A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471/entities/urn:activity:995832363100045312",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471",
"content": " <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=Treaty\" title=\"#Treaty\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#Treaty</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=Australia\" title=\"#Australia\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#Australia</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=NaidocWeek\" title=\"#NaidocWeek\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#NaidocWeek</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=Aboriginal\" title=\"#Aboriginal\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#Aboriginal</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=Indigenous\" title=\"#Indigenous\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#Indigenous</a><br /><br />The answer is Treaty. Not Constitutional recognition. <br /><br />I'm going to have to add this topic to my growing list of upcoming video essays. But basically:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 other token things, like changing Australia day, the national anthem or the flag.<br /><br />Treaty would be a tough process. As it would force our people to:<br />- define ourselves; who is and who is not Aboriginal.<br />- elect our own leadership to engage in the Treaty negotiations. To say who really represents us, and not just those who squeak the loudest. And those leaders would be accountable to deliver on the demands made for negotiations. The Treaty negotiations would operate like a contractual negotiation between two equal parties. With one side ceding sovereignty and the other providing measurable outcomes in return. It would also force us to elect leaders to deliver on implementation of the Treaty once it is finalized. A leadership based upon our own agreement and not formed within a constitution that is for everyone.<br />- sit down and define what we really want. To really think about our future and our past. Rather than having an unending list of demands based on current emotions. To instead have real and measurable outcomes that we want to see happen. To sit down and write out our demands as voted upon. To have clear target goals that are measured as the years go by. To bring finality to the issues, to address them over time. Something like the measures of the 'Closing the Gap' reports, but also to restitute the past greivences. Anything could potentially be included in a Treaty, but it would need to be negotiated and agreed upon with the other side. <br /><br />Treaty has been pushed under the carpet because the Australian Government and industry interests have not wanted to confront the elephant in the corner. That Sovereignty was never ceded. That this therefore makes Australia a false country by it's own laws. That all mining operations are invalid. That all land titles invalid. That all imprisonment of indigenous peoples are invalid. But ... the only way to rectify this is with a Treaty, an agreement in exchange for Sovereignty.<br /><br />The theme of this week's NAIDOC week is \"VOICE. TREATY. TRUTH.\" This is my voice. This is my truth. And the answer is Treaty. It is a very large and very scary concept. But it is the only way I see through the mess of these times and of the past.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/995832363100045312",
"published": "2019-07-10T23:22:16+00:00",
"source": {
"content": " #Treaty #Australia #NaidocWeek #Aboriginal #Indigenous\n\nThe answer is Treaty. Not Constitutional recognition. \n\nI'm going to have to add this topic to my growing list of upcoming video essays. But basically:\n\nWhen 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.\n\nConstitutional 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. \n\nConstitutional 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. \n\nTreaty 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 other token things, like changing Australia day, the national anthem or the flag.\n\nTreaty would be a tough process. As it would force our people to:\n- define ourselves; who is and who is not Aboriginal.\n- elect our own leadership to engage in the Treaty negotiations. To say who really represents us, and not just those who squeak the loudest. And those leaders would be accountable to deliver on the demands made for negotiations. The Treaty negotiations would operate like a contractual negotiation between two equal parties. With one side ceding sovereignty and the other providing measurable outcomes in return. It would also force us to elect leaders to deliver on implementation of the Treaty once it is finalized. A leadership based upon our own agreement and not formed within a constitution that is for everyone.\n- sit down and define what we really want. To really think about our future and our past. Rather than having an unending list of demands based on current emotions. To instead have real and measurable outcomes that we want to see happen. To sit down and write out our demands as voted upon. To have clear target goals that are measured as the years go by. To bring finality to the issues, to address them over time. Something like the measures of the 'Closing the Gap' reports, but also to restitute the past greivences. Anything could potentially be included in a Treaty, but it would need to be negotiated and agreed upon with the other side. \n\nTreaty has been pushed under the carpet because the Australian Government and industry interests have not wanted to confront the elephant in the corner. That Sovereignty was never ceded. That this therefore makes Australia a false country by it's own laws. That all mining operations are invalid. That all land titles invalid. That all imprisonment of indigenous peoples are invalid. But ... the only way to rectify this is with a Treaty, an agreement in exchange for Sovereignty.\n\nThe theme of this week's NAIDOC week is \"VOICE. TREATY. TRUTH.\" This is my voice. This is my truth. And the answer is Treaty. It is a very large and very scary concept. But it is the only way I see through the mess of these times and of the past.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471/entities/urn:activity:995832363100045312/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/993544661068947471/outboxoutbox"
}