Quote:All you are saying is that they don't own it in the normal way that we understand private property ownership. That may refute the idea that the ban is consistent with the norms of standard property ownership laws, but it still doesn't explain your objection to it.
My objection to the attempt to equate it with conventional property ownership is that it is wrong. It is an attempt by people who support this to run away from uncomfortable truth, like the government supporting racist, sexist policy and discarding the deparation of church and state.
Quote:Why, for example, isn't it acceptable to class the rock under a different kind of ownership, that has less ownership rights as 'normal' property ownership , but nevertheless allows its owners to legitimately issue a ban on climbing?
The people trotting out this idiocy did not make that argument Gandalf. You are confusing wrong with unacceptable. If you want to invent a new concept of private ownership to avoid addressing the elephant in the room, be my guest, but it won't make you look any less ridiculous.
Quote:I'm sure you didn't decide to start whinging about this engage in this issue in the first place just to make a technical point about what ownership means.
As I have explained several time, the point was in response to the idiocy about private ownership trotted out by those trying to sweep the racist, sexist government policy under the carpet.
Quote:No, your main beef seems to be about either it being racist to non-Aborigines or patronizing towards Aborigines - or some bizarre combination of the two.
It is the soft bigotry of low expectations, taken to the absurd extreme where it actually denies other people their traditional rights.
Forum
Pages: 
