#Treaty #Australia #NaidocWeek #Aboriginal #Indigenous The answer is Treaty. Not Constitutional recognition. I'm going to have to add this topic to my growing list of upcoming video essays. But basically: When the British claimed Australia, there were three legal ways for them to claim the land under their own laws. 1) By warfare. No war was ever officially declared. So even though massacres happened, the argument of "we won" is not valid by their own legal system. 2) by Treaty, an agreement brokered with the land holders for something in exchange for their lands. Or 3) if the land was empty, 'terra nullius'. Terra nullius was used, even though the case against this is demonstrable and its problems were admitted by the High Court in Mabo. Even if you love Colonisation, the process was illegal by the British empire's own standards, and needs to be addressed. Sovereignty was never ceded. Constitutional Recognition legally codifies unequal racial status. It would be antithetical to the very reason that we fought for constitutional reform in the 1967 referendum. Basically, we fought for constitutional change to get recognition as equal citizens with equal rights. Changing the constitution again is seeking to get unequal rights that now privilege us. And no, I don't think this is 'fair', as the argument for it is based on unmeasured feelings. Whereas Treaty is based on fact and any benefits that flow from it have a legal basis for their implementation; that lands were illegally taken, and restitution is now made. Constitutional recognition is open ended and without direction. It is not a solution. A Treaty has a finality to it and is based upon what is fairy negotiated with the other party. Treaty is the answer to the massacres and dispossession of lands. These past injustices are directly correlated the improper use of Terra Nullius, rather than appeals to emotion. Treaty is the real answer to people who use these historical events to continually argue for oth...