<div>
<div>
<div class="poem">Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
W. B. Keats


They keep pushing.......

From what I have seen in my life, the law and common sense are mutually exclusive entities, that have nothing to do with each other.

lydia said..
According to ABC Radio this morning the Quandamooka people now claim that while they can do nothing about the land lease they have not being asked for consent to use the water around Stradbroke Island and particularly Deanbilla Bay for the aquatic activities and everyone seeking to use those areas must seek permission.
Of course Deanbilla is a very popular cruising anchorage.

This may not have a happy ending.

Providing enough millions of dollars change hands then the outcome will indeed be a very happy one.

LooseChange said..

lydia said..
According to ABC Radio this morning the Quandamooka people now claim that while they can do nothing about the land lease they have not being asked for consent to use the water around Stradbroke Island and particularly Deanbilla Bay for the aquatic activities and everyone seeking to use those areas must seek permission.
Of course Deanbilla is a very popular cruising anchorage.

This may not have a happy ending.

Providing enough millions of dollars change hands then the outcome will indeed be a very happy one.

This is the real cause of any claim!

They are just out for what they can get like most anybody else in this crazy cocked up world we live in.

Australian aboriginals have never been seafarers and they are not the original inhabitants of this country. There have been at least two different cultural groups that inhabited Australia before they did.

Google up the "Bradshaw Paintings in the Kimberlies". They were not painted by aboriginals.

www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/

i think you will find the people trying to get something for nothing is RQYS .Deanbilla is the safe anchorage down the bay and at peak periods will see up to 150 boats anchored there as a storm comes through RQ are attempting to put moorings there so as to exclude and charge any one who anchors there also forcing people to join the yuppie club this is to be flowed by a marina at a latter date they have also applied for management rights of horseshoe bay another favored anchorage in lower Morton bay the money grubbers in this instance arn't the Quandamooka people but the management of RQ the Quandamooka people are attempting to keep it free for all to use . the rest of the clubs of Morton bay have groped with a law firm to attempt to stop RQ from achieving there greedy goals

LMY said..
OK, time for an alternate view.

According to Lydia's post the Quandamooka people hold native title rights over those waters . Native title is a legal right, established many years ago by the high court. Yes, some may not agree with the decision, but must surely must accept that the rights have been established?

Someone wants to carry out a significant activity on those waters, but does not bother to ask permission. The owners ask that permission is sort.

Since when, in our society, did it become reasonable to expect to carry out activities on other people's property without seeking permission?

I thought for a while before posting, did not want to stir up negativity, but other views should be put.

It's called land rights not water rights, they have no more rights to the waters around the land that they have stolen, than does anyone else who lives on the shores of Australia.

I think the mooring issues is separate question here.
deanbilla bay has already being gazetted for mooring by Queensland transport and public moorings granted So pay your money and get one.
RQYS applied for ten at the southern end and was granted them and management of the bay was different issue which has not been resolved.
This all sounds like a Quandamooka campaign to get the management rights for everything in their native title area Which most of southern Moreton bay.

Or is it that the other clubs have fired up the Quandamooka people to frustrate the efforts of rqys and as result everyone loses out while the egos have their inter club fight.

fishmonkey said..

Cisco, i generally respect your opinion, however the rock art angle you have presented is very poorly thought out.

You will need to read up on it in detail to fully understand the history and implications of the Bradshaw Paintings. They have been scientifically dated at being 65,000 years old and is claimed to be the oldest figurative art in the world.

There has never been a land bridge between Australia and Asia so the people who made these paintings came from a sophisticated maritime culture. You just have to look at the paintings to realise they have nothing in common with Aboriginal paintings.

Yes the Aboriginal was here before the white man came along but 40,000 years and the first Australians??? I think not. That is just a myth fed to us by the anthropologists who have been told to come up with that conclusion.

The Bradshaw paintings prove that at least two other cultural groups occupied Australia before the Aboriginals.

Not meaning to hijack the thread here but I believe the native title laws serve no purpose except to lock up resources and cause divisions in our society.

Re Dianbilla and Horseshoe Bays, this looks like a power struggle between Quandamooka and RQYS. My experience with RQYS is no matter what question one asks them they come back with the high brow, plum in cheek question "Are you a member?" implying you are a lesser being.

I think the only people who should have control of our bays and waterways is Maritime Safety Queensland.

I'm unsure if I should post this....it may put a few 1000 white government workers out off work

But you can actually talk and ask directly-

www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-telstra-au&source=android-browser&q=Quandamooka&gfe_rd=cr&ei=DRxiV4jtAsHu8wfijLagCA#gfe_rd=cr&istate=lrl:iv&rlimm=6456953219001769718

I have often have ask permission in both Australia and the sth Pacific for permission to visit certain areas.

its never come at a $$ cost...certain rules have been applied which I could fully respect.

Its not hard....rather than be scared....open your mouth and speak directly to those concerns



You may just find they are exactly like yourself

P.s if you vote for me...no child will live without a sailboat in 2010.

I will not stop the boats....we need more boats

cisco said..

fishmonkey said..

Cisco, i generally respect your opinion, however the rock art angle you have presented is very poorly thought out.

You will need to read up on it in detail to fully understand the history and implications of the Bradshaw Paintings. They have been scientifically dated at being 65,000 years old and is claimed to be the oldest figurative art in the world.

There has never been a land bridge between Australia and Asia so the people who made these paintings came from a sophisticated maritime culture. You just have to look at the paintings to realise they have nothing in common with Aboriginal paintings.

Yes the Aboriginal was here before the white man came along but 40,000 years and the first Australians??? I think not. That is just a myth fed to us by the anthropologists who have been told to come up with that conclusion.

The Bradshaw paintings prove that at least two other cultural groups occupied Australia before the Aboriginals.

Not meaning to hijack the thread here but I believe the native title laws serve no purpose except to lock up resources and cause divisions in our society.

Re Dianbilla and Horseshoe Bays, this looks like a power struggle between Quandamooka and RQYS. My experience with RQYS is no matter what question one asks them they come back with the high brow, plum in cheek question "Are you a member?" implying you are a lesser being.

I think the only people who should have control of our bays and waterways is Maritime Safety Queensland.

+1 and that's the last comment from me on this topic

cisco said..

fishmonkey said..

Cisco, i generally respect your opinion, however the rock art angle you have presented is very poorly thought out.

You will need to read up on it in detail to fully understand the history and implications of the Bradshaw Paintings. They have been scientifically dated at being 65,000 years old and is claimed to be the oldest figurative art in the world.

There has never been a land bridge between Australia and Asia so the people who made these paintings came from a sophisticated maritime culture. You just have to look at the paintings to realise they have nothing in common with Aboriginal paintings.

Yes the Aboriginal was here before the white man came along but 40,000 years and the first Australians??? I think not. That is just a myth fed to us by the anthropologists who have been told to come up with that conclusion.

The Bradshaw paintings prove that at least two other cultural groups occupied Australia before the Aboriginals.

Not meaning to hijack the thread here but I believe the native title laws serve no purpose except to lock up resources and cause divisions in our society.

i get your logic, i just don't think it holds water. you seem to be saying that because there might have been earlier inhabitants that the indigenous people have no rights, or do i misunderstand you?

i believe that your view of native title is a gross over-generalisation. you say 'our society', what does that mean exactly? Australian Aborigines had their own societies 10's of thousands of years before white people arrived here. of course there are negative elements in all cultural groups, however you seem to be referring negatively to indigenous people as if they are one monolothic group.

btw, i hope we are big enough and ugly enough here to have a reasonable discussion around differing opinions...

fishmonkey said..

i get your logic, i just don't think it holds water. you seem to be saying that because there might have been earlier inhabitants that the indigenous people have no rights, or do i misunderstand you?

i believe that your view of native title is a gross over-generalisation. you say 'our society', what does that mean exactly? Australian Aborigines had their own societies 10's of thousands of years before white people arrived here. of course there are negative elements in all cultural groups, however you seem to be referring negatively to indigenous people as if they are one monolothic group.

btw, i hope we are big enough and ugly enough here to have a reasonable discussion around differing opinions...

I am not negative about Aboriginal people at all. What I am negative about are the lies and myths spread by anthropologists which are used for social engineering.

What I mean by "our society" is Australia in the 21 st century which we are told is a democracy under which all persons allegedly have equal rights.

It would be great if that were true in practice.

There are vast tracts of land in Australia that have been locked up under native title and I have cause to believe that not much of it has been done specifically to benefit Aboriginal people.

It is my belief that potential resources (rightfully the property of ALL Australians) have been locked up under native title so that at a later date the elitist multinational companies can come along and trade trinkets (jobs, houses and Land Cruisers) for the wealth in those resources.

That might sound a little bit "out there" but it is not beyond belief.

As for RQYS, the "R" stands for Royal which makes it one of the tentacles of the inbred British Royal Family which is intermarried with all the other European Royal Families.

Map below of native title land in Australia.

www.nntt.gov.au/Maps/Determinations_map.pdf

So nothing about religion in this post but there is a dash of politics. I am not arguing anything, rather inform peeople.

Cisco, when those multinationals come and dig up the minerals, they have to pay for it via royalties to the state government. That is because it is the property of the state (ie the entire population of citizens thereof), not just the native title owners.

The compensation, encouragement, bling or whatever you want to call it that is paid separately to the native title owners is quite separate, and is to secure their cooperation and to compensate them for disruption. Whatever your objection to native title, let's keep to the facts.


Cheers, Graeme