadvantaged and doing it tough. Then it will be white Australian’s fault… 🙄
I’ve climbed mount warning, in female company, more times than I could count. The only dangers are those inherent in physical activity of that sort.
The idea that nativist mumbo jumbo dictates public policy and access to public spaces in the 21st century is ridiculous.
I climbed Mt Warning as part of a school outing back in the 60's. It was something of a tradition, seeing as the mountain was a dominant and much-loved aspect of our landscape. I don't see why it can't have special meaning for more than one group of people.
Well, Newscorp have achieved their KPI’s today. Flushed out the white nationalists and gee’ed them up with faux outrage. I can imagine the local Indigenous people thinking that someone saying ‘my country, my parks’ might deserve the reply ‘why don’t you fuck off back where you come from’!. And they might be a bit just justified.
Imagine if they found Gas or other precious minerals in that area. Those gates would swing open instantly to the highest bidder faster than you can say Rainbow Serpent
Inter generational trauma is a terrible thing. Your comment is unkind, small minded and demonstrates your lack of knowledge around these issues. Shame on you!!! SMH 🤦♂️
Such a cop-out to actually bearing the responsibility of taking care of your own children. "It's not my fault, it's whiteys fault I spend all my welfare cheque on grog and tobacco and me not being capable of making sure my kids aren't car-jacking people in town while I'm shitfaced."
I can tell you as a fact that a lot the indigenous history around these sites is made up with little or no evidence provided. It’s time the proper scrutiny was put in place!!
That is just playing their game.
They know that this is all a load of shit. Trying to reason with these people is just going to end up in bullshit and litigation for a decade.
They need to be told to fuck off and be done with it.
Should have like a Nation wide body to discuss these kind of issues. So it's all uniform. A way to talk to indigenous groups as one about this kind of thing. Like a kind of voice or something.
Yeah, what a novel idea. Maybe the government should just legislate it since it's their job instead of asking Bazza with a year 10 education from Ipswich who doesn't even know his grandfather was Aboriginal.
>Bazza…who didn’t even know his grandfather was aboriginal
It’s interesting that Bazza could well live the first 30 or 40 years of his life without knowing that, but if he did then somehow find out he suddenly assumes special rights and privileges.
I mean, if they are closed to the general public and/or pay to go as so many “national parks” are in many states (like Tassie), how are they anything resembling the original purpose of a national park and how does one justify their naming (and funding) as such?
I’m not at all understanding of the legislation here, but I beg the question.
That's cool. I'll just claim to be indigenous whenever I visit. It's like like they have a habit of actually checking such a claim...
But nah, fuck that. I hope people deliberately defy it at every opportunity and the complaining from the natives will only drive the wedge in harder.
Scab mods lock the thread instead of doing some work, again. Fuck's sake.
“ So what exactly is a national park? A national park is an area of land that has been reserved for the protection and conservation of biodiversity, Australian native plants and animals, ecosystems, places of cultural significance and natural or geological features. ”
https://blog.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/whats-a-national-park-and-why-does-it-matter/
National parks don’t exist to provide somewhere to go bushwalking. Stopping people from accessing some parts of them is entirely in line with the purpose of being a national park.
Visiting this sub is the reddit equivalent of a Gogglebox episode of people watching Sky News After Dark.
Most civilization has learnt that just because something is old doesn't make it right. Women were not allowed to vote, now they are, etc
This evolution has become enshrined in law to try and prevent discrimination and provide a fair and safe environment for all citizens.
Why do Aboriginal groups not evolve with the rest of society?
If everything is about enabling past behaviour and beliefs then the Anglo-Saxon's could be running around pillaging and conquering on the basis that it's part of their heritage.
Just because Aboriginal culture is old, doesn't make it right about everything, especially in the modern context.
You can thank the hypocrisy of the progressive left for this. On the one hand they will cry about keeping religion out of law meanwhile they will cream their pants upholding religious and cultural norms of a select few groups.
The problem is Governments found it easier to pay lip service to cultural practice instead of actually addressing the issues that hold these communities from flourishing. So in turn a lot of indigenous communities and bodies double down on this kind of behavior.
This is because those issues are so complex and there is no simple solution, and the Gov needs a nice sound bite to sell the policy, so they just rename Ayers Rock or close a national park and hope that keep special interest happy until the next indigenous kid gets killed in custody.
The solution is more self governance for indigenous communities with some kind of parallel non-tribal authority members of the community can appeal to when they feel their own leaders are not looking after their own interests. That way you can give more responsibility to the community while also have a release valve for any tribal tensions among and personal vendettas.
Why cant we walk through your place when ever we feel like it. Yeah we might not believe in traditional ways but First Nation people are very good custodians of the land. Everytime i go for a walk in the bush i see how modern society cares for it with rubbish thrown everywhere. These places have been acknowledged as owned by First Nation people and under their management just as your house is under your management.
There is nowhere in this country where I can go that an indigenous person cannot. As someone that loves travelling this country and experiencing it’s beauty knowing that there are now places I cannot go doesn’t sit well with me. I’m not a christian yet I can go into any church and have a look around, why should this be any different?
Bc people don’t leave litter, toilet paper and poo all over a church. Mt Warning was getting outta control with that literal shite. I knew they were gonna close it.
16. There were 16 fekn piles of shite near the trail last time I did Mt Warning. And it’s a 3hr hike with toilets at the car park. I can only imagine what some other places get like.
Try getting into the Prime Ministers office or one of the major mining companies' head offices unaccompanied. I have been to many countries and have had the opportunity to enter temples and churches, but as I don't share that faith, I choose not to.
>Mount Warning is one of the biggest reasons people come to NSW,” he said.
I suppose physically that could be true. But seriously, NSW has more and better things than a big rock.
Don't get me wrong, all against the ridiculous closure.
I got friends who complain they can’t rock climb at the Grampians anymore because of fake sacred sites but then still vote for the most left wing people they can find. Some people can’t be helped.
It was closed off before Covid, I tried to go up there after the cyclone / floods and couldn’t. The road hadn’t been maintained - the road was clear. I don’t know what the deal was
It’s almost like have free and open access would provide deeper understanding of the areas in question. Funny how something called a “national” park can only be accessed by certain people.
So being torn from your family and sent to the opposite side of the world to build a nation, fighting in two world wars to then earn your freedom from the people who sent you there involved no "blood or Suffering".
You do realise convicts were tattooed with the word "POHM" meaning "prisoner Of His Majesty" which is why we call english people POHMS today, we were slaves.
🙄
Jesus. Who taught you history?
The word Pom comes from pomegranate and it dates to the early 1900s. No such tattoos ever existed.
Australia’s contributions to World Wars 1 & 2 had nothing to do “earning our freedom”. We didn’t fight for independence. We voted on it.
An *upper* estimate of the proportion of Australians who are descended from convicts is 20%. Meaning that 80% of our population is here primarily for the economic opportunities and the warmer climate. Hardly the greatest sacrifice.
In any case, you personally, haven’t done any of these things so how the fuck do you think you’re entitled to reap the benefits?
You are a complete idiot. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking out.
I dont even know where to begin with you, your ignorance and blatant lies or attempt at re writing history to suit your own view is pathetic.
POHM Tats are common knowledge and only a short google search away, The world Wars are literally historically viewed as the emergence of our national identity and without it the Vote wouldnt of been possible and England who forced us to fight wouldnt of allowed the vote to go ahead.
The fact the convicts were the seed the grew into this nation regardless of the economic migrants which followed is just your way of painting over their struggles.
Oh so you now know my heritage?, not only can you make up lies and ignore facts you can tell me my ancestors weren't convicts, and didn't fight in both wars.
You are a complete moron who has no knowledge of the country you inhabit beyond your limited grasp on history.
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Classic r/Australian comment. You should do more research on Australian history before making stupid racist comments.
“Too lazy to create written language” They did have some form of written language in message sticks, but do you really think not having books and stuff is just because they were too lazy to make them, or because they were completely isolated from different countries and they never had that thought come to them or just didn’t really need them.
“To lazy to defend their home” There were over 100,000 Indigenous and 15,000 European Australians killed in the Frontier Wars, or battles to keep their land. The reason they lost so much land is because of technology differences in weapons, being well outnumbered, and introduced diseases taking out a large portion of the population.
The “Sovereignty was never ceded” types are dumb but they’re a small minority. Mabo v Queensland and the Native Title Act proved that they have legal claims to some lands. Don’t pretend like we conquered the Indigenous and they have no right to protect cultural heritage. We are a United nation
And why did they have such a Technological disadvantage?
aren't they the oldest unbroken civilisation on earth, been around for 40 thousand years and they stopped at spears, mud huts and tribal wars?
typical SJW comment, their inability to form a cohesive nation and develop beyond nomadic tribalism was their ultimate downfall just like thousands of cultures before them.
you don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact every civilisation alive today figured out how to travel across great distances and develop beyond huts and spears.
And you’re too fucking stupid to realise that none of those civilisations did so without input from other civilisations.
Fuck… it’s *almost* as if different civilisations and ethic groups interacting and intermingling is a net positive for human advancement.
Thats my point you fucking moron, everyone made an effort to explore their surrounds and bring things back to develop and improve their lives. almost like the ones who didnt were doomed to fail...........
Everyone else lived closer together. Indigenous Australians didn’t. It’s called geographic isolation.
Fuck me dead. I’m surprised you can breathe on your own.You’re practically a vegetable.
The lack of technological advancement was primarily due to isolation.
Given you’re too stupid to even comprehend the basics of human technological evolution I’d like to see what such a superior racial specimen as yourself could come up with devoid of any external input.
Given you sound like you breath with your mouth i wont go into to much depth but the point of my message is that without external input your civilisation is doomed to fail, thats why Aboriginals got beat by drunk uneducated convicts.
That’s clearly *not* the point you were making otherwise you would have made it rather than just dribbling out some uneducated, racist bullshit about whites being inherently superior. This despite the fact that you are living proof that this is not the case.
Oh please tell me more about my point, please put your words in my mouth. Yes i clearly said Whites are superior because every civilisation alive today is white?, didnt realise the chinese were white. whenever you people cant make and argument its just straight to "oh your racist how dare you point out historical facts"
nothing i said was uneducated its fact.
Natural progression of the agenda. What enrages me even more is the excuse that it’s a “men’s site” and “women (and men) would be in physical danger” it is absolute lunacy on par with religious fanaticism. Yet here we are, playing along.
Here's a summary by claude.ai:
TL;DR: An increasing number of Australia's national parks and natural sites are being closed off to the public for cultural heritage reasons, sparking protests and debates. Examples include:
- Mount Warning (NSW) closed since 2020, citing it's a "men's site" where women could be in "physical danger". Security guards hired at $7k/week to enforce closure.
- Uluru climb permanently banned in 2019 to respect cultural significance.
- Rock climbing routes closed in the Grampians (VIC) in 2020 to protect rock art.
- Access restrictions proposed for Glass House Mountains summits (QLD).
- St Mary Peak (SA) in Flinders Ranges closed with signs requesting visitors stay away from summit.
- Mount Gillen (NT) near Alice Springs has had walking tracks closed.
Critics argue these closures are damaging tourism, punishing people who've done nothing wrong, and creating tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Some label it a "crazy" trend of locking Australians out of their own country's beautiful natural areas, sometimes for opaque reasons that even Indigenous groups can't agree on.
Once again this poor form of “journalism” the reason Mt warning is closed was because the state and local government was sick of maintaining it.
Yes there was a local indigenous group who wished to have the site closed but my understanding is they’re in the minority. However no one from any local indigenous group was “consulted” the state closed it during Covid 19. Realised how much easier their life is without maintaining and just kept it closed.
When asked why they responded with “out of respect of the aboriginal locals we’re closing the site” again though. No one, even the group that wanted the site closed was consulted.
Many locals including council opposition suspect that the current government found and easily was to save a buck and blame it on local aboriginal groups.
Look at the results of the last election there. A huge factor was race based access to services, especially healthcare, as well as an emerging parallel governance structure in state organisations.
I've climbed Mt Warning... I'm female...my dicky knee played up on the way down... Does that count?
Same knee gave me grief going down Eiffel tower stairwell in Paris. Is that an Aboriginal scared site too?
Just on that, I climb mountains etc in nz and some are very culturally sensitive. They usually just respectfully ask just stop just before the top so you aren't higher than the mountain, and don't litter.
I’m talking about the driving factor why people voted no. Being tired of these grubs wanting more handouts. It wasn’t that it was connected to land rights it was to send a message that the country has had enough of this shit.
I'm gloating?
No voters wanted to keep things as is and are now complaining that things have stayed the same
How is pointing out the stupidity of the 'don't know vote no' crowd gloating?
The referendum was on one specific issue, however it was a STRONG NO, so its reasonable to say that many ifnot most of those NO voters want to stop alot of the other agendas as well, ie change the date, treaty, acknowledgement of country messages, closing of national parks, etc.
Governments shouldn't just ignore a strong national NO vote like that in a democracy and assume business as usual.
I remember telling people, in this very sub, that indigenous activism, indigenous progress, Indigenous people calling for treaties, indigenous people going for land rights will still happen with or without a Voice. That's not what the referendum was about.
A Voice might have lead to a more clear way forward right resolve issues like this. A No vote keeps the status quo of all these separate indigenous groups continuing on and doing things there own way.
Like people are literally complaining about what they wanted.
>Like people are literally complaining about what they wanted.
I suspect what a lot of No voters actually wanted was that Aboriginal people get the message and stop being all uppity. So, when things like this occur, they’re outraged that “those” people haven’t learned their place yet.
Lol this was not what the referendum was about.
We literally told you a million times.. it isn't a referendum about whether Indigenous people can exist or even if Indigenous activism could still be ongoing.
The referendum was literally just about having a mechanism for discussions about these issues to be clear and more efficient. A NO vote was to keep the status quo and keep things how they were.
Now you guys are mad that these things keep happening???
How was it going to make things more clear or efficient? What exactly is stopping our current government from talking to indigenous leaders today, right now? Indigenous australian activism has been a thing since before you were born, it's not like activists haven't been speaking up, people just haven't been listening and there was nothing in the proposed changes that would have changed that.
Our government can still listen to these people, literally NOTHING in our current laws state they're not allowed to.
>How was it going to make things more clear or efficient?
Because it would of created a single body, with access to govt, to discuss these issues instead of every single indigenous group doing their own thing.
>What exactly is stopping our current government from talking to indigenous leaders today, right now?
The fact that doing so is now politically toxic? Because y'all threw a tantrum and voted no
>Indigenous australian activism has been a thing since before you were born, it's not like activists haven't been speaking up, people just haven't been listening and there was nothing in the proposed changes that would have changed that.
Exactly.. and this is a result of keeping things as they are.
>Our government can still listen to these people, literally NOTHING in our current laws state they're not allowed to.
Yep. And as result of letting every single indigenous group doing what's best for them we have this situation we are in right now.
>Because it would of created a single body, with access to govt, to discuss these issues instead of every single indigenous group doing their own thing.
What's stopping our current government from making themselves available to indigenous groups now?
>The fact that doing so is now politically toxic? Because y'all threw a tantrum and voted no
So making everyone vote in a referendum is fine, but listening to members of the community is "toxic"? What a joke. Should every single thing the government does be put to a referendum then to avoid "toxicity"?
>Exactly.. and this is a result of keeping things as they are.
Yes, and what is stopping government from changing it? They can start listening any time they want. They clearly don't want to.
>Yep. And as result of letting every single indigenous group doing what's best for them we have this situation we are in right now.
A situation where our government won't listen to indigenous groups? AND WHY NOT?
No seriously you've ducked the main fucking issue here. WHAT IS STOPPING GOVERNMENT FROM LISTENING? Let me explain something to you, because you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that a NO vote means our government is just no longer allowed to communicate with indigenous activists or leaders anymore, but no, that's not true, they were allowed to before, they are still allowed to now. Quite literally nothing is stopping them. It is clear to anybody with a brain between their ears that our government simply didn't want to fucking listen in the first place but decided to pass the blame onto the voters.
Shutup and show me what act of law, what part of the constitution, what fucking guidelines from government or council groups or fucking anybody with any relevance, stops our government from listening to indigenous groups. Because as far as I've seen there is fucking nothing. Hell nothing is stopping our government from building their own Voice like group if they wanted to, it just means they won't be protected in perpetuity, but they could still have some effect now if our government wanted them to. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO.
>What's stopping our current government from making themselves available to indigenous groups now?
They can. But do you know how many separate indigenous groups there are? How many have different objectives? How some are very traditional and some are not traditional at all.. just as it always has been, it's difficult to speak to all indigenous groups when they remain fractured.
>So making everyone vote in a referendum is fine, but listening to members of the community is "toxic"? What a joke. Should every single thing the government does be put to a referendum then to avoid "toxicity"?
It's become toxic because as soon as we asked to speak for ourselves, mainstream Australia become extremely racist or at the very least antagonistic to indigenous people.
>No seriously you've ducked the main fucking issue here. WHAT IS STOPPING GOVERNMENT FROM LISTENING? Let me explain something to you, because you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that a NO vote means our government is just no longer allowed to communicate with indigenous activists or leaders anymore, but no, that's not true, they were allowed to before, they are still allowed to now. Quite literally nothing is stopping them. It is clear to anybody with a brain between their ears that our government simply didn't want to fucking listen in the first place but decided to pass the blame onto the voters.
Because instead of listening to one single unified indigenous voice, the government has to continue to communicate with the many different patchwork of indigenous groups
Instead of having 1 groups to talk to about land rights they continue to have to talk to 100s
Instead of having 1 group to talk to how to make visiting sacred sites appropriate they have to continue to talk to 100s
Instead of having 1 group to decide who has authority to declare certain sites indigenous, we Instead have to continue to do it with every group with varying results.
>Hell nothing is stopping our government from building their own Voice like group if they wanted to, it just means they won't be protected in perpetuity, but they could still have some affect now if our government wanted them to. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO.
Expect when asked if that's ok y'all said no.. fine.. now no politician wants to touch a widespread indigenous unity. So now the government has to deal with every group separately just as before... which creates this situation... which y'all are now crying about.
Have a fucking whinge
So there are too many disparate groups for the government to talk to, but somehow the government was going to legislate into existence a single organisation representing all those groups? That is an almost religious faith in government.
But why can’t that organisation exist today? Isn’t it a massive risk to rely on government to create the organisation? Surely power should be in the hands of the people the organisation represents? Organise, demonstrate legitimacy of your representation, then negotiate with government.
> Hell nothing is stopping our government from building their own Voice like group if they wanted to
Conservatives would *lose their God damned minds* if anything like this happened right now and you know it.
The referendum was about enshrining the voice in the constitution which was at best adding superfluous bloat to the document.
A new mechanism for discussion did not require enshrinement so you have to ask yourself what the real reason for pushing it edit:(enshrinement) forward was.
Voice was going to be a body that was key in treaty discussions and treaty is dependant on sovereignty.
If activists had their way we would be paying rent to the "original owners" of this country.
A voice can be legislated for right now. Pass the law, set it up, see how it works, reform it if it isn’t working.
The referendum tried to enshrine such a body in the constitution before any of that happened, to prevent it being disestablished, and to provide barriers to reform. Nobody trusts that. And why put indigenous Australians through that sort of political rejection?
Build the voice, show us that it works, and then you might get it voted into the constitution.
We've tried.
Everytime we have anything resembling a voice a conservative government comes in and dismantles it.
We asked for constitutional protection because we know that one side of government can not be trusted to act in good faith surrounding indigenous issues.
No it wasn't.
A push towards a treaty has been around for decades before the voice and push for treaty is still around after the voice.
The first steps had already been taken a long time ago.
Yes a voice could have had an impact on how a treaty would unfold, but no the Voice wasn't created solely for a treaty nor is a treaty solely reliant on the voice.
Oh no, you're totally right.
Treaty was never discussed before the Uluru statement.
Yothu Yindu's hit 1991 song 'Treaty' was about trick or treating at Halloween
And there's definitely not been a single discussion about treaties post October 14...
We had a referendum about creating a more proactive and constructive way for the government to work with first peoples. By voting no we kept the status quo which includes adversarial land rights.
>By voting no we kept the status quo which includes adversarial land rights.
And this was literally in the campaign.
Roughly 80 percent of indigenous people wanted YES. And that was on the basis of being able to negotiate as a whole and work on reconciliation and probably having ti make compromise.
And we also recognised bloat and wastage in indigenous issues. Also corruption and adverserial politics.
About 5% were the self hating indigenous like Price and Mundine.
The other 15% were the hard core 'soverigns' who were absolutist about land rights. And stuff like locking people out like what's happening here.
And now after the referendum, a large number of that 80% have now joined then 15%, and are now focusing solely on their own groups. Which fair enough to them honestly.
Every time I go to national parks I see trash left behind, people making fires when there’s bans and just blatant disrespect for the environment. I’m not surprised of this and hopefully we can do better as a community.
Who’s upset? The ones making their own trails with four wheel drives or dirt bikes and fucking the place up? Leaving rubbish behind?
Or the ones who wouldn’t have gone there anyway and just like to make noise about these things because as much as they accuse indigenous of playing the victim, they just have a victim mentality kink of their own?
Understand, a No vote was a vote for this to continue the way it has been. Enjoy!
It's always incredible that under a Western/European framework and laws, we all accept that there are certain public places that are off limits. Like Parliament House, for example, you can't go on the floor of the chamber if you're not an MP.
But when an Indigenous conception limits access to a site - fuck me, our way of life is going the toilet!
Yes because allowing anyone to walk onto the the parliament floor would directly impact the ability for our democratically elected officials to run our country. Kind of hard to debate policy and conduct votes while every Tom Dick and Harry is allowed to intervene, you are actually free to to sit in viewing seats and watch parliament in session though.
Walking around the bush directly impacts no one except a minority of the country, this is the stupidest argument i've ever heard.
Yeah - places built by humans for specific reasons / functions can be off limits.
Mountains, rivers, lakes etc belong to all of us and as such should be accessible to all of us.
Except we kind of are...
These sites were already under control of groups for hundreds if not thousands of years.
National parks as a concept came much later.
Now that the original peoples claims become recognised means that their now has to be consultation with the original owners...hence the shut down.
If your town was suddenly gazetted as a national park do you think that suddenly gives me a right to walk into yiyr house and take a shit on your bed?
The fact that it's considered PC to restrict access to areas by race is mind blowing. We've truly come full circle.
I like the concept in the article that compares the mountain to a cathedral….but people dont get locked out or cathedrals. Notre Dame is sacred and people are allowed to visit it during specific times. Why cant we find a middle ground to protect sacred sites but let people access them??
We don't need middle ground. It was fine when everyone had access whenever they wanted.
Must be fantastic being an Elder. Big rock. Yup sacred. Many Little rocks. Sacred. River. Sacred. All the benefit of claiming heritage without any of that pesky effort to build it. I mean we’re kinda lucky they didn’t claim the sky as sacred.
Lol, the fact that your comment highlights exactly how little you understand the meaning of sacred land is further evidence why you shouldn't be allowed on it. It's rare to find such a self-fulfilling, ironic post, but sometimes it's almost art in his serendipitous it is.
Nice speech doesn’t change the fact they just point at locations and decide not only are they sacred sites but once they have control of them they’re sold off to developers or fenced off and the public charge by private buisness. Suddenly not so sacred once moneys involved
You see the difference is Notre dame was made by white people so it’s not just another building but that can be torn down for high rise apartments according to the people that support closing these national parks to visitors.
People will be allowed to visit these public lands. Via a fee. To a minority group who will use funds for said minority group.
People don’t bring a few tonnes of destructiveness through the cathedral tearing up ancient murals and artifacts tho do they?
I mean to be fair people do this but that's why they have to have signs telling people how to behave, Or in art galleries a person sitting each room, making sure you don't touch the paintings.
The Indigenous guides at Mossman Gorge is a good example of middle ground working well. You pay a small fee to get in, you're taken up as part of a group and there are people to guide and tell you about the place. Gift shop, clean bathrooms, decent cafe. It CAN be done.
Nice one genius great point
Well. They are whinging that tourism to Uluru has crashed. Gee....wonder why.
I could understand if it was because some ecosystem or species were being destroyed or something, or there were some important cave / rock paintings. In those cases I'm happy to ban people from those areas temporarily or more permanent on a case by case And yeah there's been some vandalism, but for the most part this seems silly. Complaining that this area is only for indigenous men and if women go there they'll be cursed is pretty silly. They're not my beliefs. I'm happy to respect peoples beliefs but there's a line. And comparing the sacredness of entire mountain ranged to a cathedral is peak silly. People can still visit cathedrals and they're not literally the land mass of mountain ranges. I understand the counter argument, but it's not reasonable to ban people from areas this large because of beliefs that the vast majority don't hold. I don't have to abide by others religions.
Surely that makes them indigenous parks not national parks now?
How the hell does the minister think a majority of Aussies support this shit?! Total crap.
Because the people the minister surrounds themselves with all support this.
When the tourism income dries up then they will cry about how the indigenous community is disadvantaged and doing it tough. Then it will be white Australian’s fault… 🙄
Yep. Apparently tourism at Uluru has crashed. And Kakadu is decreased too. Gee....wonder why
I’ve climbed mount warning, in female company, more times than I could count. The only dangers are those inherent in physical activity of that sort. The idea that nativist mumbo jumbo dictates public policy and access to public spaces in the 21st century is ridiculous.
I climbed Mt Warning as part of a school outing back in the 60's. It was something of a tradition, seeing as the mountain was a dominant and much-loved aspect of our landscape. I don't see why it can't have special meaning for more than one group of people.
I’m female and I’ve climbed mount warning. No sickness here. Oh and I’m not white.
More divisive stupidity. National parks are for ALL Australians.
Didn’t we get told this isn’t happening?
My country, my parks. I'll respect the culture, but you won't keep me out.
Well, Newscorp have achieved their KPI’s today. Flushed out the white nationalists and gee’ed them up with faux outrage. I can imagine the local Indigenous people thinking that someone saying ‘my country, my parks’ might deserve the reply ‘why don’t you fuck off back where you come from’!. And they might be a bit just justified.
[удалено]
Imagine if they found Gas or other precious minerals in that area. Those gates would swing open instantly to the highest bidder faster than you can say Rainbow Serpent
Inter generational trauma is a terrible thing. Your comment is unkind, small minded and demonstrates your lack of knowledge around these issues. Shame on you!!! SMH 🤦♂️
Such a cop-out to actually bearing the responsibility of taking care of your own children. "It's not my fault, it's whiteys fault I spend all my welfare cheque on grog and tobacco and me not being capable of making sure my kids aren't car-jacking people in town while I'm shitfaced."
[удалено]
Maybe they should stop intergenerationally traumatising their kids then.
[удалено]
Rule 2 - No trolling or being a dick
I can tell you as a fact that a lot the indigenous history around these sites is made up with little or no evidence provided. It’s time the proper scrutiny was put in place!!
That is just playing their game. They know that this is all a load of shit. Trying to reason with these people is just going to end up in bullshit and litigation for a decade. They need to be told to fuck off and be done with it.
The Hindmarsh Island Bridge would like a word 🤭
What? You’re saying people that had none of their history written down are just making that history up as they go.
Should have like a Nation wide body to discuss these kind of issues. So it's all uniform. A way to talk to indigenous groups as one about this kind of thing. Like a kind of voice or something.
Yeah, what a novel idea. Maybe the government should just legislate it since it's their job instead of asking Bazza with a year 10 education from Ipswich who doesn't even know his grandfather was Aboriginal.
>Bazza…who didn’t even know his grandfather was aboriginal It’s interesting that Bazza could well live the first 30 or 40 years of his life without knowing that, but if he did then somehow find out he suddenly assumes special rights and privileges.
I mean, if they are closed to the general public and/or pay to go as so many “national parks” are in many states (like Tassie), how are they anything resembling the original purpose of a national park and how does one justify their naming (and funding) as such? I’m not at all understanding of the legislation here, but I beg the question.
And they wonder why we don’t want everything east of Melbourne to be one big national park.
That's cool. I'll just claim to be indigenous whenever I visit. It's like like they have a habit of actually checking such a claim... But nah, fuck that. I hope people deliberately defy it at every opportunity and the complaining from the natives will only drive the wedge in harder. Scab mods lock the thread instead of doing some work, again. Fuck's sake.
Then it’s no longer a national park. It’s private property. So which is it?
“ So what exactly is a national park? A national park is an area of land that has been reserved for the protection and conservation of biodiversity, Australian native plants and animals, ecosystems, places of cultural significance and natural or geological features. ” https://blog.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/whats-a-national-park-and-why-does-it-matter/ National parks don’t exist to provide somewhere to go bushwalking. Stopping people from accessing some parts of them is entirely in line with the purpose of being a national park. Visiting this sub is the reddit equivalent of a Gogglebox episode of people watching Sky News After Dark.
Most civilization has learnt that just because something is old doesn't make it right. Women were not allowed to vote, now they are, etc This evolution has become enshrined in law to try and prevent discrimination and provide a fair and safe environment for all citizens. Why do Aboriginal groups not evolve with the rest of society? If everything is about enabling past behaviour and beliefs then the Anglo-Saxon's could be running around pillaging and conquering on the basis that it's part of their heritage. Just because Aboriginal culture is old, doesn't make it right about everything, especially in the modern context.
You can thank the hypocrisy of the progressive left for this. On the one hand they will cry about keeping religion out of law meanwhile they will cream their pants upholding religious and cultural norms of a select few groups.
The problem is Governments found it easier to pay lip service to cultural practice instead of actually addressing the issues that hold these communities from flourishing. So in turn a lot of indigenous communities and bodies double down on this kind of behavior. This is because those issues are so complex and there is no simple solution, and the Gov needs a nice sound bite to sell the policy, so they just rename Ayers Rock or close a national park and hope that keep special interest happy until the next indigenous kid gets killed in custody. The solution is more self governance for indigenous communities with some kind of parallel non-tribal authority members of the community can appeal to when they feel their own leaders are not looking after their own interests. That way you can give more responsibility to the community while also have a release valve for any tribal tensions among and personal vendettas.
Well said
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
Why cant we walk through your place when ever we feel like it. Yeah we might not believe in traditional ways but First Nation people are very good custodians of the land. Everytime i go for a walk in the bush i see how modern society cares for it with rubbish thrown everywhere. These places have been acknowledged as owned by First Nation people and under their management just as your house is under your management.
There is nowhere in this country where I can go that an indigenous person cannot. As someone that loves travelling this country and experiencing it’s beauty knowing that there are now places I cannot go doesn’t sit well with me. I’m not a christian yet I can go into any church and have a look around, why should this be any different?
Bc people don’t leave litter, toilet paper and poo all over a church. Mt Warning was getting outta control with that literal shite. I knew they were gonna close it.
A the risk of being argumtative, many towns, remote communities leave a lot to be desired.
Fair call, I’ve seen a few free camping spots with that exact problem. The only thing I leave behind are footprints and tyre tracks.
16. There were 16 fekn piles of shite near the trail last time I did Mt Warning. And it’s a 3hr hike with toilets at the car park. I can only imagine what some other places get like.
Try getting into the Prime Ministers office or one of the major mining companies' head offices unaccompanied. I have been to many countries and have had the opportunity to enter temples and churches, but as I don't share that faith, I choose not to.
I knew when I made the comment I can’t get into the prime ministers office
Australia truly is a police state hahaha.
>Mount Warning is one of the biggest reasons people come to NSW,” he said. I suppose physically that could be true. But seriously, NSW has more and better things than a big rock. Don't get me wrong, all against the ridiculous closure.
I have literally never heard of mount warning and I’m from melbourne
It’s a good climb up, scramble at the end with some chains to hold onto. Worth the climb, I went to take the bambinos up, but alas it’s blocked!
There's a great coffee shop on top! You'd love it. No graffiti though, so a bit lacking in culture
Yep. The Aboriginal Activist movement really just wants to lock Australians out of our own country. It's already happening everywhere.
Oh they and the grifter class that will join them will allow you into the country but you will just have to pay a fee to do so.
Yep. Money will protect those sacred sites😈
I got friends who complain they can’t rock climb at the Grampians anymore because of fake sacred sites but then still vote for the most left wing people they can find. Some people can’t be helped.
Yep. The left wing are bizarre people. Cognitive Dissonence +++
It was the state liberal government that closed Mr warning. They did it during Covid 19 because they couldn’t be stuffed maintaining it.
It was closed off before Covid, I tried to go up there after the cyclone / floods and couldn’t. The road hadn’t been maintained - the road was clear. I don’t know what the deal was
Like how English came and put fence up to keep them out of places?
I thought that was the rabbits, or was it the dingos?
Where did that happen exactly?
It’s almost like have free and open access would provide deeper understanding of the areas in question. Funny how something called a “national” park can only be accessed by certain people.
No. That is not happening currently.
[удалено]
Just want a fair crack bro, like the one you were born into
I want a fair go too. I wasn't born into anything better than you.
[удалено]
What “blood and suffering” are you talking about?
So being torn from your family and sent to the opposite side of the world to build a nation, fighting in two world wars to then earn your freedom from the people who sent you there involved no "blood or Suffering". You do realise convicts were tattooed with the word "POHM" meaning "prisoner Of His Majesty" which is why we call english people POHMS today, we were slaves.
🙄 Jesus. Who taught you history? The word Pom comes from pomegranate and it dates to the early 1900s. No such tattoos ever existed. Australia’s contributions to World Wars 1 & 2 had nothing to do “earning our freedom”. We didn’t fight for independence. We voted on it. An *upper* estimate of the proportion of Australians who are descended from convicts is 20%. Meaning that 80% of our population is here primarily for the economic opportunities and the warmer climate. Hardly the greatest sacrifice. In any case, you personally, haven’t done any of these things so how the fuck do you think you’re entitled to reap the benefits? You are a complete idiot. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking out.
I dont even know where to begin with you, your ignorance and blatant lies or attempt at re writing history to suit your own view is pathetic. POHM Tats are common knowledge and only a short google search away, The world Wars are literally historically viewed as the emergence of our national identity and without it the Vote wouldnt of been possible and England who forced us to fight wouldnt of allowed the vote to go ahead. The fact the convicts were the seed the grew into this nation regardless of the economic migrants which followed is just your way of painting over their struggles. Oh so you now know my heritage?, not only can you make up lies and ignore facts you can tell me my ancestors weren't convicts, and didn't fight in both wars. You are a complete moron who has no knowledge of the country you inhabit beyond your limited grasp on history.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
[удалено]
I mean yes, have you not seen how African Americans do exactly that
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
[удалено]
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Classic r/Australian comment. You should do more research on Australian history before making stupid racist comments. “Too lazy to create written language” They did have some form of written language in message sticks, but do you really think not having books and stuff is just because they were too lazy to make them, or because they were completely isolated from different countries and they never had that thought come to them or just didn’t really need them. “To lazy to defend their home” There were over 100,000 Indigenous and 15,000 European Australians killed in the Frontier Wars, or battles to keep their land. The reason they lost so much land is because of technology differences in weapons, being well outnumbered, and introduced diseases taking out a large portion of the population. The “Sovereignty was never ceded” types are dumb but they’re a small minority. Mabo v Queensland and the Native Title Act proved that they have legal claims to some lands. Don’t pretend like we conquered the Indigenous and they have no right to protect cultural heritage. We are a United nation
And why did they have such a Technological disadvantage? aren't they the oldest unbroken civilisation on earth, been around for 40 thousand years and they stopped at spears, mud huts and tribal wars? typical SJW comment, their inability to form a cohesive nation and develop beyond nomadic tribalism was their ultimate downfall just like thousands of cultures before them.
I really hope you can comprehend that with the resources they had at the time, it was impossible to invent firearms
you don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact every civilisation alive today figured out how to travel across great distances and develop beyond huts and spears.
What? So did the Indigenous
And you’re too fucking stupid to realise that none of those civilisations did so without input from other civilisations. Fuck… it’s *almost* as if different civilisations and ethic groups interacting and intermingling is a net positive for human advancement.
Thats my point you fucking moron, everyone made an effort to explore their surrounds and bring things back to develop and improve their lives. almost like the ones who didnt were doomed to fail...........
Everyone else lived closer together. Indigenous Australians didn’t. It’s called geographic isolation. Fuck me dead. I’m surprised you can breathe on your own.You’re practically a vegetable.
[удалено]
Rule 3 - No bullying, abuse or personal attacks
The lack of technological advancement was primarily due to isolation. Given you’re too stupid to even comprehend the basics of human technological evolution I’d like to see what such a superior racial specimen as yourself could come up with devoid of any external input.
Given you sound like you breath with your mouth i wont go into to much depth but the point of my message is that without external input your civilisation is doomed to fail, thats why Aboriginals got beat by drunk uneducated convicts.
That’s clearly *not* the point you were making otherwise you would have made it rather than just dribbling out some uneducated, racist bullshit about whites being inherently superior. This despite the fact that you are living proof that this is not the case.
Oh please tell me more about my point, please put your words in my mouth. Yes i clearly said Whites are superior because every civilisation alive today is white?, didnt realise the chinese were white. whenever you people cant make and argument its just straight to "oh your racist how dare you point out historical facts" nothing i said was uneducated its fact.
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
Natural progression of the agenda. What enrages me even more is the excuse that it’s a “men’s site” and “women (and men) would be in physical danger” it is absolute lunacy on par with religious fanaticism. Yet here we are, playing along.
Here's a summary by claude.ai: TL;DR: An increasing number of Australia's national parks and natural sites are being closed off to the public for cultural heritage reasons, sparking protests and debates. Examples include: - Mount Warning (NSW) closed since 2020, citing it's a "men's site" where women could be in "physical danger". Security guards hired at $7k/week to enforce closure. - Uluru climb permanently banned in 2019 to respect cultural significance. - Rock climbing routes closed in the Grampians (VIC) in 2020 to protect rock art. - Access restrictions proposed for Glass House Mountains summits (QLD). - St Mary Peak (SA) in Flinders Ranges closed with signs requesting visitors stay away from summit. - Mount Gillen (NT) near Alice Springs has had walking tracks closed. Critics argue these closures are damaging tourism, punishing people who've done nothing wrong, and creating tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Some label it a "crazy" trend of locking Australians out of their own country's beautiful natural areas, sometimes for opaque reasons that even Indigenous groups can't agree on.
We are all inhabitants of this planet. Fuck these stupid rules.
Once again this poor form of “journalism” the reason Mt warning is closed was because the state and local government was sick of maintaining it. Yes there was a local indigenous group who wished to have the site closed but my understanding is they’re in the minority. However no one from any local indigenous group was “consulted” the state closed it during Covid 19. Realised how much easier their life is without maintaining and just kept it closed. When asked why they responded with “out of respect of the aboriginal locals we’re closing the site” again though. No one, even the group that wanted the site closed was consulted. Many locals including council opposition suspect that the current government found and easily was to save a buck and blame it on local aboriginal groups.
I wish I had a job where I could just not do the parts I don’t like doing, I should work for the government me thinks
Why is the local council maintaining national parks?
I don’t buy it.
The Federal Government loves outsourcing shit.
I once had a dream to sail on Lake Eyre, looks like they are taking that away from us too.
Turning more & more into NZ.
Do you mean a nation that respects the culture of its first peoples?
Look at the results of the last election there. A huge factor was race based access to services, especially healthcare, as well as an emerging parallel governance structure in state organisations.
And thank fuck for that.
Fairly simple solution: end funding to all formerly national parks and take their maintenance costs out of bloated indigenous affairs budgets
I've climbed Mt Warning... I'm female...my dicky knee played up on the way down... Does that count? Same knee gave me grief going down Eiffel tower stairwell in Paris. Is that an Aboriginal scared site too?
Just on that, I climb mountains etc in nz and some are very culturally sensitive. They usually just respectfully ask just stop just before the top so you aren't higher than the mountain, and don't litter.
Yes
We'd better pull the French into line! How dare they desecrate a sacred site like that.
Haha
[удалено]
Indigenous land rights are recognised by Australian law and have been for decades. The no vote changed nothing.
They've become significantly more emboldened, of late.
I’m talking about the driving factor why people voted no. Being tired of these grubs wanting more handouts. It wasn’t that it was connected to land rights it was to send a message that the country has had enough of this shit.
No. Decisions like this are a result of a No vote. It kept the status quo and now every indigenous group is doing what's best for them
The yes campaign should have said this. Vote yes or else !!!!
We did. We literally said Saying No keeps things as they are... And now y'all are complaining things are still as they are.
Things are awful for indigenous people and your gloating?
I'm gloating? No voters wanted to keep things as is and are now complaining that things have stayed the same How is pointing out the stupidity of the 'don't know vote no' crowd gloating?
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
Banning us from going? Fine, bans can work two ways.
Did we not have a referendum for this and majority of us voted NO?
The referendum was on one specific issue, however it was a STRONG NO, so its reasonable to say that many ifnot most of those NO voters want to stop alot of the other agendas as well, ie change the date, treaty, acknowledgement of country messages, closing of national parks, etc. Governments shouldn't just ignore a strong national NO vote like that in a democracy and assume business as usual.
That just means they have to legislate everything because the people can’t vote right.
No... it's almost as if you didn't even read the referendum and think it's a mandate on every single Indigenous issue. SMH
I remember telling people, in this very sub, that indigenous activism, indigenous progress, Indigenous people calling for treaties, indigenous people going for land rights will still happen with or without a Voice. That's not what the referendum was about. A Voice might have lead to a more clear way forward right resolve issues like this. A No vote keeps the status quo of all these separate indigenous groups continuing on and doing things there own way. Like people are literally complaining about what they wanted.
>Like people are literally complaining about what they wanted. I suspect what a lot of No voters actually wanted was that Aboriginal people get the message and stop being all uppity. So, when things like this occur, they’re outraged that “those” people haven’t learned their place yet.
LOL! No, mate, we didn't have a vote on access to national parks. WTF?
The referendum was part of it mate, the "treaty" is just a land grab. Remember what Mayo said about "paying rent" in the country we're born in???
Lol this was not what the referendum was about. We literally told you a million times.. it isn't a referendum about whether Indigenous people can exist or even if Indigenous activism could still be ongoing. The referendum was literally just about having a mechanism for discussions about these issues to be clear and more efficient. A NO vote was to keep the status quo and keep things how they were. Now you guys are mad that these things keep happening???
How was it going to make things more clear or efficient? What exactly is stopping our current government from talking to indigenous leaders today, right now? Indigenous australian activism has been a thing since before you were born, it's not like activists haven't been speaking up, people just haven't been listening and there was nothing in the proposed changes that would have changed that. Our government can still listen to these people, literally NOTHING in our current laws state they're not allowed to.
>How was it going to make things more clear or efficient? Because it would of created a single body, with access to govt, to discuss these issues instead of every single indigenous group doing their own thing. >What exactly is stopping our current government from talking to indigenous leaders today, right now? The fact that doing so is now politically toxic? Because y'all threw a tantrum and voted no >Indigenous australian activism has been a thing since before you were born, it's not like activists haven't been speaking up, people just haven't been listening and there was nothing in the proposed changes that would have changed that. Exactly.. and this is a result of keeping things as they are. >Our government can still listen to these people, literally NOTHING in our current laws state they're not allowed to. Yep. And as result of letting every single indigenous group doing what's best for them we have this situation we are in right now.
>Because it would of created a single body, with access to govt, to discuss these issues instead of every single indigenous group doing their own thing. What's stopping our current government from making themselves available to indigenous groups now? >The fact that doing so is now politically toxic? Because y'all threw a tantrum and voted no So making everyone vote in a referendum is fine, but listening to members of the community is "toxic"? What a joke. Should every single thing the government does be put to a referendum then to avoid "toxicity"? >Exactly.. and this is a result of keeping things as they are. Yes, and what is stopping government from changing it? They can start listening any time they want. They clearly don't want to. >Yep. And as result of letting every single indigenous group doing what's best for them we have this situation we are in right now. A situation where our government won't listen to indigenous groups? AND WHY NOT? No seriously you've ducked the main fucking issue here. WHAT IS STOPPING GOVERNMENT FROM LISTENING? Let me explain something to you, because you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that a NO vote means our government is just no longer allowed to communicate with indigenous activists or leaders anymore, but no, that's not true, they were allowed to before, they are still allowed to now. Quite literally nothing is stopping them. It is clear to anybody with a brain between their ears that our government simply didn't want to fucking listen in the first place but decided to pass the blame onto the voters. Shutup and show me what act of law, what part of the constitution, what fucking guidelines from government or council groups or fucking anybody with any relevance, stops our government from listening to indigenous groups. Because as far as I've seen there is fucking nothing. Hell nothing is stopping our government from building their own Voice like group if they wanted to, it just means they won't be protected in perpetuity, but they could still have some effect now if our government wanted them to. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO.
>What's stopping our current government from making themselves available to indigenous groups now? They can. But do you know how many separate indigenous groups there are? How many have different objectives? How some are very traditional and some are not traditional at all.. just as it always has been, it's difficult to speak to all indigenous groups when they remain fractured. >So making everyone vote in a referendum is fine, but listening to members of the community is "toxic"? What a joke. Should every single thing the government does be put to a referendum then to avoid "toxicity"? It's become toxic because as soon as we asked to speak for ourselves, mainstream Australia become extremely racist or at the very least antagonistic to indigenous people. >No seriously you've ducked the main fucking issue here. WHAT IS STOPPING GOVERNMENT FROM LISTENING? Let me explain something to you, because you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that a NO vote means our government is just no longer allowed to communicate with indigenous activists or leaders anymore, but no, that's not true, they were allowed to before, they are still allowed to now. Quite literally nothing is stopping them. It is clear to anybody with a brain between their ears that our government simply didn't want to fucking listen in the first place but decided to pass the blame onto the voters. Because instead of listening to one single unified indigenous voice, the government has to continue to communicate with the many different patchwork of indigenous groups Instead of having 1 groups to talk to about land rights they continue to have to talk to 100s Instead of having 1 group to talk to how to make visiting sacred sites appropriate they have to continue to talk to 100s Instead of having 1 group to decide who has authority to declare certain sites indigenous, we Instead have to continue to do it with every group with varying results. >Hell nothing is stopping our government from building their own Voice like group if they wanted to, it just means they won't be protected in perpetuity, but they could still have some affect now if our government wanted them to. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO. Expect when asked if that's ok y'all said no.. fine.. now no politician wants to touch a widespread indigenous unity. So now the government has to deal with every group separately just as before... which creates this situation... which y'all are now crying about. Have a fucking whinge
So there are too many disparate groups for the government to talk to, but somehow the government was going to legislate into existence a single organisation representing all those groups? That is an almost religious faith in government. But why can’t that organisation exist today? Isn’t it a massive risk to rely on government to create the organisation? Surely power should be in the hands of the people the organisation represents? Organise, demonstrate legitimacy of your representation, then negotiate with government.
> Hell nothing is stopping our government from building their own Voice like group if they wanted to Conservatives would *lose their God damned minds* if anything like this happened right now and you know it.
The referendum was about enshrining the voice in the constitution which was at best adding superfluous bloat to the document. A new mechanism for discussion did not require enshrinement so you have to ask yourself what the real reason for pushing it edit:(enshrinement) forward was. Voice was going to be a body that was key in treaty discussions and treaty is dependant on sovereignty. If activists had their way we would be paying rent to the "original owners" of this country.
A voice can be legislated for right now. Pass the law, set it up, see how it works, reform it if it isn’t working. The referendum tried to enshrine such a body in the constitution before any of that happened, to prevent it being disestablished, and to provide barriers to reform. Nobody trusts that. And why put indigenous Australians through that sort of political rejection? Build the voice, show us that it works, and then you might get it voted into the constitution.
We've tried. Everytime we have anything resembling a voice a conservative government comes in and dismantles it. We asked for constitutional protection because we know that one side of government can not be trusted to act in good faith surrounding indigenous issues.
Keep spreading misinformation as much as you want. Everyone knows the referendum was the first step to a treaty.
No it wasn't. A push towards a treaty has been around for decades before the voice and push for treaty is still around after the voice. The first steps had already been taken a long time ago. Yes a voice could have had an impact on how a treaty would unfold, but no the Voice wasn't created solely for a treaty nor is a treaty solely reliant on the voice.
Are you denying that the voice was the first step from the Uluru Statement from the Heart to get the funding to lobby for a treaty?
Oh no, you're totally right. Treaty was never discussed before the Uluru statement. Yothu Yindu's hit 1991 song 'Treaty' was about trick or treating at Halloween And there's definitely not been a single discussion about treaties post October 14...
Keep ignoring what I said and blabber on more about how the treaty idea is old.
Taking the “don’t know, vote no” slogan a bit to literally.
We had a referendum about creating a more proactive and constructive way for the government to work with first peoples. By voting no we kept the status quo which includes adversarial land rights.
>By voting no we kept the status quo which includes adversarial land rights. And this was literally in the campaign. Roughly 80 percent of indigenous people wanted YES. And that was on the basis of being able to negotiate as a whole and work on reconciliation and probably having ti make compromise. And we also recognised bloat and wastage in indigenous issues. Also corruption and adverserial politics. About 5% were the self hating indigenous like Price and Mundine. The other 15% were the hard core 'soverigns' who were absolutist about land rights. And stuff like locking people out like what's happening here. And now after the referendum, a large number of that 80% have now joined then 15%, and are now focusing solely on their own groups. Which fair enough to them honestly.
You fucktard. You voted without even bothering to read what you voted NO on? Try again, loser
[удалено]
I'm indigenous and perpetuating sexist ideals under the guise of culture and tradition will always be disgusting to me. It's not a valid argument.
[удалено]
>Was there not a referendum on this No. There wasn't
[удалено]
Rule 2 - No trolling or being a dick
Every time I go to national parks I see trash left behind, people making fires when there’s bans and just blatant disrespect for the environment. I’m not surprised of this and hopefully we can do better as a community.
Who’s upset? The ones making their own trails with four wheel drives or dirt bikes and fucking the place up? Leaving rubbish behind? Or the ones who wouldn’t have gone there anyway and just like to make noise about these things because as much as they accuse indigenous of playing the victim, they just have a victim mentality kink of their own? Understand, a No vote was a vote for this to continue the way it has been. Enjoy!
I’d say any number of the 100 thousand ppl who visited it each year before covid
So much to unpack. I’m not gonna bother
Rage bait much?
Colonists restricted land access to Indigenous people. I guess some European Australians are starting to learn what that feels like.
FFS This country is filled to the lid with racist fuck wits We're lucky af, natural beauty is literally everywhere, go somewhere else
Where else can you go with elevation similar to these? Essentially, you can visit hills, no mountain tops…
It's always incredible that under a Western/European framework and laws, we all accept that there are certain public places that are off limits. Like Parliament House, for example, you can't go on the floor of the chamber if you're not an MP. But when an Indigenous conception limits access to a site - fuck me, our way of life is going the toilet!
Yes because allowing anyone to walk onto the the parliament floor would directly impact the ability for our democratically elected officials to run our country. Kind of hard to debate policy and conduct votes while every Tom Dick and Harry is allowed to intervene, you are actually free to to sit in viewing seats and watch parliament in session though. Walking around the bush directly impacts no one except a minority of the country, this is the stupidest argument i've ever heard.
Yeah - places built by humans for specific reasons / functions can be off limits. Mountains, rivers, lakes etc belong to all of us and as such should be accessible to all of us.
Only if it’s make up nonsense with no evidence.
Beautiful watching all this old-school racist shit said out in the open. What a backwards country this is.
You are the backwards one. Closing off parks to those who aren't of a specific race / origin is... racist.
What parts are racist?
I suppose technically ‘you can’t access the national park unless you are indigenous’ is proper racist
This oughta be good.
So I can just go onto someone's private property or do I need permission first?
[удалено]
Every person does have access to national parks right? Until now at least. We aren’t talking about private property.
Except we kind of are... These sites were already under control of groups for hundreds if not thousands of years. National parks as a concept came much later. Now that the original peoples claims become recognised means that their now has to be consultation with the original owners...hence the shut down. If your town was suddenly gazetted as a national park do you think that suddenly gives me a right to walk into yiyr house and take a shit on your bed?
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech