It seems to me on balance that a treaty written 228 or more years after the
settlement of Australia by Europeans (or call it 'Invasion Day' if you like)
will not provide justice, it will instead simply complicate matters.
- It is very difficult to imagine exactly what would be in the treaty for
it to bring justice to Aborigines and the Australian people in general.
Aboriginal land rights were enacted decades ago.
|The Breakaways, Coober Pedy, South Australia
|After taking this drone photo I was told that flying drones in
conservation parks was illegal; the justification given was that drones
would be able to photograph areas that were sacred to the Aborigines and
that were not so easily seen by people on foot.
Surely constraining the rights of everyone because of the superstitions of a
few is questionable ethically?
- In an ideal society everyone would be treated equally, regardless of
race or who one's ancesters were; a treaty would give preferential treatment
to people of one race over people of other races.
- I am at least third generation Australian born (my grand-parents were all
born in Australia); before that my ancestors
were in Europe for thousands of years.
Should that give me special rights in Europe?
Before going to Europe my earlier ancestors were in Africa for millions of
years; should that give me special rights in Africa?
If you answered no to these questions, then how can special rights to
Aborigines be justified in Australia?
- A person's rights, social status (and
wealth too) should not depend on
who their ancestors were or where they lived.
That is the old British class system or the Indian cast system.
- Australia's Aborigines generally are disadvantaged compared to most
non-Aborigines; but they are not the only people in Australia who are
Surely ethics dictates that people should be given assistance based on the
level of their disadvantage, not based on their racial affiliation.
- Pauline Hanson's expression of fear at Australia becoming 'overrun with
Asians' have been roundly condemned, and I believe rightly so.
Why do Caucasians have a greater right to Australia than do Asians?
We were here first?
Does that really justify us keeping others out?
But then, if being here before most Asians does not give us a right to keep
others out, how can we rationally justify stopping the Japanese from invading
And if 'being here first' brings with it no rights, where do Aborigines stand?
(Then there are the implications for refugees who would like to come to
- If there was a treaty, who will be the beneficiaries?
Those who are genetically 100% aboriginal? Those who are 50% or more?
Those who are 25% or more?
Those who simply consider themselves to be aboriginal?
- There were undoubted injustices to Aborigines in the past.
Does giving benefits to the descendants of these people in any way right that
This seems to me to be something like the inverse of punishing the sons for
the sins of the fathers.
Can an advantage given to one person in any way make up for a crime
perpetrated against another person?
On the other hand there are some cases when a person might have to make
reparation for harm done by a predecessor; for example if a person inherited
a fortune and it was later found that that fortune had been wrongly taken
from a third party, surely it should be returned.
Should it be returned to the heir of the wronged person if that person had
How far back into the past should this sort of reparation go?
- If we agree that the descendants of those aborigines who were wronged
should somehow be compensated for those wrongs, how far should we continue
with this principle?
Should the descendants of those convicts who were sent to Australia for what
would now be considered trivial crimes be compensated?
Should the descendants of the English Saxons who were disenfranchised by the
invading Normans be compensated?