Comments for The Piping Shrike

Comment on Crumbling from within by The Piping Shrike

The Piping Shrike — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:49:41 +0000

That’s more the line. But also because Napoleon came in as figure above an irreconcilable political impasse between two opposing forces.

If Rudd comes back, it can only be as someone who pitches himself above and against the “old politics”.

Comment on Crumbling from within by Michael (the other one who occasionally comments here)

Michael (the other one who occasionally comments here) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:35:07 +0000

Or is the Napoleon analogy meant to imply The Return from Elba (to the leadership) followed by The Hundred Days (of feverish attempts to break the party free of the old guard) followed by Waterloo (defeat at an election and/or the implosion of the party)?

Comment on Caught in a racial trap by Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:31:34 +0000

Riccardo
I agree with you on the nature of the ruling.
Its problem is ‘evidence, either through continuity of occupation, or a record’.
Most can’t establish this under current precedent.
Claims have stopped, for if they fail, they are extinguished.
http://tinyurl.com/yortayorta

Comment on Crumbling from within by Riccardo

Riccardo — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:24:48 +0000

The Napoleon analogy implies a Waterloo, but recall that Waterloo was described by Wellington as “A close run thing” – maybe Gillard will hang on the party room while Rudd resigns/retires/generates a close-run byelection that the ALP loses.

Or he’ll win, by a nose, because a “close run thing” must by definition allow an alternative history to be written.

Comment on Caught in a racial trap by Riccardo

Riccardo — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:20:10 +0000

I’ve missed much of the post, but how is Mabo and the ‘connection’ to the land any different from common law title?

The judges said as much.

If someone like Dr Tad says “Yes, but that’s feudal” I’d have to say “Yes, and?”

The common law of land was very much based on mystical connections through ancestors and you had to have one of those ancestors to be able to claim that connection. Of course if an ancestor waived their rights, through contract involving consideration, or failed in some other way to maintain the right by neglect, forgetting, treachery or some other means, then the right disappeared.

And you needed some sort of evidence, either through continuity of occupation, or a record.

So Mabo was not ‘discriminatory’ in that sense, only in that most of Australia was already Torrens registered.

Mabo was based on the mediaeval law of Europe (eg the constant fighting of English Monarchs on french territory) plus case law from Hong Kong, Zimbabwe, India and so on.

It’s white man’s law, but it is law.

The REACTION to Mabo, well, that’s where the racism came out. The left were looking for better entitlements to land than those that existed, based on race, and the right were looking to extinguish entitlements also for race reasons.