An indigenous group in Australia demands payment for mining of dirt that contains iron ore. Why? Because they consider it sacred and feel very attached to it.

Nobody is entitled to more rights than others based on per religious thoughts. Whatever per origin, whether indigenous or immigrant, and no matter what religion person might practice, the answer has to be the same: your religious ideas (if any) and practices (if lawful) are your choice, but they don't entitle you to dominate others.

The decision ought to be based on other factors. What are they?

This case does not involve any ancient art that would be a treasure of humanity's past and call for preservation.

But these factors clearly apply:

• Whether the indigenous group owns that land (based on other reasons than religion). If so, that must be respected. It seems that the answer to this is "sort-of but not entirely."
• The value of the iron ore to society.
• Environmental protection. Mining that iron (like any other mining) could do environmental damage. Often mining companies skip out on compensating or cleaning up their damage. The local people (regardless of their ethnicity or religion) are entitled to demand compensation for that, or to block the mining to prevent that damage.

Many UK universities and organizations are sponsored by, or buy from, organizations participating in the systematic brainwashing of the Uyghurs.

*President Biden: Don't Give Wall Street Control of Our Public Water Systems.*

Biden flip-flops between opposition to plutocracy and abject surrender to plutocracy.

The FBI now holds 21 million people's DNA profiles, and is rapidly collecting more.

This could be aiming, in the long term, for a collection covering all Americans.

"Co-living" is a gentrified, luxury-pushing commercial version of the co-housing movement.