You quoted me, with quotation marks.

Do you know the purpose of quotation marks when attributing what someone said?

If I quoted someone with something they did not actually say, I’d be embarrassed. If they called me out on it, I would apologise or possibly just walk away with my tail between my legs.

I am not so intellectually bankrupt that I would lecture that person on what they believe in order to cover my own mistake.

But you keep digging.

And you have the audacity to insist I address your copy-paste strawman arguments.

>>”The whole basis of your article is based in the rejection of the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty,”

No it does not. Even if the Crown validly acquired sovereignty, that would not prevent federalism between the Commonwealth and a First Nations state. This is another strawman.

Misquoting someone is pretty low; but can happen accidentally at times. Gas-lighting your way out of it is outright intellectual dishonesty. You are not welcome here anymore, go find another bridge to hide under.

“The proposition must be rejected. It is a basic principle that all people should stand equal before the law. A construction which results in different criminal sanctions applying to different persons for the same conduct offends that basic principle (See Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), s.10). The general rule is that an enactment applies to all persons and matters within the territory to which it extends, but not to any other persons and matters (Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 2nd ed. (1992) at 255). The rule extends not only to all persons ordinarily resident within the country, but also to foreigners temporarily visiting (Re Sawers; ex parte Blain (1879) 12 Ch D 522 at 526; Gold Star Publications Ltd. v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1981) 1 WLR 732 at 734). And just as all persons in the country enjoy the benefits of domestic laws from which they are not expressly excluded, so also must they accept the burdens those laws impose (Bennion, op. cit. at 260). The presumption applies with added force in the case of the criminal law, which is inherently universal in its operation, and whose aims would otherwise be frustrated.”

The whole basis of your article is based in the rejection of the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty, and its resulting *jurisdiction*… on the premise “the Crown does not have the authority (or jurisdiction) to pass laws for Aboriginal peoples, and can only get this jurisdiction via consent in the form of a treaty.”

I have shown in verifiable precedent why you are mistaken, and your response was simply: “The High Court could rule they have jurisdiction over the moon – it doesn’t make it so…” which further implies that you simply disregard these HCA precedents as in your view they lack jurisdiction.

I notice however, that it has now become “I accept that the High Court has; at minimum, jurisdiction over the Australian people.” so maybe you should revisit your previous assertions, and clarify them too.

You are correct, the right of conquest is not a right that the Crown relies on for the acquisition of sovereignty, but the point is inconsequential to international law for the same reasons, it was consistent with international law at the time. Even if conquest was relied on, it still doesn’t alter the sovereignty acquired, as it is still gained by occupation. In fact, the expression “terra nullius” itself means little more than “uninhabited” in the sense that it was at the time open to occupation. (See Phillips, T.S. v Aboriginal Development Commission [1987] FCA 170 at 79, citing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Western Sahara Case, I.C.J. Reports 1975 p3 at pp38-9) Once that occupation has been established, whether by settlement or conquest, it is consequently recognised by international law.

“Your comment itself shows that your belief that the High Court has no jurisdiction”

Bullshit. Don’t tell me what I believe. I accept that the High Court has; at minimum, jurisdiction over the Australian people. I never said they have “no jurisdiction”.

In any case, the right of conquest is not a right that Australia acting in the right of the Crown has invoked.The claim is “settlement”, not conquest. Laws on conquest are irrelevant unless Australia/Crown claims conquest.

“…2) and 3) go back to the same question. How did the Crown acquire sovereignty? There’s no Treaty, and Australia was not a terra nullius. The question of the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty is not yet settled. The High Court itself acts in the right of the Crown. The High Court could rule they have jurisdiction over the moon – it doesn’t make it so. The High Court itself sits on sand, not solid rock.”

Your comment itself shows that your belief that the High Court has no jurisdiction, despite the fact all these contentions you point to ARE most provably settled in law, and the ratio IS binding on all the courts. It matters not if you believe they don’t exist, they are proven to exist, and the laws to be enforceable, every single day. After all, that is probably the rawest meaning of sovereignty, it is plenary power.

As you admit yourself: “At the moment, the Crown claim of sovereignty over Australia is accepted in the international community as being valid…” And the reasons for this is simple. You nearly captured it when you said: “The claim is valid if it is accepted under customary international law…”

Which it was, at that time in history every nation had the right of conquest, they could legally invade and occupy, even commit genocide, until very recently. The right of conquest was a legitimate right of ownership to land under international law, recognized after immediate possession with force of arms. A war of aggression was only first codified in the Nuremberg Principles in 1947, and then further defined by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 in 1974.

This does not have a retrospective effect. As Robert Anton Wilson once said… “Every border in Europe, is an arbitrary line, where two groups of bandits grew tired of fighting, and decided to rest for a while.” If, for arguments sake, it was retrospective, then it would follow that most nations that make up the UN would themselves cease to exist.

I understand completely you have political beliefs regarding the acquisition of Aboriginal sovereignty, but they do not make up the law right now do they. As you admit, not on an international level, (and despite you desperately trying to avoid the citations given) not on a domestic level either. This takes me back to my point in the previous comment, the difference between a political argument, and a legal argument.

The assertion of Aboriginal sovereignty is a political aspiration, and not a legal argument.