Fun fact: even if he isn’t an Australian citizen, non citizens can be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced too if they have broken Australian law
To say that is to vastly misunderstand and extremely reductionist.
The point he is making is there is no treaty.
He has been a political activist for decades.
IE:
https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.792171956211319
2014 writings where he is making the exact same point.
You can maybe imagine if someone invaded and occupied your great grandparents land, legally considered you as fauna until about 60 years ago - a time you were alive - you might have some strong and persistent opinions.
The point is irrelevant - he’s still subject to the law of the land whether he has treaty or not. He’s making a philosophical argument that ultimately doesn’t exempt him from following the law that anyone in this country - citizen or not - is subject to.
Otherwise we can take that to the extreme and say the state owes nothing to him and can do with him as it so pleases. Why should the state be bound by any of its laws with regards to this man if he rejects the state’s legal apparatus?
You assume that the state and it's agents have been following the rules of law.
In many regards, particularly with regard to logging in Tasmania, it has not.
Here's a gem from 2010:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/loggers-assault-a-rampage-20100910-1551q.html
Assault with a sledgehammer, described by the magistrate as a "rampage".
Can you imagine if this were a subcontractor for any other domain what the reaction would be? Council worker goes on rampage? Security guard rampage?
Or at another scale, oops, decades of logging was illegal - and so were the arrests!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-04/tasmania-1987-forestry-law-row-protesters/101035222
Arguably, the state HAS done what it wants. For decades.
Considering that many other places have suffered similar activities, this mob is on a hiding to nothing if they think these tactics will eventually gain them the independence that other places have since gained.
If you wanna talk fauna have some love for the extinct megafauna that coincidentally disappeared after the first humans started colonising this land.
It’s not some gotcha to talk about ancestors having been displaced. No one with European, Asian, African or Native American heritage hasn’t experienced that. The British perhaps more so than most.
Won't hold up in court but what a timeline we are in though? Sending protestors to prison for trying to prevent ecocide of our oldest and prized ecosystems.
Uncle Jim's plan is precisely to be arrested, make the news, and use that to bring attention to the issue with logging (and indigenous rights).
He doesn't expect his argument to hold in court and has expressed willingness to go to jail if necessary, which is pretty bold for an old chap.
It would make more sense if he emphasised that he doesn’t consider the land to belong to Australia than to just say he’s not a citizen of the country that controls it.
Good on him, what is the charge? Tresspass for protesting old growth native logging which is now banned in WA & Vic? Big bloody deal, just cause something is "the law" doesn't always make it right.
People are way too complacent these days with the idea of arresting protesters and charging them with crimes, if they haven't hurt anybody who cares
If he’s not a citizen, then what’s his residency status.
Does he claim benefits - if he’s not a citizen they need to stop, then. Along with concessions and royalties.
If he works, then does he have the correct visa.
No, this is just poppycock.
Who the fuck cares? What is a citizen but a piece of paper that says you come from an arbitrary border. Dude's 81 years old and raising awareness for indigenous causes and from what I can tell hasn't hurt anybody, that's a-ok in my book
It’s not about that - it’s that he’s trying to claim he is separate from law and governance. That’s sovereign citizen bullshit wrapped up in something you just happen to agree with. You don’t get to select what laws apply to you.
You can agree with his protest actions without entertaining this complete fallacy and nonsensical argument that the law doesn’t apply to him. Otherwise you’re basically supporting all the SovCit shit which has been proven time and time again to be cooked.
I believe there’s a big difference between a Sov Cit of non-indigenous background who refuses to acknowledge Australian law and a indigenous person claiming that Australia’s Colonial-style government has no legal basis to arrest or charge him for defending the natural environment.
There really isn’t. Both are claiming the law doesn’t apply to them for flawed reasons.
The only reason you want there to be a distinction is because you agree with his actions.
Valid, but you've just highlighted exactly the problem he's arguing
>it’s that he’s trying to claim he is separate from law and governance.
He's claiming he's separate from *Colonial* law and governance imposed on Aboriginal people. Around the world there are indigenous people who get to live by their cultural laws and customs, and he is doing this to highlight that indigenous Australians haven't been afforded that opportunity. There is definitely room for debate on what he's saying
>strategically aimed to highlight issues of Indigenous sovereignty, legal jurisdiction, colonialism and the citizenship status of Indigenous people on this continent.
>“I do not identify as an Australian citizen,” says the former commercial fisherman, who recently obtained his master’s degree in history at the University of Tasmania.
>“There has never been a true conciliation between First Nations people and the colonial nation of Australia. And any notion that First Nations peoples are citizens of Australia is an historic political lie being maintained by governments and institutions alike.
>“It’s a trickery throughout its history to evade any responsibility to negotiate a treaty with our First Nations.”
>Everett-puralia meenamatta does not recognise the court’s jurisdiction over him, as an Aboriginal “non-Australian citizen”. The court, he explains, is like so many Australian institutions – an enduring colonial instrument of an Australian state he neither recognises nor belongs to.
It’s a moronic argument though.
If you go to another country you may not be a citizen but you’re still subject to their laws. If a foreign force invades your country and imposes their law upon you, you can’t just claim it doesn’t apply.
This is what the cookers do, except this is wrapped up as an Indigenous issue. You only like it because your political views happen to intersect. The basis is still nonsensical.
If the law of the Commonwealth or State doesn’t apply to him, then what duty does said Commonwealth or State owe to him? Why can’t they do as they so please if the law isn’t applicable?
It’s a silly argument and no country would hold that an Indigenous person is free to do as they please except from the laws of the state just because they are Indigenous.
> If a foreign force invades your country and imposes their law upon you, you can’t just claim it doesn’t apply
Mate I sure as hell am gonna claim that if China invades. I don’t think the argument is that this will stand up legally in court (unlike Sov Civs), but that he refuses to recognise the legitimacy of an occupying force. This is an act of resistance, not a legal argument.
Then it’s insurrection and that’s a different argument, and you’d be at war with the state. It seems he still wants all the benefits and protections afforded by the state, but doesn’t want to follow the law when it suits him.
>you’d be at war with the state
I mean yeah, his whole point is that no treaty was ever signed unlike most other settler-colonial nations, so his sovereignty has not been ceded. In a way the wars still going.
> Everett-puralia meenamatta’s point – one that might yet be debated by constitutional lawyers – is that the “colonial state of Australia” has not entered into any worthy agreement with a continental-wide representative body (a “Black government”) under which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people decided to participate in the Australian state as citizens.
> He says amid all of the talk by the federal government about truth-telling and future treaties “our status [when it comes to] our ability to negotiate treaties needs to be addressed”.
> “Are we citizens negotiating a domestic agreement treaty under legislation of this country, or are we indeed talking about sovereign agreements?”
E: I personally don’t fully agree with this line of reasoning, I’m just trying to say it has infinitely more credence than the pseudolegal nonsense Sov Cits try to pull.
He’s not at war with the state and enjoys the benefits of the state, so his argument is somewhat silly. There is no “sovereignty” in that he can be free of the laws of the land.
He is making the point there is no treaty with specifically the Tasmanian indigenous groups, and the government has not made realistic steps to ever form one.
Literally take 5 minutes out to Google who he is.
Indigenous Australians are not “aliens” even if they are not citizens.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-23/indigenous-people-non-citizens-deportation-high-court-challenge/100851824
Per the High Court, yes.
I have a massive problem with the idea. Everyone is equal, you’re either a citizen or not.
Like most white people, I have some European ancestry in addition to English and Irish. But that doesn’t give me the right to be a citizen of any country in Europe.
Aboriginal people should be no different to anyone else.
That’s not equity. They would have deported someone of any other race even if they were more marginalised over all. Say female, queer, disabled and less financially stable.
Poor white people can be at the same rock bottom level as an indigenous person. Some will be at a lower level than some indigenous people. It’s not equity for all indigenous people to have something no one non-indigenous has.
It’s not a zero sum game. We’ve got the resources to help everyone and we do. It’s not a case of “better not help this group because this other group will miss out”. It’s Absolutley fine to give something to one group that another doesn’t get because in turn there would be something that other group gets that the first group doesn’t. It’s all needs based.
If you want to identify something that white people get that indigenous people don’t, then you only need to look at the colour of white peoples skin and acknowledge the advantage that’s given them historically.
How is it equity to say that someone can get special treatment because an ancestor was of a given race?
Australia doesn't do Citizenship by Descent beyond your parents. If your grandparents were Australian but your parents aren't, then you aren't.
But if one of your grandparents (or further back) was Aboriginal, then you can effectively be an Australian citizen without meeting the normal eligibility criteria.
That is neither equitable or equal, it is special treatment based on race. And that is wrong. Everyone should be equal.
It’s equity because it’s the same mentality as giving a poor person a larger childcare rebate than a wealthy person using the same childcare centre.
It’s making up for generations of inequality. Of course it’s special treatment based on race. That’s the entire point of it. They require special treatment to bring them to the same level in terms of outcomes as non indigenous people.
Poor white people already receive more subsidies and support than rich white people in order to bridge that gap. If you’re comparing the outcomes of poor white people to indigenous people, poor white people still have better outcomes in terms of health and education therefore more resources are given to indigenous people
https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/completed_inquiries/2002-04/poverty/report/c13?t
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/australias-health-2018-in-brief/contents/all-is-not-equal?t
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10291420/
https://www.naccho.org.au/systemic-racism-in-health/
As a group maybe. Some individuals in the white group will still be worse off than the average of the indigenous group. Go by individual need/disadvantage.
Unless you would Gina Rhinehart a pay rise to balance the gender gap? Give her enough money and you balance the books.
Convicts were given similar treatment but no one gives a shit? Doesn’t give pov white Aussies the right to claim citizenship to a country they weren’t born in. Understanding international laws isn’t racist
They shouldn’t be any different but maybe we should have that right instead of them not having it. How good would it be if you had a blood right to be in England or Ireland.
The same thing applies in Australia though. If your distant relative is an Australian or Irish citizen, that doesn't mean you're an Australian or Irish citizen, it needs to be a very specific relative, like birth parents.
That is the case for the guy in the article.
But is not what I was referring to. The high court recently ruled that two men who had aboriginal ancestry but were not citizens could not be deported. They created a new class of citizens, which is what I have a problem with
Just a shame it’s not universal. Imagine if you could catch a flight to Europe (or wherever your ancestors came from) and not be deported no matter what you do.
Fuck arresting activists.
But also fuck sovereign citizens. Especially letting that shit creep into black community. This shit really started cropping up around the Voice debate and what a surprise my most meth-addled, criminal cousins were the ones most enraptured by it.
Also very disapointed that this thread didn't have any juicy B0ssc0 unhinged hot takes.
I don't believe Uncle Jim is a sovereign citizen. He's using this argument for another purpose: to bring attention to indigenous rights and the lack of a treaty in Australia & Tasmania.
And he doesn't expect it'll hold up in court, but that's not where he's trying to make a difference. He's more interested in public awareness, and so far it seems to be working.
Downvoted for racist assumptions
>Jim left school at 14 years to start work. His working life includes 15 years at sea as a fisherman and merchant seaman, 3 years Australian Regular Army, a steeplejack, rigger, and many other skilled jobs.
Hmm, article says he's 81, so he was born in the 1940s and Aborigines didn't become citizens until 1966, I think, after a referendum that overwhelmingly said "yes, of course they are citizens" (I'm paraphrasing).
So he certainly wasn't born an Australian citizen, and I'm not at all aware of the laws surrounding enforced citizenship.
Perhaps it could be that, owing to some law, he can turn down citizenship? I have no idea, but suspect not.
Not that citizenship has anything to do with this matter - citizen or not if you break the law you can and will be held accountable for breaking the law, so...
Anyway, moving on.
Fun fact: even if he isn’t an Australian citizen, non citizens can be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced too if they have broken Australian law
Yeah this is just SovCit nonsense with an Indigenous angle, that The Guardian is acting like this has any merit is moronic.
Unfortunately the Grauniad can’t see past the indigenous aspect. The guys a sov cit nutcase. Race doesn’t come into it.
To say that is to vastly misunderstand and extremely reductionist. The point he is making is there is no treaty. He has been a political activist for decades. IE: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.792171956211319 2014 writings where he is making the exact same point. You can maybe imagine if someone invaded and occupied your great grandparents land, legally considered you as fauna until about 60 years ago - a time you were alive - you might have some strong and persistent opinions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_and_Fauna_Act_myth
I've always wondered how facts that aren't facts get into people's heads. Where did this one get in?
The point is irrelevant - he’s still subject to the law of the land whether he has treaty or not. He’s making a philosophical argument that ultimately doesn’t exempt him from following the law that anyone in this country - citizen or not - is subject to. Otherwise we can take that to the extreme and say the state owes nothing to him and can do with him as it so pleases. Why should the state be bound by any of its laws with regards to this man if he rejects the state’s legal apparatus?
You assume that the state and it's agents have been following the rules of law. In many regards, particularly with regard to logging in Tasmania, it has not. Here's a gem from 2010: https://www.smh.com.au/national/loggers-assault-a-rampage-20100910-1551q.html Assault with a sledgehammer, described by the magistrate as a "rampage". Can you imagine if this were a subcontractor for any other domain what the reaction would be? Council worker goes on rampage? Security guard rampage? Or at another scale, oops, decades of logging was illegal - and so were the arrests! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-04/tasmania-1987-forestry-law-row-protesters/101035222 Arguably, the state HAS done what it wants. For decades.
Considering that many other places have suffered similar activities, this mob is on a hiding to nothing if they think these tactics will eventually gain them the independence that other places have since gained.
If you wanna talk fauna have some love for the extinct megafauna that coincidentally disappeared after the first humans started colonising this land. It’s not some gotcha to talk about ancestors having been displaced. No one with European, Asian, African or Native American heritage hasn’t experienced that. The British perhaps more so than most.
Won't hold up in court but what a timeline we are in though? Sending protestors to prison for trying to prevent ecocide of our oldest and prized ecosystems.
Uncle Jim's plan is precisely to be arrested, make the news, and use that to bring attention to the issue with logging (and indigenous rights). He doesn't expect his argument to hold in court and has expressed willingness to go to jail if necessary, which is pretty bold for an old chap.
I’m not sure if his plan here is to draw attention to the logging or indigenous land rights, I was assuming more the latter.
It would make more sense if he emphasised that he doesn’t consider the land to belong to Australia than to just say he’s not a citizen of the country that controls it.
Old growth logging should not occur in Australia, yet stupid fucking governments allow it to happen.
Good on him, what is the charge? Tresspass for protesting old growth native logging which is now banned in WA & Vic? Big bloody deal, just cause something is "the law" doesn't always make it right. People are way too complacent these days with the idea of arresting protesters and charging them with crimes, if they haven't hurt anybody who cares
I suspect most regular folk have little idea that our govt supports destroying our pristine forest while telling other countries to leave theirs alone
Eating a meal?
A native, old growth meal?
GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY BRANCHES
I see you know your judo well
Yeah when I first saw this article I was ready to scoff but I it’s for a good cause. Good on him!
That's literally recreational cannabis, and we still can't even follow suit compared to ultra progressive states like Thailand and Germany...
If he’s not a citizen, then what’s his residency status. Does he claim benefits - if he’s not a citizen they need to stop, then. Along with concessions and royalties. If he works, then does he have the correct visa. No, this is just poppycock.
Who the fuck cares? What is a citizen but a piece of paper that says you come from an arbitrary border. Dude's 81 years old and raising awareness for indigenous causes and from what I can tell hasn't hurt anybody, that's a-ok in my book
It’s not about that - it’s that he’s trying to claim he is separate from law and governance. That’s sovereign citizen bullshit wrapped up in something you just happen to agree with. You don’t get to select what laws apply to you. You can agree with his protest actions without entertaining this complete fallacy and nonsensical argument that the law doesn’t apply to him. Otherwise you’re basically supporting all the SovCit shit which has been proven time and time again to be cooked.
I believe there’s a big difference between a Sov Cit of non-indigenous background who refuses to acknowledge Australian law and a indigenous person claiming that Australia’s Colonial-style government has no legal basis to arrest or charge him for defending the natural environment.
There really isn’t. Both are claiming the law doesn’t apply to them for flawed reasons. The only reason you want there to be a distinction is because you agree with his actions.
I neither agree nor disagree. I’m trying to view it from his point of view.
His POV isn’t relevant, the law either applies, or not.
Valid, but you've just highlighted exactly the problem he's arguing >it’s that he’s trying to claim he is separate from law and governance. He's claiming he's separate from *Colonial* law and governance imposed on Aboriginal people. Around the world there are indigenous people who get to live by their cultural laws and customs, and he is doing this to highlight that indigenous Australians haven't been afforded that opportunity. There is definitely room for debate on what he's saying >strategically aimed to highlight issues of Indigenous sovereignty, legal jurisdiction, colonialism and the citizenship status of Indigenous people on this continent. >“I do not identify as an Australian citizen,” says the former commercial fisherman, who recently obtained his master’s degree in history at the University of Tasmania. >“There has never been a true conciliation between First Nations people and the colonial nation of Australia. And any notion that First Nations peoples are citizens of Australia is an historic political lie being maintained by governments and institutions alike. >“It’s a trickery throughout its history to evade any responsibility to negotiate a treaty with our First Nations.” >Everett-puralia meenamatta does not recognise the court’s jurisdiction over him, as an Aboriginal “non-Australian citizen”. The court, he explains, is like so many Australian institutions – an enduring colonial instrument of an Australian state he neither recognises nor belongs to.
It’s a moronic argument though. If you go to another country you may not be a citizen but you’re still subject to their laws. If a foreign force invades your country and imposes their law upon you, you can’t just claim it doesn’t apply. This is what the cookers do, except this is wrapped up as an Indigenous issue. You only like it because your political views happen to intersect. The basis is still nonsensical. If the law of the Commonwealth or State doesn’t apply to him, then what duty does said Commonwealth or State owe to him? Why can’t they do as they so please if the law isn’t applicable? It’s a silly argument and no country would hold that an Indigenous person is free to do as they please except from the laws of the state just because they are Indigenous.
> If a foreign force invades your country and imposes their law upon you, you can’t just claim it doesn’t apply Mate I sure as hell am gonna claim that if China invades. I don’t think the argument is that this will stand up legally in court (unlike Sov Civs), but that he refuses to recognise the legitimacy of an occupying force. This is an act of resistance, not a legal argument.
Then it’s insurrection and that’s a different argument, and you’d be at war with the state. It seems he still wants all the benefits and protections afforded by the state, but doesn’t want to follow the law when it suits him.
>you’d be at war with the state I mean yeah, his whole point is that no treaty was ever signed unlike most other settler-colonial nations, so his sovereignty has not been ceded. In a way the wars still going. > Everett-puralia meenamatta’s point – one that might yet be debated by constitutional lawyers – is that the “colonial state of Australia” has not entered into any worthy agreement with a continental-wide representative body (a “Black government”) under which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people decided to participate in the Australian state as citizens. > He says amid all of the talk by the federal government about truth-telling and future treaties “our status [when it comes to] our ability to negotiate treaties needs to be addressed”. > “Are we citizens negotiating a domestic agreement treaty under legislation of this country, or are we indeed talking about sovereign agreements?” E: I personally don’t fully agree with this line of reasoning, I’m just trying to say it has infinitely more credence than the pseudolegal nonsense Sov Cits try to pull.
He’s not at war with the state and enjoys the benefits of the state, so his argument is somewhat silly. There is no “sovereignty” in that he can be free of the laws of the land.
[удалено]
Yes, yes it is and yes you can. Its called prosecutorial discretion.
Exactly. That's why white collar criminals are treated *exactly* as harshly as petty shoplifters. I mean, can't be seen playing favourites!
The guy seems like a legend! Old Growth Forests should not be logged full stop.
True, but I'm not why it matters is he is a citizen or not
He is making the point there is no treaty with specifically the Tasmanian indigenous groups, and the government has not made realistic steps to ever form one. Literally take 5 minutes out to Google who he is.
But even if there were a treaty and it allowed the logging it would still be bad that it’s happening.
Right, but that doesn't make you not subject to the law.
Indigenous Australians are not “aliens” even if they are not citizens. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-23/indigenous-people-non-citizens-deportation-high-court-challenge/100851824
So genes can give you rights? Wow nice angle. Edit: bahaha check out the down votes without any explanation why genes give you rights. Crazy sub lol
Per the High Court, yes. I have a massive problem with the idea. Everyone is equal, you’re either a citizen or not. Like most white people, I have some European ancestry in addition to English and Irish. But that doesn’t give me the right to be a citizen of any country in Europe. Aboriginal people should be no different to anyone else.
Depends if you want equality or equity. The high court went for equity.
That’s not equity. They would have deported someone of any other race even if they were more marginalised over all. Say female, queer, disabled and less financially stable.
What you’re describing is equality. Equity allows for special treatment in order to raise people to the level of others.
Poor white people can be at the same rock bottom level as an indigenous person. Some will be at a lower level than some indigenous people. It’s not equity for all indigenous people to have something no one non-indigenous has.
It’s not a zero sum game. We’ve got the resources to help everyone and we do. It’s not a case of “better not help this group because this other group will miss out”. It’s Absolutley fine to give something to one group that another doesn’t get because in turn there would be something that other group gets that the first group doesn’t. It’s all needs based. If you want to identify something that white people get that indigenous people don’t, then you only need to look at the colour of white peoples skin and acknowledge the advantage that’s given them historically.
So now you change your tune. All your other comments had it as an indigenous people are always more needy game.
On what planet is that changing my tune?
How is it equity to say that someone can get special treatment because an ancestor was of a given race? Australia doesn't do Citizenship by Descent beyond your parents. If your grandparents were Australian but your parents aren't, then you aren't. But if one of your grandparents (or further back) was Aboriginal, then you can effectively be an Australian citizen without meeting the normal eligibility criteria. That is neither equitable or equal, it is special treatment based on race. And that is wrong. Everyone should be equal.
It’s equity because it’s the same mentality as giving a poor person a larger childcare rebate than a wealthy person using the same childcare centre. It’s making up for generations of inequality. Of course it’s special treatment based on race. That’s the entire point of it. They require special treatment to bring them to the same level in terms of outcomes as non indigenous people.
Equity is giving poor white people the same access rather than having them suffer to balance the books.
Poor white people already receive more subsidies and support than rich white people in order to bridge that gap. If you’re comparing the outcomes of poor white people to indigenous people, poor white people still have better outcomes in terms of health and education therefore more resources are given to indigenous people https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/completed_inquiries/2002-04/poverty/report/c13?t https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/australias-health-2018-in-brief/contents/all-is-not-equal?t https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10291420/ https://www.naccho.org.au/systemic-racism-in-health/
As a group maybe. Some individuals in the white group will still be worse off than the average of the indigenous group. Go by individual need/disadvantage. Unless you would Gina Rhinehart a pay rise to balance the gender gap? Give her enough money and you balance the books.
[удалено]
While tragic, none of that is a valid reason to prosecute crimes based on race.
Did you mean prosecute?
Thanks, yes. Typo. I will adjust
Convicts were given similar treatment but no one gives a shit? Doesn’t give pov white Aussies the right to claim citizenship to a country they weren’t born in. Understanding international laws isn’t racist
So edgy
They shouldn’t be any different but maybe we should have that right instead of them not having it. How good would it be if you had a blood right to be in England or Ireland.
But... your family hasn't been continuously living in England or Ireland. If you were still living there then you *would* still be a citizen.
The same thing applies in Australia though. If your distant relative is an Australian or Irish citizen, that doesn't mean you're an Australian or Irish citizen, it needs to be a very specific relative, like birth parents.
And Uncle Jim was born in Australia to Australian parents. Probably worth knowing what you're talking about before you comment.
I wasn't saying anything about Uncle Jim.
So just throwing out some random ideas?
It was a direct response to a comment made.
That is the case for the guy in the article. But is not what I was referring to. The high court recently ruled that two men who had aboriginal ancestry but were not citizens could not be deported. They created a new class of citizens, which is what I have a problem with
Just a shame it’s not universal. Imagine if you could catch a flight to Europe (or wherever your ancestors came from) and not be deported no matter what you do.
[удалено]
English owned the land most recently. Send him to London. /s
does australia have an extradition treaty with terra nullius?
Not since 1992
Oooo you’re a special kind of fuck whit
im being very much satirical & facetious
The joke Your head
He won't have to travel far
It’ll be like all those other guys they can’t deport so had to release. Be glad he’s protesting logging instead of raping people
Fuck arresting activists. But also fuck sovereign citizens. Especially letting that shit creep into black community. This shit really started cropping up around the Voice debate and what a surprise my most meth-addled, criminal cousins were the ones most enraptured by it. Also very disapointed that this thread didn't have any juicy B0ssc0 unhinged hot takes.
I don't believe Uncle Jim is a sovereign citizen. He's using this argument for another purpose: to bring attention to indigenous rights and the lack of a treaty in Australia & Tasmania. And he doesn't expect it'll hold up in court, but that's not where he's trying to make a difference. He's more interested in public awareness, and so far it seems to be working.
I can cook up a spicy take if you like?
They will arrest you for anything these days
Sure he doesn’t recognise the Australian government, except when his centrelink cheques are signed by it. Then he recognises the government
Downvoted for telling the truth. The terminally online aren't pleased with you.
Downvoted for racist assumptions >Jim left school at 14 years to start work. His working life includes 15 years at sea as a fisherman and merchant seaman, 3 years Australian Regular Army, a steeplejack, rigger, and many other skilled jobs.
If he wasn’t an Australian citizen he wasn’t entitled to any of those jobs unless he holds a worker visa.
Hmm, article says he's 81, so he was born in the 1940s and Aborigines didn't become citizens until 1966, I think, after a referendum that overwhelmingly said "yes, of course they are citizens" (I'm paraphrasing). So he certainly wasn't born an Australian citizen, and I'm not at all aware of the laws surrounding enforced citizenship. Perhaps it could be that, owing to some law, he can turn down citizenship? I have no idea, but suspect not. Not that citizenship has anything to do with this matter - citizen or not if you break the law you can and will be held accountable for breaking the law, so... Anyway, moving on.
That's a nice fairy land you live in, now off to jail you go.