Aborigines Win Landmark Ruling

[one...two...tree 2,762]

AP

(DARWIN, Australia) — Aborigines won traditional ownership rights over a large stretch of coastline in northern Australia on Wednesday, in a landmark ruling lawyers said could set a precedent in other parts of the country.

The ruling by Australia's highest judicial body means the traditional owners will be able to exclude people from using the foreshore — the intertidal area that lies between the high-tide line and the low-tide line — in the area unless they have permission.

The High Court ruling most directly affects fishermen on beaches and tidal rivers in a 35,000-square-mile area in the Northern Territory that was subject to the claim.

"It is a landmark victory for traditional owners and we have waited for over 30 years for our sea rights to be legally recognized," said Wali Wunungmurra, the chairman of the Northern Land Council.

Dismissing a government appeal, the High Court voted 5-2 to uphold a lower court's ruling.

Wunungmurra said the traditional owners had no desire to stop commercial and recreational fishing in the region, but said a permit system was likely.

"I think we now have got to negotiate on a lot of things that we disagree on," he said, adding that traditional owners would not try to exert their new rights for 12 months so an agreement can be reached.

About half of the sprawling Northern Territory has been given back to Aborigines, including most of the coastline, under federal land rights legislation passed in 1976.

Legal experts said Wednesday's ruling could pave the way for similar claims in other parts of Australia, though they would probably need to be tested on a case-by-case basis.

"Morally, other Aboriginal people would now be able to argue that if these sorts of rights are being provided to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory they should be extended elsewhere," said Jon Altman from the Australian National University's Center for Aboriginal Policy Research.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said government lawyers were studying the ruling and considering whether legislation was needed to curtail the new Aboriginal rights.

He said he preferred that a "fair and sensible" outcome was reached through negotiation.

"I think the key way through this is common sense," he told reporters.

Australia's first inhabitants have battled in the courts to restore their land rights for decades, and the pace picked up in the 1990s after the High Court overturned the assumption that Aborigines held no land rights when white settlers arrived in 1788.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1828528,00.html

[almaty 19]

i know a similar, well not really, situation with the passamoquoddies..if anyone wants to know i post it and the history and outcome....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i know a similar, well not really, situation with the passamoquoddies..if anyone wants to know i post it and the history and outcome....

Sure brother...post it here. I thought this was interesting....that it shows 1788 is still relevant to what is going today.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This also comes on the back of the Government's recent public apology for racist relocation policies that led to the Stolen Generation. The previous government maintained that the responsibility of government for such policies only extends to the individuals who the original decision.

Bearing in mind that the Rudd government is a lot more liberal than the previous one I wonder how this will go down with Australian equivalent of US Republicans. I imagine there's a few people out there having a $hit fit about this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This also comes on the back of the Government's recent public apology for racist relocation policies that led to the Stolen Generation. The previous government maintained that the responsibility of government for such policies only extends to the individuals who the original decision.

Bearing in mind that the Rudd government is a lot more liberal than the previous one I wonder how this will go down with Australian equivalent of US Republicans. I imagine there's a few people out there having a $hit fit about this.

"Get over it!" ....I would imagine is one of their thoughts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certainly seems like a good decision - it'll be interesting to hear from our resident Australians as to how they view this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Certainly seems like a good decision - it'll be interesting to hear from our resident Australians as to how they view this.

You mean?

+

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[almaty 19]

i know a similar, well not really, situation with the passamoquoddies..if anyone wants to know i post it and the history and outcome....

Sure brother...post it here. I thought this was interesting....that it shows 1788 is still relevant to what is going today.

ok..not noted for any posts over 2 lines...

at a yard sale a gentleman bought an old document..cheap..dated to the 1700s...and was a treaty between Indian tribes and Mass. in fact, the indians gave up their land in Mass. and got the northern part of the state< which became later the state of Maine/// well, the gentleman took it to the Unviersity and discovered it was an orginal and worth allot..but, also, the treaty became known and the Indian tribes sued Mass. but mainly USA for their land (maine) and went to the supreme court and won///

so, usa gave the 3 tribes...$85 million and land for their treaty claims...i worked on the Ocean part of the Passamoquoodies, after they started returning back there..as they were scattered throughout the East coast and america ..and also, have a forest divison.....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

PC run amok

[almaty 19]

?????????????

[DairyFarmer 1]

This also comes on the back of the Government's recent public apology for racist relocation policies that led to the Stolen Generation. The previous government maintained that the responsibility of government for such policies only extends to the individuals who the original decision.

Bearing in mind that the Rudd government is a lot more liberal than the previous one I wonder how this will go down with Australian equivalent of US Republicans. I imagine there's a few people out there having a $hit fit about this.

What a farce this was only done as a public outcry against our previous Prime Minster. Sorry day was years ago.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I thought Aborigines, (hunter and gatherers), were extinct. Why can't natural selection takeover?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I thought Aborigines, (hunter and gatherers), were extinct. Why can't natural selection takeover?

We like to keep the weak alive because it makes us feel better.

[DairyFarmer 1]

However on the land rights issue I think the key phrases are

He said he preferred that a "fair and sensible" outcome was reached through negotiation.

"I think the key way through this is common sense," he told reporters.

Its interesting to me the land the aboriginies are 'chosing' to reclaim. Whilst I am supportive of their rights I am cycnical regarding the choices for areas which already have current tourism infrucstructure and produce income.

Edited August 1, 2008 by DairyFarmer