TOPIC:

Had to happen sooner or later I guess?
With Australia Day just around the corner, I notice the shit stirrers are at it again.
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news...fc292b09fc2e775272f8
And calling for Australia Day to be scrapped altogether.

Nowadays Aus Day is over commercialised to the max with the original meaning long since lost.
But scrapping the day altogether is not helpful.

Yep, just another case of the silent majority v vocal minority. WTF’s wrong with the world?

Didn’t you know Shark, the minorities are now in control, with the help of the mainstream left leaning media. Gay marriage, gender issues, climate alarmists, BLM and invasion day activists, cancel culture of anything that they consider offensive.

Cesspit wrote: Didn’t you know Shark, the minorities are now in control, with the help of the mainstream left leaning media. Gay marriage, gender issues, climate alarmists, BLM and invasion day activists, cancel culture of anything that they consider offensive.

farking rainbows ?

Cesspit wrote: Didn’t you know Shark, the minorities are now in control, with the help of the mainstream left leaning media. Gay marriage, gender issues, climate alarmists, BLM and invasion day activists, cancel culture of anything that they consider offensive.

Surely if there is a God out there, he’d be thinking WTF have I created?

I use to be for changing it. But the marxist blood thirst will not be quenched with just Australia day. The dust will settle and then they will go for the Queens BD (what the fuck is a monarchy anyway). Then they will go for ANZAC Day (Australian soldiers are raping little girls overseas in the name of war and oil). Then they will go for Christmas, Good Friday and Easter Monday (We're not a stinking Christian society - Where a first world secular society and anyway what about the Muslims?) Game over - the goal

protect the criminals and jail their victims , let 2 legged pieces of dogshit kill kids on the road without a driver's licence and provide the bastard free legals to get away with it , let gangs have their executions and allow innocents to be shot because they dare to be in the way , bring overseas farm labour in because the australian bludger won't stoop to work for money
Ban everything because some arsehole facebook wanker says so

TFF pleased to read that

An article by Sherry Sufi from a couple of years ago.

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.

Native title can only exist if Australia was settled, not invaded.
Why? Because international law recognises territories acquired through invasion and annexation by force, prior to the prohibition of war following World War II, as lawful conquests.
Provided that all citizens of a lawfully conquered territory are granted equal rights by the local law, the descendants of the conqueror and the conquered are not considered 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 'Right of Conquest'.
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.

Sherry Sufi holds a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, a Master of Arts in Politics and International Studies, and a Master of History.

Devonleigh wrote: An article by Sherry Sufi from a couple of years ago.

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.

Native title can only exist if Australia was settled, not invaded.
Why? Because international law recognises territories acquired through invasion and annexation by force, prior to the prohibition of war following World War II, as lawful conquests.
Provided that all citizens of a lawfully conquered territory are granted equal rights by the local law, the descendants of the conqueror and the conquered are not considered 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 'Right of Conquest'.
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.

Sherry Sufi holds a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, a Master of Arts in Politics and International Studies, and a Master of History.

Classic Classic cultural Marxism.