why did justice dawson dissent in mabo

Were opening a new facility in Mparntwe/Alice Springs in partnership with First Nations Media Australia. 2), judgments of the High Court inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. 0000011176 00000 n The decision has remained important to Indigenous communities throughout Australia, notably because Anglo-Australian law now officially recognises the prior existence of Indigenous peoples. McGrath , A. The key fault line in the Supreme Court that Donald Trump built is not the ideological clash between right and left it's the increasingly acrimonious conflict within the court's now-dominant. Anywhere But Here: Race and Empire in th . Att.-Gen. v. Brown to Williams v. Att.-Gen. Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. Examples of these decisions include De Rose v. State of South Australia [2005] De Rose v. State of South Australia , [2005] FCAFC 110 . Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which, on February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. On 3 June 1992, six of the seven High Court judges upheld the claim and ruled that the lands of this continent were not terra nullius or land belonging to no-one when European settlement occurred, and that the Meriam people were 'entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of (most of) the lands of the Murray Islands'. Read all our latest news and media releases. The islands have been inhabited by the Meriam people (a group of Torres Strait Islanders) for between 300 and 2000 years. As a result, the High Court had to consider whether the Queensland legislation was valid and effective. hide caption. Mabo was born Eddie Koiki Sambo but he changed his surname to Mabo when he was adopted by his uncle, Benny Mabo. 0000004713 00000 n When the Proclamation took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, Harlan denounced it as "unconstitutional and null and void." He did not resign over it, although, due to the death of his father, he did leave the army within a few months to care for his family and resume his career in law and politics. That sovereignty delivered complete ownership of all land in the new Colony to the Crown, abolishing any existing rights that may have existed previously. 583 0 obj <> endobj Photo by MARTIN PIERIS, Ngunnawal families pose with the settler Whittaker family. No. The court ruled in favour of . Join us on Noongar boodja for the Summit 2023, co-convened with South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council. Promote excellence in research, innovation and the promotion and communication of science The case centred on the Murray Islands Group, consisting of Murray Island (known traditionally as Mer Island), Waua Islet and Daua Island. The recognition of native title by the decision gave rise to many significant legal questions. [Google Scholar]). I am using case in its narrow legal sense in this context. On Harlan writing dissents during the era of Jim Crowe. Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below: If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. It provided a dramatised account of the case, focusing on the effect it had on Mabo and his family.[37][38][39]. 2. The visit, as Moynihan J noted in his openingstatement,provided a better understanding of the evidence, and of island life. [1] It was brought by Eddie Mabo against the State of Queensland and decided on 3 June 1992. Hence he dissented. 0000014396 00000 n The aim of the legislation was toretrospectively extinguish the claimed rights of the Meriam people to the Murray Islands. . He was known as "the Great Dissenter," and he was the lone justice to dissent in one of the Supreme Court's . 0000003346 00000 n As secretary of state, Marshall had signed a number of the. xref 0000005372 00000 n [2] Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia at the time, praised the decision in his Redfern Speech, saying that it "establishes a fundamental truth, and lays the basis for justice". 1. 0000007289 00000 n The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law. For a more sustained discussion of this point see Manne (2003 <<110EE4BF308F4443B9E56A9CC55ABF3E>]>> The act was subsequently amended by the Howard Government in response to the Wik decision. Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. The Supreme Court judge hearing the case was Justice Moynihan. Sun 13 Jun 1993 - The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995), Dawson warned against trying to right old wrongs on Mabo, ered, but rejected, the idea of a Bill of, Ngunnawal identity Matilda House (nee Williams) and elder sister of Harry, "Crow" Williams, with Aunty Vi Bolger, now in her 90s. 0 Harlan was on the court in 1896 when it endorsed racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson and was the lone justice who voted no. This guide supports educators to make conscious and critical decisions when selecting curriculum resources. The Blainey view: Geoffrey Blainey ponders Mabo, the High Court and democracy. Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act, 1987, Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory), 1976, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, AMEC (Assoc' of Mining & Exploration Co's), ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association, Department of Aboriginal & Islander Affairs (DAIA), FCAATSI Federal Council For Aboriginal Advancement, Ganalanja Corp v Queensland and Ors (1996), Hamlet of Baker Lake v Minister for Indian Affairs (1979), Miriuwung Gajerrong Peoples v Western Australia (1998), Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida (1974), Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act , 1985, Southern Rhodesia, Amodu Tijani V Secretary, 1921, Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Office (1986), Teddy Biljabu and Ors v Western Australia (1995), The Administration of Papua v Daera Guba 1972-3, The Land Titles and Traditional Usages Act, Walley v State of Western Australia (1996), This is an NFSA Digital Learning resource. Six of the judges agreed that the Meriam people did have traditional ownership of their land, with Justice Dawson dissenting from the majority judgment. The judges formally and literally hand down their written judgments with the words 'I publish my reasons' and a court official takes these original signed documents to the Court Registry where they are recorded and kept. Page 4 - Dawson warned against trying to right old wrongs on Mabo. Registered in England & Wales No. 2 was decided. [8] Unlike western law, title to land is orally based, although there is also a written tradition introduced to comply with State and Commonwealth inheritance and welfare laws. In Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples, Edited by: Tuhiwai Smith, L. 1941. Request Permissions, Published By: Australian Institute of Policy and Science, Australian Institute of Policy and Science. agreed for relevant purposes with Brennan, J. [5], Prior to and after annexation by the British, rights to land on Mer is governed by Malo's Law, "a set of religiously sanctioned laws which Merriam people feel bound to observe". See Wolfe (1994 Wolfe, P. 1994. Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page The majority opinion is an abomination. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as the Mabo case or simply Mabo) is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. 's judgment is often criticised as an example of judicial activism (e.g. [Google Scholar]), the traditional indigenous owners of the relevant land were not parties to the case and had no legal representation. Learn about the different sources of family history information. 's judgment to be indicative of the High Court of Australia's treatment of the legal history of indigenous land tenure in Australia and of the place of In Re Southern Rhodesia in that history. The majority judgments in full are the largest, and perhaps also the plainest in appearance, of Australia's key constitutional documents. %%EOF "[12], In 1879 the islands were formally annexed by the State of Queensland. 41, 42, 46, 63. Legal proceedings for the case began on 20 May 1982, when a group of four Meriam men, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice and one Meriam women, Celuia Mapo Sale,brought an action against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, in the High Court, claiming 'native title' to the Murray Islands. research service. NOTE: Only lines in the current paragraph are shown. Short for Mabo and others v Queensland (No 2) (1992), the Mabo case, led by Eddie Kioiki Mabo, an activist for the 1967 Referendum, fought the legal concept that Australia and the Torres Strait Islands were not owned by Indigenous peoples because they did not use the land in ways Europeans believed constituted some . See McGrath, 2006 We invite you to connect with us on social media. In particular, I discuss the ways in which both of these judgments render an incomplete and contradictory documentary record more coherent than it really is. [13], By the 1900s, the traditional economic life of the Torres Strait gave way to wage labouring on fishing boats mostly owned by others. Listen, learn and be inspired by the stories of Australias First Peoples. Search and explore the AIATSIS Collection of more than 1 million items related to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and histories. 2" Justice Dawson alone dissented. "Hello! trailer 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 F.C. [21], A majority of the High Court found that:[2], Various members of the court discussed the international law doctrine of terra nullius (no one's land),[22] meaning uninhabited or inhabited territory which is not under the jurisdiction of a state, and which can be acquired by a state through occupation. Dawson, J. dissented. In this article, I explore the competing visions of legal history that are implicit within Brennan, J.'s leading judgment and Dawson, J.'s dissent. Heidi Glenn produced for the web. 0000004228 00000 n These six judgments in the Mabo case comprise hundreds of pages, of which just three pages are shown here. The five Meriam people who mounted the case were Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice and one Meriam women, Celuia Mapo Sale. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, seen here Oct. 26 2020, issued a scathing dissent Monday on the court's refusal to hear cases relating to the 2020 elections. %PDF-1.6 % [Inaudible.] [28], On 1 February 2014, the traditional owners of land on Badu Island received freehold title to 9,836 hectares (24,310 acres) in an act of the Queensland Government. On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia recognised that a group of Torres Strait Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer (Murray Island). But we may also be entering a period where, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested, dissent is every bit as important as the majority opinion where today's justices who dissent on cases will be the Harlans of the next generation. [16] The State of Queensland was the respondent to the proceeding and argued that native title rights had never existed in Australia and even if it did they had been removed due to (at the latest) the passage of the Land Act 1910 (Qld). Justice Dawson, however, held that such rights exist only if recognised or acquiesced in by the Crown, and that this did not happen in this case. It took generations, but eventually the dissenter won. Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. The High Court of Australia's decision in Mabo v. Queensland (No. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware that this website may contain images, voices and names of deceased persons. Dr. David Q. Dawson is the deuteragonist of Disney's 1986 animated feature film, The Great Mouse Detective. [3] Conversely, the decision was criticised by the government of Western Australia and various mining and pastoralist groups.[4]. [Google Scholar]), 214 CLR 422 in relation to the need to demonstrate a continuing traditional connection with the land. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. Since you've made it this far, we want to assume you're a real, live human. Ginsburg, however, offered three in late June 2013, including in the consequential voting rights case of Shelby County v . He says in that dissent, what can more surely sow the seeds of racial discord than a system under the law that creates two separate systems of rights, one for Blacks and one for whites? The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. owned by no one) at the time of British settlement, and recognised that Indigenous rights to land existed by virtue of traditional customs and laws and these rights had not been wholly lost upon colonisation. 0000003912 00000 n 0000004453 00000 n Prior to Mabo, the pre-colonial property interests of Indigenous Australians were not recognised by the Australian legal system. The Mabo Case was a significant legal case in Australia that recognised the land rights of the Meriam people, traditional owners of the Murray Islands (which include the islands of Mer, Dauer and Waier) in the Torres Strait. Twelve months later the. The Sovereign, by that law is (as it is termed) universal occupant. 2) is among the most widely known and controversial decisions the Court has yet delivered. hT}PTU?,[C"[a>FdhUPPH"*"Jf6X$1< QIF1#)thwm3{s~s~ * n Y! #`:F95Z=iEO]p,meDz>bI%AN=l5~{0. The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995), Sun 13 Jun 1993, Justice Brennan (with whom Mason CJ and McHugh J agreed) \vrote the leading judgment. It should be clear from what follows (and, frankly, from the course of history) that I do not suggest that Aborigines had not asserted their rights to land via other (non-judicial) means before 1971. All that remains of Henry Lane's shack at Pudman, built around 1880. 3099067 The second empire is defined by P. J. Marshall as the British Empire of the late eighteenth century, which ceased to consist primarily of communities of free settlers of British origin and became an empire of peoples who were not British in origin and who had been incorporated into the empire by conquest and who were ruled without representation (Marshall, 2001 cited by Hussain, 2003 Hussain, N. 2003. ( 2006 ). later. It was published in Black newspapers. [20] Additionally, the acquisition of radical title to land by the Crown at British settlement did not by itself extinguish native title interests. On June 3, 1992, the High Court overturned the legal concept of "terra nullius" that land claimed by white settlers belonged to no-one. Photo courtesy of tho Russell Family, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article127232465, create private tags and comments, readable only by you, and. And the answer essentially is no in Plessy v. Ferguson. But we need to be super sure you aren't a robot. The decision led to the legal doctrine of native title, enabling further litigation for First Nations land rights. A dissenting opinion is an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion. The decision rejected the notion that Australia was terra nullius (i.e. 0000002000 00000 n Explore the story of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia in all its In this article, I explore the competing visions of legal history that are implicit within Brennan J's leading judgment and Dawson J's dissent. We provide leadership in ethics and protocols for research related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and collections. Later in 1982, the plaintiffs, headed by Eddie Mabo, requested a declaration from the High Court that the Meriam people were entitled to property rights on Murray Island according to their local customs, original native ownership and their actual use and possession of the land. We pay our respects to Elders past and present. This landmark decision gave rise to . 27374). There was a long string of pro-business presidents of both parties that appointed Northern railroad attorneys essentially to the Supreme Court, and then you have this economic crisis and this racial crisis, and they're not equipped to deal with it. 0000000016 00000 n These included questions as to the validity of titles issued which were subject to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the permissibility of future development of land affected by native title, and procedures for determining whether native title existed in land. It was not until 3 June 1992 that Mabo No. The court ruled differently in 1954. Milirrpum still represents the law on traditional native land rights in Australia. [25], The case attracted widespread controversy and public debate. 0000001056 00000 n Rather, the Milirrpum case was, for a combination of historical reasons, the first occasion on which an Aboriginal plaintiff brought a native title case before an Australian court and the first time that an Australian or English court was required to rule directly, as opposed to obliquely, on the question of whether native title survived the transfer of sovereignty over Australian territory to the Crown. The Native Title Research and Access Service is your first stop for information about the native title resources in the AIATSIS collection. I think it suggests the parallels between that era and this era. Browse some of our featured collections which have been digitised as part of our ongoing preservation work. says I. The hearing was adjourned when Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer brought a second case to the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of theQueensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985. In this article, I explore the competing visions of legal history that are implicit within Brennan, J. 0000009196 00000 n 0000000596 00000 n 8. 0000002466 00000 n Nation and miscegenation: Discursive continuity in the Post-Mabo era. Invest in a scientifically inspired, literate and skilled Australia that contributes to local and global social challenges If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Robert Harlan, a freed slave, achieved renown despite the court's decisions. Early life and family. Read about what you should know before you begin. and photocopies or electronic copies of newspapers pages. Keep yesterday's dissent in mind the next time he receives such partisan praise. [2], The Prime Minister Paul Keating during his Redfern speech praised the decision, saying saying it "establishes a fundamental truth, and lays the basis for justice". The judges held that British possession had . In 2015, 23 years after the decision, Eddie Mabo was honoured by the Sydney Observatory in a star naming ceremony, a fitting and culturally significant moment in our nations history. I think it's not too mysterious. The Mabo Case was successful in overturning the myth that at the time of colonisation Australia was 'terra nullius . 0000014730 00000 n Law Institute Journal, 69: 203[Google Scholar]), I read it as a judgment in which Brennan, J. identified that the pre-existing common law (other than Southern Rhodesia) did not compel a particular outcome. On the assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had no concept of land ownership before the arrival of British colonisers in 1788 (terra nullius). The key line in the majority opinion says this is a law that was specifically enacted to put Black people in a separate [train] carriage, and they said if there's any stigma here it's because Black people themselves are putting that construction on it. Six of the judges agreed that the Meriam people did have traditional ownership of their land, with Justice Dawson dissenting from the majority judgment. Accordingly, I take Brennan, J. We had the wrong people on the Supreme Court, and they set the country back decades. Mabo v Queensland (No 1), [1] was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988. [31], Mabo Day is an official holiday in the Torres Shire, celebrated on 3 June,[32] and occurs during National Reconciliation Week in Australia. Before proceeding to an analysis of the majority judgments, it should be 2 was decided. Dawson J agreed (p. 158), but this was subsumed by his . He noted the plain language of the Constitution, which said equal protection under law in the 14th amendment is the law of the land. 0000004136 00000 n Our research contributes to the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and has a direct benefit to the communities we work with. The full judgments are available online. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson Toohey & Gaudron JJ. 2 was decided. To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below: Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content? Paradoxically, the Wik decision evoked a much more swift and hostile reaction . [26] Native title doctrine was eventually codified in statute by the Keating Government in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Please enable JavaScript in your browser to get the full Trove experience. [Crossref],[Google Scholar], p. 96, see also pp. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. %%EOF Deane, Gaudron and McHugh, JJ. xb```f``f`^|QXcG =N{"C_2`\. We will be creating a transformative learning experience for all Australian students and teachers, when visiting Canberra or through on-line training. [Crossref],[Google Scholar], p. 25). Mabo rejected the more militant direct action tactics of the land rights movement, seeing the most important goal as being to destroy the legal justification for what he regarded as land theft. Inform and influence policy and policy-making through expert comment and input The High Court decision in theMabo v. Queensland (No.2)altered the foundation of land law in Australia and the following year theNative Title Act 1993 (Cth), was passed through the Australian Parliament. 0000007051 00000 n [23][24] The court also discussed the analogous common law doctrine that "desert and uncultivated land" which includes land "without settled inhabitants or settled law" can be acquired by Britain by settlement, and that the laws of England are transmitted at settlement. 0000006890 00000 n Madison (1803), which stemmed from a flurry of Federalist judicial appointments made in the last weeks of the Adams administration. Native title could be extinguished by a valid exercise of government power that was inconsistent with an ongoing native title interest. Phil Harrell and Reena Advani produced and edited the audio story. How can the Family History Unit help you? Ngunnawal identity Matilda House (nee Williams) and elder sister of Harry "Crow" Williams, with Aunty Vi Bolger, now in her 90s. A new book explores the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, who, through his writing, made history even though he lost. Very simply put, Justice Blackburn found that no such rights existed in 0000014584 00000 n Mabo (1992) 17 5 CLR 1 at 71-3. It commemorates Mer Island man Eddie Koiki Mabo and his successful efforts to overturn the legal fiction of terra nullius, or land belonging to no-one. John Marshall Harlan, who was named for Chief Justice John Marshall, served on the Supreme Court from 1877 until his death in 1911. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Harlan was on the court in 1896 when it endorsed racial . The High Court found the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act to be invalid because it was in conflict with theRacial Discrimination Act 1975. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. 1992 High Court of Australia decision which recognised native title. 0000011632 00000 n 0000005771 00000 n 5. Tuhiwai Smith (1999 Tuhiwai Smith, L. 1999. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within the common law of Australia. [i] From Keon-Cohen, B A, 'The Mabo Litigation: A Personal and Procedural Account'[2000] MelbULawRw 35; (2000) 24(3) Melbourne University Law Review 893. His Honor thought, however, that if land was in fact occupied, as was much of Australia, the common law protected the indigenous rights of the occupiers. 0000000016 00000 n Our world leading curriculum resources are keyed to national curriculum requirements. Reverend David Passi, who gave evidence in the trial, explained that he believed that God had sent Malo to Mer island and that "Jesus Christ was where Malo was pointing. John Marshall Harlan, who was named for Chief Justice John Marshall, served on the Supreme Court from 1877 until his death in 1911. Did you know that with a free Taylor & Francis Online account you can gain access to the following benefits? Register to receive personalised research and resources by email. Access assistance in your state and territory. In the weeks before Thomas Jefferson's inauguration as president in March . He petitioned, campaigned, cajoled and questioned Terra Nullius for 18 years. Richard Bartlett, "The Proprietary Nature of Native Title" (1998) 6, This page was last edited on 25 February 2023, at 06:37. Justice Moynihan handed down his determination of facts on 16 November 1990, which meant the High Court could begin its hearing of the legal issues in the case. Soon after the decision, the Keating Government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), which codified the rights recognised in Mabo and set out a new process for applicants to have their rights recognised through the newly established Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia. Is anyone there?" Why was Eddie Mabo important to the land rights movement? Ten years following the Mabo decision, his wife Bonita Mabo claimed that issues remained within the community about land on Mer. What did Eddie Koiki Mabo do for a living? Paragraph operations are made directly in the full article text panel located to the left.Paragraph operations include: Zone operations are made directly in the full article text panel located to the left.Zone operations include: Please choose from the following download options: The National Library of Australia's Copies Direct service lets you purchase higher quality, larger sized On how Harlan and the court's majority could find support in the Constitution and law to bolster very different conclusions regarding separate but equal. Photo by MARTIN PIERIS, Ngunnawal families pose with the settler Whittaker family. Mabo Case (1992). 3. After some argument Moynihan J accepted the plaintiffs request that the court should adjourn and reconvene on Murray Island for three days, to take evidence, particularly from 16 witnesses, mainly elderly and frail, and also to take a view of the claimed areas of garden plots and adjacent seasWhen opening proceedings on the Island on 23 May 1989, Moynihan J doubted [whether] the Court has ever sat further north or perhaps further east, and certainly never before on Murray Island. Judges have taken the opportunity to write dissenting opinions as a means to voice their concerns or express hope for the future. 7. We are Australia's only national institution focused exclusively on the diverse history, cultures and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia. London & New York: Zed Books. This was successfully challenged in Mabo v Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186 (Mabo No 1) and declared as ineffective due to the act being inconsistent with the right to equality before the law, as established by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The legal significance of the decision THE Mabo decision is legally significant in a number of re spects. 0000008513 00000 n The full text of this speech is available at http://apology.west.net.au/redfern.html. Retrieved 9 October 2007 from http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/ [Google Scholar] for more thorough reviews of Connor's book, including some suggestions that Connor may also have permitted himself the odd sleight of hand in making his case for the culpable invention of terra nullius. More generally, Reynolds assembles a range "Bye. Most often asked questions related to bitcoin. Retrieved 15 January 2006 from http://home.vicnet.net.au/ [Google Scholar] and Fitzmaurice, 2006 with Justice Dawson dissenting from the majority judgment. Legal proceedings for the case began on 20 May 1982, when a group of four Meriam men, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice and one Meriam women, Celuia Mapo Sale, brought an action against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, in the High Court, claiming native title to the Murray Islands. [Screams of what I took to be joy, laughter, yelling, much discussion in the background.]