Dnarever wrote on Feb 14
th, 2020 at 11:02pm:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 14
th, 2020 at 9:09pm:
Dnarever wrote on Feb 14
th, 2020 at 8:08pm:
Quote:The traditional laws and customs that regulated the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders prior to Australia's colonisation by the British ("customary Aboriginal law"). Although colonisation wrought social changes upon the Aboriginal people, customary Aboriginal law continues to regulate the lives of many Aboriginal Australians.
The now dominant, English-derived legal system, which was brought to Australia with colonisation, which includes the common law and enacted laws ("Australian law").
Only Australian laws are enforced directly in Australian courts. Native title is not a concept that forms part of customary Aboriginal law – rather, it is the term adopted to describe the rights to land and waters possessed by Aboriginal Australians under their customary laws that are recognised by the Australian legal system.
Its only a Wiki but good enough.
This is saying that pre existing aboriginal law regarding access to their lands and waters are respected under Australian law in native title legislation.
In this case a member of an aboriginal group has a right to access their land irrespective of place of birth supported by Australian law. I suspect if this person left Australia he may have a problem re entering but he cannot be deported because he has protection under Australian law.
So now 'traditional law' - never codified or common such as Common Law across the land and never exercised as Common Law nation-wide, but which was restricted to each individual small nomadic group and even the partially-settled ones - supercedes Federal, State and Constitutional Law of this nation?
Is that what you're saying?
Open the gates for Sharia then... and every other sect's laws.. let every individual make his or her own mind up about what constitutes law... and then choose to accept or not the Common Law of the Nation.
What WAS the High Court high on at the time they thought this one half-way through?
This should take about ten seconds to overturn.
Quote:Open the gates for Sharia then.
You think that Sharia law in Australia pre dated Australia's settlement by the british ?
The fact that gives traditional aboriginal law weight is the fact that it was in place before settlement. It has then gone on to sit originally beside common law and then Australian enacted laws. Does not seem unreasonable.
Missed every point - 'traditional law' only applied to the specific group, and was not a Common Law - i.e. was not the same from group to group.... and did not cover the entire nation and was not uniform in its manifestations - it did not therefore have the force of Law outisee of its own small group and even then was malleable according to the whim of the person handing it down ... it was then superceded by a more comprehensive and wider-ranging system of British Law'
It did not 'sit originally beside common law' - if it did why then were there conflicts between tribal groups and authorities, and why does it and did it not apply to offences under Law"?
Therefore, 'traditional law' holds no more power than Canon Law used to and in some ways does - but it cannot over-ride the Common Law of The Commonwealth in ANY circumstances.
Are you prepared to submit to any form of 'traditional law' in any case brought against you by some specific social group? If an Aboriginal came along and said the land on which your home stands is tribal land etc and he/they wanted it - are YOU going to permit that 'dispute' to be resolved by a group abiding by their 'traditional law'? What about a Muslim? What about anyone else?
That is where the Learned Judges in their infinite lack of wisdom went off the rails.
"Only Australian laws are enforced directly in Australian courts." Now you are saying that Aboriginals are not Australians or even aliens bound by Australian Law. Tell it to the Indonesians when they execute drug smugglers.
Indeed they are enforced directly in Australian courts (the mind beggars belief that you can even say that in the context of this issue being handled in those same courts).. under the precepts set out above.... clearly from the judgement of this court - these people are non-citizens, since the court did not determine their citizenship status and thus they remain here on visas - how then can they derive any right to visit 'their' land? Did they buy it? Or develop legitimate ownership in any way?
Why is it then that any other non-Aboriginal professing person can be deported regardless of land ownership? You own land here - you are an alien on a visa - you commit crime worthy of deportation - adios muchacho and hasta la vista, Baby! Nobody gives a rat's what land you own - you, by your own actions, forfeited your privilege of remaining here.
The issue of land ownership is irrelevant... the court is wrong..... on every front.
Forum
Pages: 
The High Court overreaches (Read 9873 times)
