In particular Justice Brennan stated that:
Though the biological element is … an essential element of membership of a race, it does not ordinarily exhaust the characteristics of a racial group. Physical similarities, and a common history, a common religion or spiritual beliefs and a common culture are factors that tend to create a sense of identity among members of a race and to which others have regard in identifying people as members of a race. As the people of a group identify themselves and are identified by others as a race by reference to their common history, religion, spiritual beliefs or culture as well as by reference to their biological origins and physical similarities, an indication is given of the scope and purpose of the power granted by para (xxvi). The kinds of benefits that laws might properly confer upon people as members of a race are benefits which tend to protect or foster their common intangible heritage or their common sense of identity. Their genetic inheritance is fixed at birth; the historic, religious, spiritual and cultural heritage are acquired and are susceptible to influences for which a law may provide. The advancement of the people of any race in any of these aspects of their group life falls within the power.[20]
Similarly Justice Deane said:
It is unnecessary, for the purposes of the present case, to consider the meaning to be given to the phrase ‘people of any race’ in s 51(xxvi). Plainly, the words have a wide and non-technical meaning … The phrase is, in my view, apposite to refer to all Australian Aboriginals collectively. Any doubt, which might otherwise exist in that regard, is removed by reference to the wording of para(xxvi) in its original form. The phrase is also apposite to refer to any identifiable racial sub-group among Australian Aboriginals. By ‘Australian Aboriginal’ I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as Aboriginal.[21]
It seems clear, therefore, that the broader ‘administrative’ definition does not diverge from the scope of constitutional power under s 51(26).[22]
93. State Definitions. At State level, the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ has varied quite considerably in the past.[23] In recent years most States have moved to a definition in terms of descent, although there is still a good deal of variation even within the legislation of a single State.[24] Some State Acts have adopted the Department of Aboriginal Affairs working definition involving descent, self-identification and community acceptance.[25]
94. Practice under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). Section 3(1)(g) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) defines an ‘Aboriginal’ as a person who is ‘a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia’. There is no attempt to define the expression ‘Aboriginal race’.[26] The Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Toohey, discussed this section in his Report on the Finniss River Land Claim:
the definition of the Act is ‘genetic rather than social’ … The dictionary definitions are framed in such a way that people having mixed racial origins are not excluded from a race with which they are genetically linked. Despite submissions made to the contrary there is nothing in the Act to compel the view that a person who is descended from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestors cannot be considered an Aboriginal. References to Aboriginal tradition and sacred sites and the elements of traditional Aboriginal ownership do not operate to narrow the scope of the definition. They are directed at the beliefs, roles and responsibilities of Aboriginal people, not at who is an Aboriginal. Membership of a race is something which is determined at birth and cannot, in a sense, be relinquished, nor can it be entered into by someone lacking the necessary racial origin. It is unnecessary and unwise to lay down rigid criteria in advance. As situations arise in which the Aboriginality of claimants is put in issue, those situations can be looked at. In saying this I adopt the comments of Mr Justice Woodward in his Second Report on Land Rights.
Differences between Aborigines should be allowed for, but any artificial barriers, in particular those based on degrees of Aboriginal blood, must be avoided (para 62). This is not to say that persons whose predecessors were predominantly non-Aboriginal will necessarily qualify as Aboriginals within the Act.[27]
Although this passage does not refer to the elements of community identification or self-identification in the working definition, the experience under the 1976 Act is significant in its acceptance of a broad definition of ‘Aborigine’, and in showing how that definition has been applied in practice in a closely related context.
95. The Commission’s View. Experience under Commonwealth and State legislation suggests that it is not necessary to spell out a detailed definition of who is an Aborigine, and that there are distinct advantages in leaving the application of the definition to be worked out, so far as is necessary, on a case by case basis.[28]
Constitutionally this presents no difficulties, as the High Court’s decision is Commonwealth v Tasmania show.[29]
On the other hand, it has sometimes been suggested that a special and more restrictive definition of ‘traditional Aborigine’ should be adopted for the purposes of this Report and its implementation.[30] There are several reasons why such a special definition is both unnecessary and undesirable. Restrictive definitions of this kind have not been adopted in other related contexts.[31] Experience so far does not suggest a need for more stringent definitions.[32] The application of the Commission’s recommendations in appropriate cases is to be achieved by the substantive requirements of the provision in question, and by related evidentiary requirements. Indeed, there may be cases where it is appropriate that provisions for the recognition of Aboriginal customary laws should apply to persons who are not Aborigines. These questions have to be considered on their merits, and cannot be resolved through the adoption of any more-or-less restrictive definition of ‘traditional Aborigine’.
From Bliskitt, Qld
YOU QUALIFY AS INDIGENOUS IF YOU HAVE no ‘O’ BLOOD IN YOUR BLOOD TEST!!! Barbara J Gibbs, Dip.Diet& Nut:BA/BSc:Grad.Cert.OSH;TEFL Cert Ganoderma Distributor http://www.online-ganoderma.com/gibbsbj http://online-ganoderma.com/gibbsbj
Oxford Languages
Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
aborigine /ˌabəˈrɪdʒɪni/ https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=AJOqlzWsgbjSH58lBEaGZGakNkoMnqR7rg:1678403291747&q=how+to+pronounce+aborigine&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozS3w8sc9YSmjSWtOXmPU4eINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLlYglJLcoV4pXi5uJMTMovykzPzEu1YlFiSs3jWcQqlZFfrlCSr1AA1JQP1JWqAFcDAHqx9CpdAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR_vm_-8_9AhUmSWwGHTypCfIQ3eEDegQIDhAK noun noun: aborigine; plural noun: aborigines
a person, animal, or plant that has been in a country or region from earliest times. – an indigenous inhabitant of Australia. noun: Aborigine; plural noun: Aborigines
How does one in a position of “presumed authority” like a judge, a politician or any other “legis-slater” get to become The Authority on the definition of A Word?; Rhetorical question as No Individual can (Lawfully) conjure The meaning of a Word;
The Definition of (a word) has been procured through centuries of endless and timeless English (language) Dictionaries and those very English (language) Dictionaries are (were) the Ultimate Authority of (a words) meaning right up until the time that we stepped out of the Lawful (Constitutional Courts) Realm and into the LEGAL (Corporeal Courts) Realm;
The LEGAL (Corporeal) Dictionary is named The Blacks Law (Dictionary) and it’s use of necromantic “spellings” whereby Meaning can be conjured by the act of investigating “words within definitions” until one (judges, magistrates, lawyers et.al) finds a word that fits the Meaning one (judges, magistrates, lawyers et.al) finds suitable to [T]heir thought process; This is why and how there are so many illogical and nonsensical “decisions” handed “down” by the “bench” of these courts; This is also why there are “arguments” regarding the “definition” of a word when there should rightly be none;
Merriam-Webster aborigine noun https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun ab·orig·i·ne ˌa-bə-ˈrij-(ˌ)nē https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aborigine?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=a&file=aborig02 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aborigine?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=a&file=aborig02 -ˈri-jə- Synonyms of aborigine https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aborigine https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aborigine https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aborigine 1 *: *a member of the original people to inhabit an area especially as contrasted with an invading or colonizing people 2 often capitalized *: *a member of any of the indigenous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous peoples of Australia
The continued land grab and welcome ceremony is heavily grating on the average Aussie nerves. Where once we naturally acknowledged the indigenous people of this country as being here first, we have now reached a point where resentment has replaced acceptance. These are my thoughts on this subject having lived the best part of the last century in this country. Firstly, I would like to see some gratitude shown by the Indigenous to their so-called colonial invaders for reaching their shores before the Spanish and the Portuguese. There are no Mayans left in South America to now push for land rights and complain about their invaders.
Secondly, the real Aboriginal people are not the one’s complaining or pushing for land rights, saying Sorry, welcome ceremony and the Yes vote etc. It is the tar brush activists who want their 5 minutes of glory or easy money from the Globalists. We have 11 Aborigines in Parliament who seem to have lost their VOICE and have done nothing to improve the lives of their people but have plenty to say in criticism of one of their own when she speaks the truth. Plenty to say when a Lefty Agenda is on the table and gives THEM exposure and an excuse to fly around the country and pretend, they care about their people living in tragic circumstances.
Finally, and most importantly! The stolen generation, who probably would not be alive now to act as victims and all who claim to be of the Indigenous lineage, who are now educated, dressing, eating and living a colonial life, should be made to denounce that life if they claim to be Indigenous. If they want to live in a Western Society and have the privileges that it gives them; If they choose civilization over their original roots of living off the land, it would be a hate crime and racist for them to attack civilized society. You cannot live as a White and have the privileges of an Indigenous person. The Lefty circus that has been going on, that has been financed by Globalists has to STOP! The reason for Land Rights was exposed decades ago by G. McDonald in: RED OVER BLACK; Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights!
https://www.veritasbooks.com.au/products/red-over-black-behind-the-aboriginal-land-rights-g-mcdonald
He, spoke of Communism behind the Land Rights, which has now become Globalism. Same thing under a different name. Time to speak the truth and stop this insidious takeover of OUR land where we worked so hard to create this wonderful civilization.
They are welcomed to their original land, without the civilization they are enjoying created by Colonialism.
After seeing, reading and posting this definition, it was exactly as Alex Antic tried to uncover in question time as per video I also posted. I do not as Tony Ryan conveys have great knowledge of true aboriginals still somewhat living traditionally. However, I know for a 100% fact there isn’t one in Tasmania I have come across in 51 years. Yet all schools here and Australia wide including Catholic and other private schools get extra funding for every child who identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The federal government allocates 500,000,000 million (half a billion to this as at 2023). See link below. So my kids’ schools get this money and no-one has ever asked for any proof. EVER! The amount is approximately 2,500 for each (I based that on a guess of 200,000 kids identifying). It is possibly way lower, but now you know why all schools push this agenda, they get paid handsomely for it. Meanwhile we still pay school fees and have to thank them everyday for being allowed on THEIR land. My children of Aboriginal heritage get allocated to speak Welcome to Country. Isn’t it their country according to the definition and the WELCOME itself? Shouldn’t it be all the other non aboriginal kids doing the ‘Welcome to Country”? Just asking?
It is all a complete farce and never has there been a less intelligent generation to my mind or more indoctrinated adults/educators of children.
I could certainly add that some from previous generations have allowed this to happen because they not only believed the government, they believed everything they read in a newspaper, watched on TV or were too busy watching AFL or another sport. They forgot the freedoms their ancestors fought for.
See link here to School funding.
https://www.education.gov.au/recurrent-funding-schools/schooling-resource-standard#toc-capacity-to-contribute
XYZ is tracking Lidia Thorpe as the poster girl for the Voice Referendum and by extension Black sovereignty. Here is the take-away
“The point of all of this is that I want Loony Lidia to be front and centre of the national Lying Press for as long as possible because I want Australians to understand that this is what their future looks like.
The so-called “black sovereignty movement” which Lidia represents is on the fringes now but in a decade, every political party, media station and corporation in the country will hold it as a core principle.” David Hiscox
https://xyz.net.au/2023/03/lidia-thorpe-denies-dating-bikie-admits-shes-a-drunken-skank/
To get an idea of what Black Minority Rule under the ‘Box Ticker’ Aboriginal Industry [a Communist Front] might be like, have a squizz at what Black Majority Rule under the African National Congress [a Communist Front] is like.
From a strong and prosperous First World Nation using its powerhouse economy to advance its populations by demographic on the lands guaranteed them by the state (with the state as an investment partner in their social progress and development under self-rule), from a string of world firsts across all fields of endeavor, political parties openly advocate in the Parliament: ‘Kill the Boere’ as the solution to the crumbling electrical grid that can not be maintained by Black Majority Rule.
SA was once a leader in open heart surgery with some of the best hospitals in the entire world for its multi-racial population – here is an SA hospital today in Kwa Zulu Natal.
Monkeys invade hospital in South Africa
In Marxist Identity politics anyone can identify as an Aborigine or whatever race or ethnicity they want, whatever gender they want – including transitional and creative gender options, even whatever species they want.
The ‘Box Ticker’ Aboriginal Identity industry worth over 33 billion annually is what needs to be in focus. All these assortments identify as Aboriginal and as the good Communists they are they have worked assiduously over the decades to squash the efforts of these communities to bring social order and prosperity to their lives, law and culture.
The Aboriginal Industry [Marxist Whites] is using these communities as a spearhead to bring in Black Minority Rule over Australia.
White Australians should determine right now that whatever numbers in favour of ‘Voice’ the Albo Referendum jiggy-jiggy pulls out of the hat we are not going to be ruled by the Marxist anti-White ‘Abo Box Tickers’ of the Aboriginal Industry that is currently making life un-liveable for the Aboriginal communities. And we should use the jiggy jiggy as an opportunity to make these whorejobs accountable for all their mischief.
Early definitions of Aboriginality were made by people who were profoundly ignorant of universal definitions, focused entirely on skin colour, and supported by people who possessed only the intelligence, outlook, and comprehension of trans-cultural issues, one might expect of a nation that was dedicatedly monolingual, monocultural and mostly poorly educated.
I should add that it was not until the 1970s that some Australians began to realise that issues of administrative service applicability were being applied to cultural differences and disadvantages, not to skin colour per se. (In the US, the vast majority continue to be that ignorant, as are their copyists in Australia who use the word “black”).
Unfortunately, we are still a long way from full comprehension of the endemic cultural divide in Australia, even in the public service. Let me explain this need for relevant services and applicable definitions.
It makes sense to keep education flexible when the children cannot understand the language of the school teacher.
Likewise, in the application of the law, this is predicated on the presumption that every citizen has access to new laws via legal requirements to make these known through Post Office Notice Boards, Government Gazettes, and main newspaper Public Notices columns (hence the maxim that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” because every citizen has the obligation and capacity to read at least one of these).
But commonsense recognises that Aborigines who are illiterate in any language, and who do not speak adequate English, cannot be lawfully acquitted in such conditions.
Moreover, some of the people who are thus disadvantaged can either be very dark-skinned or the colour of pale coffee. Obviously, genetic inheritance becomes irrelevant in this context.
But with the provision of special Aboriginal services and concessions, it has become attractive for people with none of the disadvantages thus addressed, to claim Aboriginality. In the mid-1970s, this was not a massive problem but, very quickly, thousands of faux Aborigines were “becoming accepted as Aborigine” by other faux Aborigines, complying with this component of the new definition. The Aboriginal population rose from 1% to 2.5%.
It got worse. The faux element outnumbered the genuine Aborigines and, being perfectly literate and articulate, dominated Aboriginal development policies, bending these in their own direction and at the expense of those who desperately needed service concessions. One outcome has been hundreds of Aboriginal academics, flourishing PhDs that would never survive audit. These have joined lobby forces with the dozen or so Aboriginal media celebrities.
This has got to the stage that tribal people, who speak only their own languages, and who find western culture utterly incomprehensible, now have no voice at all. If they elect their own candidates to represent their interests, these are identically handicapped and so nothing is achieved.
Enter the ‘Voice’. these “Aboriginal” pseudo-academics and media celebrities, not one of whom speaks an Aboriginal language or possesses Aboriginal culture, want to veto any new legislation for the entire nation until it benefits them. No matter how urgent the legislation they can veto it indefinitely.
This is obviously the total opposite of democracy and it is government by an elitist racial minority. In other words, institutionalised racism and apartheid.
I have been asked by confused Aussies… why would the Albo government introduce such an obviously retrograde piece of legislation, let alone constitutionalise it? All I can say is that this is how Fabian Socialism works. Introduce fascism and tyranny by stealth.
Merriam Webster dictionary defines Aboriginal as:
of or relating to the people who have been in a region from the earliest time .
Therefore, as a man of Irish descent stretching back many centuries I am by definition an aboriginal of Ireland. If the Voice or the Constitution do to define the meaning of Aboriginal strictly to refer to Australians, then I have all the rights that the Voice is supposed to confer on any ‘aboriginal’. I like to define myself as Aboriginal on any government document that asks that racist questsion. Why should I treat them with any respect when they are attempting to foist their racism on us?
[…] Pages: 1 2 […]