uluru statement

Self-determination – A Roadmap

~ Jessica Savage ~ 2 Comments

“All peoples have the right to self-determination”

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

But some peoples have a more strongly implemented right to self-determination than other peoples. Colonised peoples have the right to self-determination, and indigenous peoples also have the right to self-determination, but this right is implemented very differently in both cases.

So it is important to distinguish the difference between colonised peoples and indigenous peoples, because they have different support structures in exercising their right to self-determination.

A peoples (or a polity, nation, or political community) can be colonised and not indigenous. For example, African slaves from Spanish-run slavery in Jamaica escaped and lived in the Jamaican jungle. But there were already indigenous peoples living on the island – the Arawak and Taino peoples. Later on, a British wave of colonisation came, and the non-indigenous, African Jamaicans were colonised. So these non-indigenous peoples were for a time, colonised.

Likewise, a peoples can be indigenous, but not colonised. There’s plenty of examples of this in the world. Some peoples have already decolonised, and others that were never colonised at all. Many indigenous peoples don’t need special “indigenous rights” despite being technically indigenous, because they are not in a position of subjugation.

We just happen to be both indigenous and colonised. So we have two very distinct pathways of self-determination available to us.

The Right to self-determination for colonised peoples

Self-determination for colonised peoples is: colonised peoples have a right to freely decide for themselves their international political status.

There are 3 basic self-determination pathways to decolonisation. They are independence, association and integration. I talked about this more in the “UN Decolonisation” video (see Thinking Sovereignty page on Facebook), but this post is to show how it fits in a bigger picture of self-determination.

Independence is the complete removal of all colonial control and the birth of a new system, or rebirth of the pre-colonial system.

Association is a consensual arrangement where the colonised peoples retain the freedom to modify the international status of their territory, and also retain the right to determine their own internal constitution without outside interference; yet in some ways are still administered by a seperate, independent government.

Integration is where the colonised peoples surrender their right to determining their own constitution and territorial status, and agree to become part of another independent state.

There is another option. This is what ever the colonised peoples decide for themselves. The peoples can choose another option, or a combination of these three options. The important thing is that the peoples themselves freely decide their political status as part of an international State. To assert a personality on the stage of international states.

These 3 paths under UN resolutions going back to the 50’s. Decolonisation is an established peremptory norm in international law, that means there are no “if’s or but’s” allowed; no excuses, and the international community has a binding obligation to assist peoples under colonial control in choosing and realising that choice.

Now given those options – put yourself in settler-colonial shoes. These options, especially the option of independence would amount to a internationally mandated revolution against the settler state. It would be a disaster if it were freely chosen by the colonised peoples. The international community has; under their own customary laws, an obligation to support the colonised peoples in their choice. The Montevideo Convention, and other international law also supports the colonised peoples. The only real solution for a settler colonial state is to funnel peoples under colonial subjugation towards choosing more favourable options, ones that benefit the settler state.

These days, you can’t use force to gain consent; at least not openly. So you have to persuade my other means. Carefully present those peoples under alien subjugation with limited options, and hope they say “yes” and don’t ask too many questions.

Another thing you can do as a settler state, is keep off the UN decolonisation target list. The UN maintains a list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. A special committee maintains the list and supervises the decolonisation process. The problem is that on the committee itself sits member states who directly benefit from settler colonialism. The police are policing themselves. Nevertheless, this political interference does not change the resolutions made or the established peremptory norms. As long as settler-colonial countries can keep off the list, and the colonised peoples are not aware of their options – then all is good for the settler state. But in the meantime the settler colonial state will try to funnel those subjugated peoples down the path the colony has chosen.

The Right to self-determination for indigenous peoples

The right to self-determination for “indigenous peoples” is a very different concept to the right to self-determination for colonised peoples. Indigenous peoples rights are written up in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This declaration; once adopted, is a non-binding obligation to States to protect indigenous minority rights. The language used in the declaration makes it clear that it is mainly about indigenous peoples who are a minority within the larger nation state. The declaration writes about the relationship between “indigenous peoples” and “States”. It is not a State-to-State or a Nation to Nation relationship, it immediately implies a majority/minority dynamic.

This relationship dynamic is not applicable to colonised peoples who have not yet exercised their right to self-determination in the international sense. Colonised peoples; who also happen to be indigenous, still have the opportunity to negotiate (or re-negotiate) internationally-binding treaty terms as part of an association arrangement. This would allow them to prioritise and secure terms that are most important to them, and secure those terms under international law. This is far more secure than aspiring, non-binding declarations. UNDRIP is unnecessary for colonised peoples.

On the roadmap image I have illustrated this in yellow on the right side of the map. Decolonisation in blue has to happen first for UNDRIP to be relevant.

Note the capitalisation of some terms used throughout the UNDRIP. States is a proper noun with a big “S”, but indigenous peoples is used as an adjective/noun with a small “i”. This is not being disrespectful, it means that States is clearly defined, whereas indigenous peoples is a more general, non-specific term. One big problem with UNDRIP; at least for colonised indigenous peoples who still retain a distinct status from the colonial nation state, is that there is no hard definition of “indigenous”. There is a UN working definition from 1986 (scroll pdf to point 379) which is roughly based on cultural continuity.

Ultimately it is up to States to implement in their own legislation and definitions of whom; amongst their own state’s population, are the “indigenous peoples”.

Some countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia have denied having any indigenous peoples at all. In Africa, only small tribal minorities are officially considered to be “indigenous”, even though most African people in Africa are indigenous to Africa. There is a cultural distinction and cultural continuity aspect to the term. I think the term will one day be seen as a “social construct” in the same way race is seen as outdated today. The term is a mixture of a peoples origin, their connection with the land, their subjugation and miraculous survival under waves of human migration crashing on top of them, and a Disney-like perception from outsiders of their cultural “uniqueness”. It is a narrow term, and there is not much scope for change and adaption in the fast-changing world. Neither is there much appreciation for more subtle aspects of identity and practices, aspects which may continue in the “non-continuous” “non-authentic” cultures that doesn’t quite make the official definition.

Implications in Australia

One of the assessment principles of the Uluru Statement is that it

Advances self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Final Report of the Referendum Council

This is not self-determination for colonised peoples as in General Assembly resolutions 1514, 1541 etc., It is self-determination for indigenous peoples which is a very different thing.

In Australia, the term “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” is a properly defined legal term, and by the criteria is determined by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community itself. “Indigenous Australian” is at this point in time used interchangeably with “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. BUT… that is only at this current point in time. Ultimately, the definition of the term “Indigenous Australians” is the prerogative of the Australian people, not of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is a danger that one day you may wake up to realise, yes you are still Aboriginal, your community still accepts you, you have technically decolonised, but your community cannot show a strong enough cultural continuity to be “Indigenous Australians”. Or it could backfire in the other direction – when Pauline Hanson reckons she is an “Indigenous Australian” – she might be right depending on how Australians define the term. UNDRIP will only help those who are officially “indigenous”.

I suspect that the criteria will be tightened rather than loosened; and “Indigenous Australian” will eventually mean a Native Title holder. I doubt it is a mere coincidence that Native title holders are the only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have proven themselves to comply with the absolutely most restrictive interpretation possible of the UN 1986 working definition (refer to section 380). Logically, if Australia wants to restrict the definition of “Indigenous Australian” as much as possible to reduce their obligations under UNDRIP while still being technically compliant, then the Native Title holder criteria adapted as a new “Indigenous Australian” definition fits this perfectly.

Conclusion

UNDRIP is; for colonised peoples, a big carrot leading them up a mine-ridden path. There are better options already existing from the UN decolonisation framework, there is no reason why these options should not be available to peoples under the “settler” brand of colonial subjugation. There are ways to bring better options for self-determination up and make them available, ways both for peoples who have no treaties (eg. in Australia and British Colombia) and those that already have treaties but never ceded sovereignty over their territory. One important thing is that there is wider awareness of these options. I will write/talk about more in my next post or video about how to make these paths available.

Here is the full roadmap image:

See also the Facebook page “Thinking Sovereignty” for the UN Decolonisation video for more detail.

“Truthtelling”

~ Jessica Savage ~ Leave a comment

This post I will examine the third step of the Uluru Statement reforms – known interchangeably as Truth or Truthtelling.

  1.  Voice: Give us a consultative body and citizenship in exchange for our Sovereignty
  2. Makarrata: Federal Government and States share our birthright amongst themselves
  3. Truthtelling: Rewriting the history books

They say, history is written by the victor. Australia has not yet secured victory over the original inhabitants. Australia’s history books have until very recently (with the help of Aboriginal activists and “black armband” historians) ignored Aboriginal peoples. The historical narrative and objectives of Australian colonisation have gone through several phases, we are now nearing the conclusion of the final phase (if successful). The best way to explain what is happening now is by comparing to the previous phases.

Phase 1: Hope that we will simply die out

Terra Nullius… they came knowing full well that the land was inhabited, they knew we had law (they used our own laws against us),  but for their own convenience they hoped and thought we would just die off. To speed up the process – they turned a willful blind-eye while “settlers cleared” the land. “Squatters rights” – meant that those “clearing” the land were handsomely rewarded. The most successful land-clearing families became part of the who’s who of colonial Australia, they became very powerful and many of them are still holding the reigns in politics and business today.  They got there via hard work – hard, hands-on work. Slaughter, rape, dispossession, cover-up and genocide of the Aboriginal peoples, as well as building farms and businesses on the land they acquired. If phase 1 were successful in wiping out Aboriginal people, the Terra Nullius narrative would have become retrospectively true in the history books, leaving behind fragments of a story of a mysterious race of people who just as mysteriously disappeared.

Phase 2: Hope that we will assimilate and forget who we are

Time went on. The death of the “last Aborigine in Tasmania” became etched in their history almost like it was a proud milestone. But we are still here fighting. Decent Australians complained about Aboriginal peoples being excluded and destitute, prompting a change in strategy toward assimilation policies. We were taken from our parents, put in boarding schools and missions, were taught how to clean houses and ride horses. Gradually, we gained rights normally granted to citizens, learnt white-man’s ways, and became part of their world. Today schools, universities, identified positions in the public service, and the lure of money are some of the main tools of assimilation. But we always retained our culture, and in some ways it became stronger as we united both in our struggle against oppression, and by our collective feeling of never really belonging.

The Terra Nullius myth has left remnants which can still be seen in the legal system post-Mabo. This lie has become very difficult to sustain when even school kids around the world know that Aboriginal people still live in Australia and still practice their law and culture. Also very problematic is we have not forgotten who we are, and we continue consistently and clearly resist and call for our Sovereignty to be acknowledged and for Treaty. The obviousness of the Terra Nullius lie is a massive problem for the Australian Government that “Truthtelling” will solve.

Phase 3: Act like we allowed the Colonisers here all along

How will “truthtelling” solve this problem of the Terra Nullius lie? There are clues in the Uluru Statement itself. There is a huge omission – the statement says absolutely nothing about the ongoing and active struggle of our peoples against oppression. It lists a few symptoms such as high incarceration, but stops short of explaining why – just blowing it off that it is caused by ‘a structural problem’ that can be solved by constitutional assimilation. It is like all those who fought for our land, our law and our culture never existed.

an excerpt from the Uluru Statement;

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

By getting mob to sign this – they tricked them to acknowledge and to backdate Crown claims of Sovereignty to 1770. Note the past-tense in the first paragraph – we “were” (not “are”) the first sovereign Nations, we “possessed it” etc. Implying that we are no longer sovereign Nations, nor still in possession of the continent. Yet it also says sovereignty “has never been ceded or extinguished” – so what happened to our Sovereignty?

To paraphrase another part – our “Sovereignty is a spiritual notion” that “co-exists with the Sovereignty of the crown“. Co-existing sovereignty implies a sharing arrangement, which is exactly what the Constitutional Reforms via a Federalism agreement will formalise. The First Nations sovereignty claim will retain the ‘spiritual’ part – while the Crown has gained sovereignty gradually by moving across the land, claiming the land, minerals, flora, fauna, waters, everything they want. But Australia has no interest in acquiring a Spiritual connection, so First Nations present no threat in asserting their spiritual interests in the Uluru Statement.

This is philosophically in line with the Mabo “acquisition of Sovereignty by settlement” and Howard’s Native Title bucketloads of extinguishment. I would say this thinking dates back to at least the mid 90’s, and sharing via Federalism was probably planned since then as a ‘plan B’ if the ‘plan A’ of Recognition + Republic didn’t work.

So how does all of this fit in with Truthtelling? Well I think it’s pretty clear. History will be gradually rewritten and selectively emphasised to give the impression that we passively consented to being slowly assimilated. The long-term goal of “Truth” is to construct a clean and consistent narrative for the consumption of future generations of Australians. The current narrative is a dog’s breakfast of contradictions, it needs repairing and cleaning. Our resistance needs to be brushed off like those who walked out of the Yulara dialogues – you can’t please everyone, right?

How History is being rewritten

The mainstream media has been paying more attention to Aboriginal history in the last decade. Pay attention to what is being revealed and discussed – you may notice it mostly falls into one of two categories;

  1. Big, brutal events they cannot deny because there is already high awareness like documented frontier massacres already uncovered by independent researchers. These events might still not appear just yet in official accounts if it will cause their story to prematurely collapse – eg. you wont see the Frontier Wars in the Australian War Memorial until they have us safely in the Constitution. or;
  2. Relatively tame, trivial, information about culture, or pre-contact stories, that do not involve gross crimes against humanity and don’t show evidence of active resistance.

Here is an example of category 2 from the planned Cooktown 2020 event;

Over the weeks, their courage grew and the Bama instigated meetings with Cook’s crew with relations between them being largely friendly. Over seven separate meetings they spent sufficient time together for Cook, Banks and the Endeavour’s team of naturalists to record more than 130 words of the native language. One of the words recorded was gangurru, which was spelt ‘kangaroo’.

Then relations took a turn for the worse. The Endeavour crew caught some turtle and refused to share them with the local clan. This was a sign of great disrespect for the Guugu Yimithirr. The meat of ngawiya was so highly valued that it would always be given first to the Elders, and only when they had finished would the remainder be eaten by the rest of the clan. Cook’s men, of course, knew nothing of this and thought the turtle was rightfully theirs and needed all the meat for their voygage home to England.

The Guugu Yimithirr were incensed, and the scuffle that followed could easily have led to bloodshed – the Guugu Yimithirr greatly outnumbered the Endeavour crew and there were numerous opportunities to spear them but, perhaps because they were on neutral ground, the dispute was quickly resolved and the Bama allowed Cook and his men to leave unharmed.

Had this not been the case, how different our history would be. The British Admiralty would not have been told of the discovery of a new land and, eighteen years later, the First Fleet would not have arrived at Sydney Cove to begin building the country we now call Australia.

They could have killed every man on the Endeavour – but they didn’t. Does that imply ambivalence to Cooks presence? And until 15-20 years ago, the story emphasis would have been about Cook repairing his ship, the indigenous would have been a footnote.

Outside of these 2 categories there are plenty of stories that would show active resistance, premeditated attacks against Aboriginal Sovereignty, and plenty of ‘smaller’ albeit abhorrent stories. These stories won’t be volunteered, they will only come out if independent researchers first force them out, then they will be downplayed and discredited as much as possible – a good example would be John Pilger’s Utopia documentary. Utopia is not “Truthtelling”.

In another 50 years or even less – the zeitgeist will be “everyone can play the didgeridoo and Australia is officially 60,000 years old.” By reading the Uluru Statement, future generations of Australians will have no hint of our resistance, even though in 2017/18 it is an intrinsic part of our story. Maybe they will look at photos of the Tent Embassy with it’s “Sovereignty” sign and interpret it as a request to join Australia.

“Truthtelling” is not for our benefit

Don’t expect “Truthtelling” to be a path to fair restitution, compensation, justice, cultural protection (beyond that which is commercially valuable), war crime investigations, genocide tribunals or any apologies. Don’t expect it to allow us to share the burden of carrying the horrific stories we have passed down through our families. Don’t expect we can finally go and say ‘hi’ to our non-indigenous cousins who don’t even know we exist, even though we share grandfathers – the fathers of the stolen generations. We will keep carrying the dirty secrets until they are forgotten.  There will be no justice in this “Truthtelling”, it’s sole purpose is to rewrite history to benefit the oppressor.

Makarrata: Sharing the Spoils of Conquest

~ Jessica Savage ~ 1 Comment

For background – please read The Uluru Statement is not what you think first which discusses in detail the danger of the enshrinement of the First Nations Voice to Parliament.

The Yulara Statement has 3 components, Voice, Makarrata, Truth. This post will focus on the second component – Makarrata.

Makarrata is not a Treaty in the sense of the normal, International context of the word – it is a post-treaty negotiation framework. The real “Treaty” happens at step 1, the enshrinement of the Voice to Parliament. This is where First Nations trade a share of their Sovereignty for a consultative voice and Australian Citizenship. And to be clear – when I say ‘a share of their Sovereignty’, it is more like putting the entire cake on the table and offering the Government to ‘help themselves’.

Once the Voice is enshrined and First Nations sovereignty along with it, the irreversible damage has been done. There is no going back. First Nations have advisory-only powers from then on. International doors are closed for good. If you have a problem with the process from here on – please contact your friendly First Nations voice representative and ask they present a stern word via their special mechanism to the Federal Parliament. Yulara Statement campaigners will have you believe the threat of mere words will have Parliament shaking in their boots and motivated to do the right thing.

When Sharing is not Caring

After our sovereign powers are locked up in the Federation, they need to be ‘shared out’, or directed from the previous holder to the appropriate new holder. The purpose of the Makarrata commission is to facilitate this process. See animated gif below;

Makarrata Commission facilitates one-way transfer of powers from First Nations to States and Federal Government
Created with Open Source software by the Author, and with ezgif.com for animation. graphics from the flags are fair-use, clipart is from Apache Open Office Impress. Feel free to share.

This is the reason Victoria is establishing a Treaty process and why Australia-wide they are talking about making treaty commissions for each state, and possibly also for local governments. It is so the state can negotiate (strip) the powers from individual First Nations’ groups that the States require. This process is pending entirely on the Federal enshrinement of the Voice. If you know that “Sovereignty Never Ceded” – then by extension you can deduce the states currently have NO legitimate powers on this continent because the claim of the Crown is still – under jurisdiction of International law – based on Terra nullius. The first priority of the States and the Federal Government will be to get the powers they currently pretend to have. They will do this without compensating First Nations for this unseen, smoke and mirrors power grab.

Initial priority of Makarrata is to ensure States have their powers upheld
Created with Open Source software by the Author, graphics from the flags are fair-use, clipart is from Apache Open Office Impress. Feel free to share.

Currently, First Nations hold all powers. So for First Nations to negotiate in a Treaty, they will by definition lose powers – whether it be via a Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties International Treaty or by a Federation + Makarrata process. The purpose of negotiating is to make an optimal agreement where each party is treated fairly. Optimally – both parties walk away happy,  but for both parties to walk away from negotiations a little disappointed is also indicative of a good balance being met.  In this case, that would mean Australia securing their legitimacy and First Nations will get something worthwhile in return for giving away part of their powers, like guaranteed rights, cultural protections, royalties or land taxes as compensation for land lost, land with rights to run commercial activity etc.

But under Makarrata – there is no bargaining power when you don’t have the right to say no. First Nations will lose their Dreaming, Australia will enjoy a free-for-all to take whatever they want. This is not a fair negotiation. If this happens it will cement one the biggest ongoing injustices ever committed against an entire race of innocent peoples.  This will then be swallowed down with the 3rd course – “Truth” (in a very Orwellian sense) which will cover-up and sanitize the narrative. This “Truth telling” has already begun, but I will save this for another post.

Comparison with Native Title Act

Overall, this is very similar in pattern to what happened with native title. Native Title Act was a method to kill land rights. Constitutional reform will kill Sovereignty. The same modus operandi is at play – take it all away by stealth, then give a little back pretending to be generous.

Native title: First Nations jump through hoops to prove they have allodial title land rights. Government writes up these allodial rights in their system, grants First Nations a small subset of these rights back, and agrees to stop harassing First Nations on their own land. Government acts like they are doing First Nations a favour.

Constitutional reform: Government absorbs First Nations sovereign powers into the Federation under the guise of giving First Nations a consultative Voice. Government gives First Nations a subset of these powers back – including the Voice itself and Makarrata “negotiation” opportunity, and agree to stop harassing First Nations. Government acts like they are doing First Nations a favour.

Makarrata will last indefinitely

As First Nations hold all powers, they may hold powers that Governments will need later on. These are “residual powers”, the same concept as what the States claim to have today – that is the original colony powers that were not handed to the Federal Government at Federation in 1901. Hypothetical scenario in the future, a new mine is needed on land that is protected with Native Title or under Land Rights. If these rights are held with First Nations people, they will need to be forced into negotiating in order for the mine to proceed. The Makarrata Commission will facilitate this. As long as First Nations hold Sovereign Residual Powers, the Makarrata Commission will exist. In the future, “Traditional Owners” will dread to receive a unexpected phone call from the Makarrata Commission.

Chart explaining why Makarrata will be needed forever
Created with Open Source software by the Author, graphics from the flags are fair-use, clipart is from Apache Open Office Impress. Feel free to share.

This, by the way, is very convenient for mining companies, they will know via the Makarrata Commission exactly which “Traditional Owner” groups they need to deal with and what agreements (vulnerabilities) these groups may be already under. No more running around trying to find an appropriate family group to trick or bribe with Woolworths vouchers, the Makarrata Commission will be their one-stop shop to take care of such pesky details.

Compensation for loss of Rights

I have a serious concern about the Yulara Statement claiming that “Sovereignty is a Spiritual Notion”. If First Nations claim that their connection to the land is merely Spiritual and nothing else, then logically they cannot claim compensation for loss of livelihood, loss of physical land/waters, loss of the right to use their own land to improve their lot through commercial activity that they choose to undertake. It could obstruct their claim to be able to build homes and infrastructure on their own land in order to support their community.  Sovereignty is not merely “a Spiritual notion”, I think these are very dangerous words that will limit First Nations from building themselves a future of true self-determination in a world vastly different to that pre-1788. It could make it so only claims for “pain and suffering” for loss of spiritual connection will be eligible for compensation.

It is ridiculous to claim that First Nations, pre-1788 interest in their land was merely Spiritual. Just like every other inhabitant on this earth, they depended on their land for their physical sustenance, food, water, their shelter, the forming of their contextual relationships in time-space, their sense of belonging and identity etc. These elements may have a spiritual aspect, but they are not exclusively spiritual notions. These interests exist universally wherever there are humans living in a society, regardless of the societies religious/spiritual beliefs or lack thereof.

Makarrata: Coming Together after a Struggle

Coming together for a cup of tea, damper and a respectful yarn?

Or coming together like a pack of lions to feast on the fresh carcass of First Nations Sovereignty?

To summarise;

  • Makarrata is based on a gross power imbalance
  • First Nations have only the right to advise when asked
  • First Nations will have no right to say “no”
  • Overall transfer of rights will be by definition one-way
  • It is deceitful and it’s true intentions are grossly misrepresented
  • It will end in misery for First Nations.

 

Current events: Aboriginal leaders want referendum delayed

~ Jessica Savage ~ Leave a comment

18 October 2018 (yes it is two weeks old, I am playing catch-up)

From abc.net.au;

Key points:

  • Aboriginal leaders support constitutional recognition, urge politicians to drive public support
  • The group said the vote would be guaranteed to fail without generating more support among Australians
  • The comments have disappointed some Indigenous Australians who endorsed the Uluru Statement in May

If you are paying attention, you will notice things that are falling into place at the moment. There’s been more op-eds being churned out, a week of action announced and a new branded social media campaign to build interest. And they are all related to the upcoming release of the final report of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee report due on 29 November. This Committee has been running since March.

The support for the Yulara Statement amongst the Australian public is not doing well. Someone is paying for the Voice Treaty Truth campaign, and whoever that is would be conducting regular polling to measure campaign effectiveness. To do otherwise would be foolish in this day and age. So far, they have only released a handful of polling results to the public, the best polling at about 60%. To run a successful campaign, you have to present an air of confidence and success, so you don’t want to release all the bad polling.  Meanwhile, various politicians and insiders make public statements to the lines of  “It will fail for sure”. They are saying this not because they don’t support the measures, but because they have seen the unreleased polling – and it is not strong enough for them to volunteer to be the first to stick their neck out to say “it’s referendum time”.

Since the conference at Yulara, the flame has been carried by the low-key Voice Treaty Truth campaign, but they clearly need help. The low-key, “grassroots” approach is not working – they need a funding injection.

Cue the “Aboriginal leaders”, who are now pleading with the Government-run Joint Select Committee to say “We are not ready, there is no support!”. And of course, the Committee will swoop in to save the day when they release their report later in November, with the pleas from the “leaders” still fresh in everyones mind. Predictably the report will come with a recommendation along the lines of “The committee recommends the Government injects funding into publicising the proposals, as public awareness is low”. Boom – government has just engineered giving itself the green light to drop another few million flogging their re-branded “Recognise”.

Make no mistake – this is purely a Government driven agenda. They support it 100%, but they need a referendum to get the job done. The last piece of the puzzle is to get the Australian public to support it.

The Uluru Statement is not what you think

~ Jessica Savage ~ 19 Comments

Before I get to the guts of the matter, I want to point out a few, seemingly unrelated points, but they are important background. If you are really pressed for time, or want some convincing first that this is worth reading, just scroll down to the 3rd and 4th diagrams.

I recommend you read carefully, scratch your head in confusion, don’t push yourself too hard trying to understand, but instead consider saving or bookmarking this text and coming back in a week and reading it again.  There has been a systematic 20-year campaign constructing a house of mirrors and deception, nothing is what it seems. It takes time for the brain to untangle, one read is not enough for this information to sink in.

Importance of the Flag

The Aboriginal Flag has been proudly adopted by mob, has been used as a symbol of our united struggle, and has flown in protests and also from the Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy. It is our flag, the people have adopted it wholeheartedly.

The Torres Strait Islander flag is newer, and has been treated the same way by the Australian Govt. There are a few differences, but for simplicity I will restrict discussion mostly to the Aboriginal flag only (no disrespect intended for Torres Strait Islanders).

Keep in mind here, a flag is a symbol of a Nation. By Aboriginal peoples adopting the flag, it could be construed that they are identifying themselves as one Nation, under one law – as opposed to being many, separate, self-determining Nations. Our adoption of the Aboriginal flag (which is a symbol of our unity in our fight) is being exploited which I will discuss later.

The Aboriginal Flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag were entered into the Flags Act by proclamation in 1995. They are commonly flown alongside the State flags and the Australian flag on Government buildings.

Why does the Government fly these flags, while simultaneously denying recognition of Aboriginal Sovereignty?

I believe it is because they are preparing for the Aboriginal Nation and the Torres Strait Islander Nation to join their Federation of Australia.

What is Federalism

Federalism is a form of Treaty, and can involve Sovereign parties.

From wikipedia…

The terms ‘federalism’ and ‘confederalism’ both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning “treaty, pact or covenant.” 

I was not at the Constitutional reform dialogs, but I am guessing they would have played a video about the history of the Constitution, and how Australia is a Federation. And delegates would have been sitting there like bored school kids, wondering when they going to get on with it and start talking Treaty business, probably not realising the significance of the video content.

The Referendum Council put this information about Federalism in a video so that later, they can prove prior and informed consent, because they explained to everyone what Federalism is. The video will be used as evidence later on when we realise we have been duped.

Federalism is a power sharing agreement. It has a central (federal) government and a number of regional governments. The regional governments are subordinate to the federal government (eg. Australia the federal govt can override the member States). These subordinate ‘regional’ governments do not necessarily need a land base, (side note I think the federal govt might need a land base, might be why they made the A.C.T.?).

federation

In contrast, a confederation is similar, except the federal government is subordinate to the regional governments (eg. the European Union, the member States have Sovereignty. Canada is also a Confederation).

confederation

The important things to note are;

  • that a Federation is a power-sharing pool;
  • the powers sharing details are set out in the Constitution/s;
  • and that in a Federation, the states are subordinate to the Federal Government.

Also note that Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the authority from the federal government and each state comes from the Crown. That’s why there are titles of Queen of Australia, Queen of New South Wales, Queen of Queensland etc., and corresponding  Governor-General and Governors of each state who represent the Crown.

federationBefore

Uluru Statement is a request to become a new State

It is a request to join in, to “take our rightful place”. A request to have a Voice. Sometimes they go bold – Kevin Rudd in a tweet called it “a request for shared Sovereignty”.  Is it just really just another toothless advisory board as some say?

 

federationAfter

No, it is far more dangerous. Remember – a Federation is a power-sharing pool. The Uluru Statement is a request for Federation membership. It is a request to share whatever powers we have (Sovereign powers!) with the Federation. In this power sharing agreement, we accept a consultative voice and Australian citizenship in exchange for our Sovereignty!

The Voice will be a seventh state, not a third chamber.

Enshrinement of the voice is also a Treaty,  it is comparable to the reunification of West Germany with East Germany.  Makarrata is not a Treaty,  it is a post-Treaty negotiation framework.

And worse, they may have already stitched up a case that we already said ‘yes’ to this skulduggery.

Earlier I pointed out that because we are under one Aboriginal flag, that it could be construed that we are under one law (and also a second law and flag for Torres Strait Islanders). One nation, one Aboriginal State that can become a member of the Federation. If we are under one law, then Australia can argue that does not need to consult with each of our original sovereign nations, but merely with the “Aboriginal Nation”. Also, (as far as I know) we don’t have a written constitution that goes with the flag, so they could say we have not made it clear where our power lies. This can be manipulated by them going to their own hand-picked leaders, Government funded bodies, Land Councils etc. They will argue they didn’t have to choose representatives for every Sovereign Nation at the Yulara Convention, because we are under one Aboriginal flag.

The Government have been flying our flag on their buildings next to the other flags of the Federation, and we never objected. Flying the flags in such a manner is a declaration of intent. We never objected to this declaration. They can use this to later argue that we consented to our flag being used in this manner, and perhaps that we consent to become a State of the Federation.

At the Referendum Council dialogues they showed a video explaining the federal structure of Australia. So consider yourself informed.

The Uluru Statement itself was a document of request to join the Federation, or consent.

It’s time to educate about this grave danger, consider getting our flags off their buildings, get together to write an Emergency Continental Aboriginal Confederate Constitution based on the Continental law to pair with the flag, to preempt the Voice proposal and to protect each Sovereign nations inherent right to choose their own path, assert our individual Nations’ identities to deny them a case of consent. Say no to flying the flag on the Harbour Bridge next to the Australian flag – it sends the wrong message.

They refuse to release draft wording of the Voice, because we would catch on immediately merely by knowing which section the changes would fall under.

Also, note this on Page 37 of Referendum council report 2017…

“The Council recommends an extra-constitutional statement of recognition. “

I believe this “extra-constitutional statement” is actually the Constitution of the new Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander State. It needs to be written first before joining the Federation.

 

Was Recognise designed to fail?

Consider the possibility that Recognise was a psyop (psychological operation) to make everyone think so much about recognition, that they are blinded as to the true goal that has always been Federalism.  In Psychology and sales negotiation this is called Anchoring. You think of Uluru Statement as being different from Recognise, a “substantive recognition” because they keep repeating that phrase, and you hear this on the back of the huge multi-year “Recognise” campaign. You are anchored; that is you are framing post-Yulara proposals in comparison to recognise/recognition campaigns and committees and such.

recognition… recognise… recognition… substantive recognition… constitutional recognition… etc.

5 years of brainwashing. The Australian public are being brainwashed by repetition. It struck me as odd that even today they keep referencing “recognition”, when they supposedly have so many problems with that particular word.

It is to distract you from seeing the truth.

Some noted the lack of Aboriginal Flags at Recognise rallies. It was openly supported by banks and mining companies. It looked too flashy and expensive to be grassroots. The “bad look” was no failure, they are not stupid. It was by design. They don’t spend millions of dollars on consultants to make campaigns so transparently flawed.

Now you are anchored with the overtly fake Recognise campaign, along comes post-Yulara “Voice Treaty Truth”. Low-key, trying hard to emulate a grassroots movement, yet campaigners have no problem flying all around the country and getting spots on Q&A. Seems an improvement over Recognise.

The Recognise campaign’s real purpose was to make the Voice proposal look good, and to disorient and anchor certain preconceptions that will make it difficult to see the Voice for what it really is – a seventh state.

“Recognise” was also not what it seems

There was a lot of concern during the Recognise campaign amongst the grassroots Aboriginal community. But I think much of this was based on deliberate misinformation.

One of the biggest concerns about Recognise was that the amendments to the race power could have immediate adverse affects on Aboriginal Sovereignty. This argument is presented in the following table which was doing rounds on social media at the time;

recogniseTable.png

But changing the race power is inconsequential, because the Crown does not have the authority to pass laws for Aboriginal peoples. The Crown can only get this authority via consent in the form of an International agreement/Treaty.

Consider this: Australia can change it’s constitution to claim it has a power to pass laws for Mexican citizens, but this would have no effect because the Crown – the source of authority – has no authority over Mexican citizens*.  The claim of power would conflict with international law.  Whomever currently has the power to make laws for Mexican citizens (presumably the Mexican Government) would still need to make a formal agreement to transfer that authority,  a Treaty.

* As long as the Mexican citizen is in Mexican Territory doing their thing under Mexican law. Mexican tourists in Australia would be under a visa.

The exact same applies for Aboriginal citizens of their respective nations as it would for Mexican citizens. Treaty is still required. There is no getting around this.

Planting this false information during Recognise was a deliberate tactic, so that in the next, post-Yulara iteration, they can propose leaving the race power unchanged. This is intended to disarm the Indigenous community who think “oh look it must be ok now, because they are not making a head of power that directly targets us and can override our consent”.

Section 51 xxxii is merely an itemisation of a power. Source of authority, “in the name of”, is what matters. The Crown simply has no power to pass laws for citizens of Aboriginal Nations, itemising a power without authority to back it up makes a dead letter.

The 1967 referendum also changed nothing for “the Aboriginal race”, it merely modified a itemisation of a dead power, dead because it still has no authority behind it. It only ‘works’ because Australia denies Aboriginal Sovereignty.

What was the real danger of “Recognise”?

The true danger of “recognition” was the modification to the preamble.

They often say something along the lines of “adding or modifying a Constitutional preamble has no legislative effect”, which is true. But that doesn’t mean changing it is inconsequential. What they don’t tell you is that it would change what happens on separation from the monarchy to form a republic.

On the formation of a republic, the Crown will have to hand-back to the rightful Sovereigns.  If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are mentioned in the Australian Constitution preamble and have not written their own Aboriginal Constitution, the Australian Constitution is where the hand-back will go. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have joined into the Federation via the Voice to Parliament – the “Aboriginal Constitution” has been written for them by stealth and locked in as a new, Aboriginal, landless State of the Federation.

The preamble matters. It declares the basis of power and ideals that the whole Constitution hangs on. Just look at preambles of different Constitutions around the world and you will see what I mean. Eg. the most famous, the USA – “We the People” is a declaration that the basis of authority lies in the People.

This is the reason why the states have quietly added recognition in their constitution preambles. They have to recognise the authority, the source of power to be able to receive and wield it later when it is ‘activated’.

Special Words and phrases that probably don’t mean what you think they mean

“Reconciliation”

Dictionary definitions of Reconciliation.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reconciliation

Reconciliation

NOUN

1. The restoration of friendly relations.

2. The action of making one view or belief compatible with another.

3. The action of making financial accounts consistent; harmonization.

Everyone thinks it’s definition 1, but it can’t be because there was never friendly relations to begin with. They could have called it “Conciliation” but they didn’t.

Definition 3 is a derivative of 2.

2, in other words, is to get the story straight. Australia is built on a tower of lies and they want to get their story consistent. This is the true meaning!

Referendum Council 2017 Weasel words

The Referendum Council formulated “Guiding Principles” against which they can evaluate various options. When you can see the grand scheme they are running, you can see these are formulated in order to push their own pre-chosen objective. One in particular deserves a special mention.

1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.

Diminish just means “to make less”. They are correct – Federalism, taking Aboriginal Sovereignty and sharing it with the Federation does not make it less. It doesn’t cede it either, which is another term they like to throw around when they say that the proposal wont cede Sovereignty. It is not ceding Sovereignty because Aboriginal people will still hold it through sharing.  To say “does not diminish” is technically correct but grossly and deliberately misleading.

contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation

This was not in the guiding principals, but from another section. This word sounds nice, but cynically, it just means they want us all unified so they can dominate us in our unity.

The past leads to the present…

If you trace back events to Mabo 2, you can see how they have been busily putting all the pieces in place ready for Aboriginal federation. Might talk about that in my next post.