4 ms·
While the destruction of these sites is most probably not a good idea and there is an open question regarding the fairness of native title negotiations between
by redslazer 6y ago
While the destruction of these sites is most probably not a good idea and there is an open question regarding the fairness of native title negotiations between mining companies and the local indigenous people it should be noted that:
"They are also unable to raise concerns publicly about the expansion, having signed comprehensive agreements with BHP as part of a native title settlement. BHP agreed to financial and other benefits for the Banjima people, while the Banjima made commitments to support the South Flank project."
From the sounds of it the two parties have agreed to the situation and now one party is attempting to escape its part of the agreement through the use public opinion.
- noobermin 6y agoThat's good. Onerous one sided agreements are terrible especially when one part has so much power over the other.
- waheoo 6y agoPersonally I dont give a fuck what the indigenous people want or have done. I want those historical sites preserved. No mining company or contract is going to sway that opinion.
- NoPicklez 6y agoBut they are historical due to the aboriginal inhabitants of that land at that time. How are the owners of that land who are aboriginal not have a right to allow the removal of such places if agreed?
- waheoo 6y agoSame way if you own a terrace house in downtown Sydney youre only allowed to do certain things to maintain the historic nature of the buildings. Same way we say you cant dump chemical waste on land you own just because you own it. We place restrictions on usage rights all the damn time.
- lurker42 6y agothankfully your opinion is irrelevant in this instance.
- happytoexplain 6y agoWhy insult the parent so sarcastically? Why tell somebody their opinion doesn't matter, ever?
- BubRoss 6y agoWere you upset about this before the article?
- yongjik 6y agoIf some house in Greece is sitting on the ruins of the classical era, and its owner sells the house to some mining company, can't people protest the impending destruction? It doesn't seem right to treat 15K-year-old archeological sites as sellable goods. It should belong to Australia and mankind.
- dependenttypes 6y agoI think that in some countries at least the moment that an archeological site is discovered it becomes property of the government.