Blog Archives

Cook and Australia Day

Letter to the Editor

Australia/New Holland/NSW Invasionday

………..The first time that the name Australia appears to have been officially used was in a despatch to Lord Bathurst of 4 April 1817 in which Governor Lachlan Macquarie acknowledges the receipt of Capt. Flinders’ charts of Australia.[24] On 12 December 1817, Macquarie recommended to the Colonial Office that it be formally adopted.[25] In 1824, the Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as Australia.[26] ………..

Australia Day wrongly caricatured as Invasion Day a term coined by left media and militant blacks stolen from American Indians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Australia

In one of those peculiarities of history, New South Wales was only officially named and had its boundaries declared in 2001, two hundred and thirty one years after James Cook first uttered the name in 1770 when taking possession of an area covering most of eastern Australia. The reason why this peculiarity arose relates to the territorial evolution of Australia. So after James Cook, the colony of New South Wales was established and named by way of imperial proclamation in 1788 by the then Governor in Chief of New South Wales, the Royal Navy officer Arthur Phillip. At this time, New South Wales was defined (by Britain) as covering approximately half of the Australian continent.[55] New South Wales was further increased in size to around two-thirds of the Australian continent in 1828……………….”

I would say that Cooks expedition was at the behest of Jewish interests.

South Wales moved to the New South Wales

from Kev Crisscross

Brisbane

Editor: We would never class Cook’s arrival as invasion Day. Only the political left of the media and rabid, militant blackfellas or those posing as a blackfella in the cities coin this term. Today’s pampered and bloated black bureaucracies and their homespun Antifa mob should thank their lucky stars and God for the arrival of Cook and colonisation.    To publish the words of a well known and respected proper Aboriginal elder of Cape York 20 years ago: “If Australian soldiers (including blackfellas) had not bottled up the Japs in New Guinea any of us left today would be speaking Japanese.”

Katter’s troops ready to engage party hacks

Invasion or settlement, no land rights for militant Aborigines

by Sherry Sufi

January is here and gone and the invasion versus settlement debate is back making news headlines.The Prime Minister wants to keep Australia Day as it is while the Greens are calling for the date to be changed.

We’ve all heard the generic talking points.

Team ‘Invasion Day’ says 26 January is offensive to some Australians. Team ‘Australia Day’ says 26 January is a day for all Australians regardless.

Yet there is a fundamental point which goes to the heart of this debate that literally no one, to date, seems to have picked up on. Hence, this article.

Former Liberal Party adviser Sherry Sufi says if militant Aborigines insist that Australia was invaded in 1788, then they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Land rights cannot be claimed if Australia was invaded.

Native title can only exist if Australia was settled, not invaded.

Why? Because international law recognises all territories acquired through invasion and annexation by force, prior to World War II, as lawful conquests.

This ‘Right of Conquest’ doctrine was first conceived by the International Law Commission of the United Nations and later adopted as UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.

Provided that all citizens of a lawfully conquered territory are granted equal rights by the local law, international law doesn’t consider the descendants of the conqueror and the conquered as two separate peoples.

This in turn invalidates any claims to separate land rights under the same jurisdiction. As one of the 193 member states of the United Nations, Australia is not exempt from this doctrine.

Yet we do recognise separate land rights because the historic Mabo Decision in 1992 rested on the correct presumption that Australia was settled, not invaded.

In their ruling, Justices Brennan, Deane, Gaudron, Toohey, Mason and McHugh acknowledged that native title could have been intentionally extinguished by the use of government powers, but wasn’t.

They proceeded to reject the ‘terra nullius’ doctrine without overturning the traditional view that the Australian landmass had in fact been settled.

Had Australia actually been invaded, the descendants of its native population would be classified as a conquered people and their land rights would be abolished under UN Resolution 3314.

Greens leader Richard Di Natale might like to explain to the Australian people why he is attempting to undermine native title by implying that Australia was invaded and conquered.

On 26 January 1788, there was no sovereign state on the landmass we today call Australia. The land was sparsely populated with disparate nomadic tribes without a written language and a central government.

Captain Arthur Phillip’s arrival with his group of disease-stricken poorly-fed convicts in their new prison colony, on territory claimed for the British Crown seventeen years earlier by explorer James Cook, does not constitute an “invasion”.

Far from the brutal instincts of actual invaders like Napoleon or Hitler, early British settlers built a colony that was surprisingly harmonious and committed to justice.

As the first Governor of New South Wales, Phillip developed a fondness for the native Eora people in his new colony at Port Botany.

He befriended native man Woollarawarre Bennelong who became the first native Australian to be escorted to England to meet King George III.

The federal seat of Bennelong held by former Prime Minister John Howard for 33 years is named after him.

Phillip once forgave a native for stealing his shovel because he understood that in native culture people shared what they had and there was no concept of exclusive personal belongings. Hardly the attitude of an invader.

In 1816, Governor Lachlan Macquarie appointed native leaders to act as conduits between settlers and natives. He welcomed the natives who aspired to be part of the new colony. Hardly the attitude of an invader.

Violent clashes were the exception, not the norm.

At Myall Creek in 1838, some 30 natives were killed by 10 settlers and an African in Bingara, New South Wales. The perpetrators were trialled, 7 of the 11 involved were found guilty of murder, and hanged.

The rule of law prevailed. Hardly what happens in invaded countries.

Whether Australia’s colonisation by the British Empire should be classified as an invasion or settlement is not a question of mere semantics. It’s a question that holds serious legal and political consequences for our country.

For most Australians, this debate is as settled as Australia itself on 26 January 1788.

American President Abraham Lincoln once said “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Let’s unite to recognise that 26 January is a celebration of a democratic story that would be incomplete without the Mabo Decision.

Let’s never again disparage native title by referring to our settlement as an invasion. Happy Australia Day 2018.

Sherry Sufi is Chairman of the WA Liberal Party’s Policy Committee. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, a Master of Arts in Politics and International Studies, and a Master of History. The views expressed in this column are his own.

Follow SherrySufi on Twitter

This story can be found at: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/inconvenient-fact-native-title-can-only-exist-if-australia-was-settled-not-invaded-20180119-h0l9hb.html