Whom will "Pay the Rent"?

I’m offended!

 

Madness

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/preacher-taken-to-human-rights-commission-after-refusing-to-perform-welcome-to-country/news-story/a72a60ebefcb55be0e261a6fc0389962

 

Too funny "light skinned descendant"

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/mockery-one-woman-blocks-1b-aussie-mine/news-story/727c330ee1dc1b0f80c57a38ac323a85

 

Finally some sanity!!


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/why-i-refused-to-acknowledge-the-traditional-owners-at-the-vic-bar-council/news-story/ee5464c1cde45b69bc46a383b536b935

"At every meeting of the Victorian Bar Council, president Georgina Schoff acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which the meeting is held and pays her respects to elders past, present and emerging.

At a recent meeting, I decided to acknowledge all Australians. I posted the minutes on social media and was promptly labelled a “racist”, a “visitor” and an “introduced species”. I was publicly condemned by two of my fellow Bar councillors and was told by the Indigenous Justice Committee that I had brought the Victorian Bar into disrepute.

Australians are told that acknowledgments of country are about showing respect to “First Nations” people and the rich cultural history and connection to country they have developed over more than 60,000 years of living on this great land.

However, in my view, acknowledgments of country are not about respect, as most people would understand that word. We show respect to Indigenous Australians by celebrating their culture and language, by valuing their historical knowledge, and by holding them to the same standards as all other Australians, not by making ubiquitous acknowledgments of country.


When we are told that acknowledgments of country are about showing “respect” to First Nations people, what is meant is respect for Indigenous Australians as the true sovereigns of our land.

The term First Nations deserves attention. A nation is a distinct political society. Therefore the term First Nations suggests there was once a number of distinct political societies, separated from the others, that lived upon our land and were the first nations.

While the existence of tribes or clans at the time of British settlement is an established fact, the notion there were “nations” by any definition cannot be established. The idea has also been rejected by the High Court of Australia and is accordingly wrong in law: Coe v Commonwealth [1979] HCA 68 at [12].

The term First Nations is wrongly used to strengthen the claims of the “sovereignty was never ceded” and “always was, always will be” movement, and to give some Indigenous people of today, who seek to make treaties with the states of Australia, the appearance of some kind of legal standing.

The chief executive of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service has recently stated: “I am looking forward to the day when the First Peoples’ Assembly sign a justice treaty with the state of Victoria, so that we can transform the legal system so that it respects the oldest continuous cultures on Earth and delivers real justice for our people.” This is serious stuff. Based upon the September 2023 recommendations of the Yoorrook Justice Commission and article five of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, what is being sought is some kind of Indigenous-only legal system that operates within, but separately to, the legal system of the state.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan gives evidence before the Yoorrook Justice Commission.
Not only would such a two-tiered legal system be antithetical to equality and the rule of law, but the real-world consequences are unknown, would be without precedent and are not currently the subject of any public discussion.

Indigenous people don’t live their lives in a bubble; they interact with non-Indigenous people as they go about their lives. What would happen if a non-Indigenous person was accused of a serious crime against an Indigenous person or vice versa? Which criminal justice system would apply and how would this be determined? Who would be the judge and how would the jury be selected? Would concepts such as the onus of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the right of the accused to remain silent apply? Such questions are not limited to the criminal justice system; similar considerations would apply to civil disputes.

In Australia, we are the beneficiaries of a legal system that has been developed over centuries and which is arguably one of the best and fairest in the world. I accept that the imprisonment rate is significantly higher for Indigenous Australians than non-Indigenous Australians. But this fact alone comes nowhere near close enough to proving our legal system is the main causal factor, or that a radical change to it by creating a two-tiered system based on race would close this gap. The reasons people commit crimes are complex and multi-factorial and are generally skewed towards economic, social and environmental factors. One thing I hope we can all agree upon is that race is not a factor.

Acknowledgments of country are not about showing “respect”. They are political statements signalling support for a two-tiered system based on race. They have no place in the law, including in our courtrooms, and the average Australian instinctively knows this. A colleague recently told me that when court commenced with an acknowledgment of country, their client immediately felt the judge would take a view against them and lost any notion of receiving a fair trial. This is what happens when the legal system infects itself with politics.

For as long as people continue to make political statements by way of acknowledgments of country, I will continue to acknowledge all Australians, signalling my support for an Australia where we are all equal and subject to the same laws regardless of our race.

Lana Collaris is a barrister and member of the Victorian Bar Council."