as there are snakes and ladders, so too are there counter discussion as to the veracity or otherwise of any relevant point. michael anderson’s claims from the other day have been advised by patrick byrt who is with the university of south australia, so i understand, that michael is wrong in fact and has enclosed the relevant pacific islanders protection amendment act 1872 and 1875. also included is the english interpretations of the acts.
having twice read the attached document i must say that i am none the wiser. the terminology of ‘pacific islands’ seems to be quite easy to accept but the ‘australian colonies’ do not seem to be so defined. from what i can glean, the australian colonies were to be used for their courts acting on behalf of the english courts. being more of a ‘bush lawyer’ than those, such as michael, who were/are legally trained, i shall leave it to them.
all the arguments i have heard relate that we were/are under admiralty law rather than the british law courts.
i just do not understand the point that michael is making. maybe he is right or maybe patrick is right, or even worse, maybe their both right. the law, after all, has rightly been described as an ass!
i am sure, however, that we all look forward to the outcome, sooner rather than later. maybe our legal friends on this list will have an opinion.
pro bono, of course.
indigenous social justice association
(m) 0450 651 063
(p) 02 9318 0947
address 1303/200 pitt street waterloo 2017
we live and work on the stolen lands of the gadigal people.
sovereignty treaty social justice