Around Christmas last year I did a video about the Declaration of Recognition. I wrote and did a video about how I thought that having the declaration “outside of the constitution” was code for in the preamble – which is in the Imperial constitution act – and therefore not “in” the constitution.

But I don’t think that’s right anymore, and want to write down my revised thinking.

Have you heard the saying – “hidden in plain sight”? After watching a video on youtube – and re-reading the Declaration of Recognition book from Uphold and Recognise I have a new idea what it is.

In the video – go to 32 minutes. This is Damien Freeman. He is one of the two founders of Uphold and Recognise. The other founder is Julian Leeser, who was also (very conveniently) appointed co-chair of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee post-Yulara convention. In the video, Freeman seems a little nervous and reluctant to answer, and tries to fob a question off to Shireen Morris. I would do the same if I were him – Morris is brilliant at putting lipstick on a pig and leaving the audience none-the-wiser. Anyway – Freeman, in the video compares the Declaration of Recognition to the US Declaration of Independence.

Now – Australia is not yet Independent. Every piece of legislation passed by federal and state governments needs (foreign?) Crown assent, even if it’s at arms length by a Governor as a proxy. So it makes sense, that the first thing they would want to do once they safely have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples locked under the Australian domestic umbrella – is to declare their independence. But they can’t actually call it a Declaration of Independence, because that would raise eyebrows and questions, because Australia is supposed to already be independent. So they call it a Declaration of Recognition instead. Outside of the interpretation of the High Court, it will be the tip-of-the-pyramid founding document of Australia, effectively replacing the Imperial Constitution Act of the UK Parliament.

Now – they needed to include the Declaration of Recognition in the Referendum Council report to demonstrate that the “First Nations State” endorsed this Declaration of Independence as part of the overall reform package. The other states and the federal government show their endorsement just before the Voice referendum. From the Referendum Council Report Recommendations;

That an extra-constitutional Declaration of Recognition be enacted by legislation passed by
all Australian Parliaments, ideally on the same day, to articulate a symbolic statement of
recognition to unify Australians.
A Declaration of Recognition should be developed, containing inspiring and unifying words articulating
Australia’s shared history, heritage and aspirations. The Declaration should bring together the three parts
of our Australian story: our ancient First Peoples’ heritage and culture, our British institutions, and our
multicultural unity. It should be legislated by all Australian Parliaments, on the same day, either in the
lead up to or on the same day as the referendum establishing the First Peoples’ Voice to Parliament,
as an expression of national unity and reconciliation.

Final Report of the Referendum Council, Page 2

They legislate it concurrently just before the referendum to give a pretense that the Australian people are also voting for Independence. I am guessing they will set up this concurrent legislation ‘ad referendum’, so conditional on the referendum passing. This endorsement of the people is a joke because Australians think it’s a gammon symbolic statement. The declaration was fairly prominent in the Referendum Council report, but you won’t see Thomas Mayor touring around explaining to whitefullas what it is.

Overall I think this means – the Unilateral Declaration of Independence that the Sovereign Union talks about is a good idea.

This is essentially what Australia is attempting to do, but with First Nations standing under their umbrella.

First Nations might want to get in first, and declare independence on behalf of their own respective nations to preempt this attempt by the Commonwealth. Recognising each other as nations will also help reinforce this position.

Lately there has been some people sharing my blog on Facebook, and I’ve been getting a lot of views. I just want to say thanks for sharing this information. I want to write more and post more videos, and getting feedback is encouraging.

If you haven’t seen it already – I posted a video a month ago – Link: https://vimeo.com/360731209

If you don’t feel like watching it – this post is briefly what it’s about. This video examines Malcolm Turnbull’s claim that the voice will be a Third Chamber of Parliament. But Turnbull never actually said the Voice IS a Third Chamber, he said

It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament”.

In other words – it’s going to look like a third chamber. The “third chamber” is a historical reference to the Indian Chamber of Princes, which was a true third chamber of the Indian Parliament. This Indian Chamber of Princes is – as far as I know – is the only third chamber in history. And once the Indigenous Voice is enshrined, it will look very similar to this Indian Chamber of Princes. And what happened to the Chamber of Princes? It didn’t last. That’s what Turnbull was warning about – because I think – part of “free, prior and informed consent”, someones gotta tell us the cons. They just stage-manage the information release, and get people like Turnbull, Abbott, Pauline Hanson et al. to deliver us the cons so we are primed not to take notice.

This misunderstanding is also the root of stage-managed “confusion” happening right now in regards to Ken Wyatt and his supposed rejection of the Voice. Ken Wyatt has not rejected anything, he said;

the question we put to the Australian people will not result in what some desire, and that is a enshrined voice to the Parliament”

Now that could mean one of two things.

One – he is changing the proposal by leaving out the Voice. This is not possible though – because the Yulara Statement offer is non-negotiable. So under basic contract law, the offer cannot be diminished or watered down.

Two – the proposal sucks. Yes, it does… and this is fully aligned with what Turnbull said. The proposal is going to end in tears. Wyatt is right – it will not result in an assembly as some desire.

Of course the media is feeding us with option 1, because they want you to think that the government doesn’t really want these reforms happening. This is because they don’t want a repeat of 1999 – government don’t want to seem too keen. It’s a bluff. They are bluffing so hard, that Ken Wyatt and Noel Pearson BOTH didn’t show up to a scheduled Q&A appearance shortly after Ken Wyatt said the above quote at the Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture. I guess if they turned up, they would have been backed into a corner, and would have to clarify. No – the strategy was to let the media run with disinformation to brainwash us all. No clarification needed.

The Referendum Council report just asks for a “Voice”. Not an assembly, chamber, senate, black parliament… but a “Voice” or a body – that is the actual terminology used in the report. The Referendum Council have left a gaping hole that the government can proceed to drive a truck through, because what they have asked for is consistent with normal voting rights. So keeping in mind that as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – as non-citizens we don’t yet have voting rights. We are allowed to vote, but that is not the same as having the right to vote. So further down the line – the Voice could will mean – the right to vote as fully assimilated Australians. This is the benefit that we will get from this Treaty – because in a Treaty such as this there has to be an exchange of benefit for it to be legit. Beads and trinkets are needed. Be warned – it is a true Treaty.