Tag Archives: Constitution
No to the Treaty!
I bin sittin dere alonga time dreamin, when I bin look and see carpet snake fella and dat carpet snake fella say you bin come alonga closa and look at him. Den him bin change and become rainbow serpent again, who spake thus:
I have a dream that one day all murries will want to do nothing other than sit at home and take a handout. I have a dream that one day all murries will sit on their arse at home, collect a fat welfare cheque that they can then use to pay for a brand new suv to drive to the welfare office.
I have a dream that one day all murries will become too ethically, morally, socially, and intellectually challenged to even try to earn a living. I have a dream that one day all murries will want a handout. It doesn’t matter if it’s employment, education, justice, medical, history, culture or housing or, heaven forbid, any kind as long as it’s government assistance or welfare.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great and comfortable welfare homes and jobs. Some of you have come fresh from many years of welfare rest and recreation.
As we talk, we must take the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking us: When will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as murries are the victims of a campaign of unspeakable horrors of white brutality threatening to take away not our chillin but our welfare. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of welfare, cannot gain lodgings in better standards of welfare housing and subsidised vehicles. We cannot be satisfied as long as the murries’ basic mobility is a smaller suv and not a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our chillin are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by having to get a job and support themselves. No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like the waters of righteousness such that these fundamental rights are enshrined in the Constitution-welfare ad infinitum.
An extract from: Deception Bay by Paul Dillon, ASIN: B0186GYV9A Kindle Edition, Amazon.
Native Title a fraud-No Treaty!
Mr Interlocutor what do you say to the question of Native Title?
A hunter-gather follows water and hunts game, surface prospects for ochre and stones and picks and gathers seeds, fruit, herbs, bark and wood. He does not settle, herd, cultivate, mine, get and mill timber or hew stone.
Toynbee divided the world into nomads and sedentary cultivators. Examples of terminating nomadic wandering across occupied territory are Hadrian’s Wall, erected to keep out northern nomadic tribes on the western most frontiers of the Roman Empire; another is the erection of the Great Wall of China to keep out western nomads. Of course, any State can pass a statute or a sovereign can make a declaration prohibiting nomadic incursions.
The hunter-gather roams and grazes an area with himself as the locus of the territory. His concept of country maybe said to be similar to or the same as the territory ranged over by an individual animal for its survival. Moreover, he does not occupy, only transits the area having no manner of enforcement other than by his direct challenge to the trespasser, if he be aware of the trespasser. Moreover, he is obliged to share his country on a communal or tribal basis. He only interacts with the country under his hand, an immediate or transient presence over country. His usages and concepts are so far removed from the common law of English property law that the two cannot be reconciled. When Cook claimed Australia for the King, of course the King became the paramount ruler and absolute owner of all land in Australia but as a matter of common sense, the natives were allowed to roam and graze in as much as the bower bird was allowed to keep his bower and the cockatoo could keep his gum tree but only at the pleasure of his Majesty. The right to hunt and gather over land, even if it was acknowledged and allowed by the Colonial Secretary can only have been a licence or permission, a trespass that would not attract civil or criminal prohibitions or sanctions. It may have attracted de facto prohibitions and sanctions from the immediate white occupier who held it subject only to the Crown but they did that at their peril. It conferred no title on the native under the common law of property law. If an interest or right in or over the land was acknowledged or permitted by the Colonial Secretary based on native custom and practise and perhaps, feelings of charity so the native might feed or sustain himself, where did it stand at law? While the Colonial Secretary ruled or governed the colonies, then he could enforce it ex officio. Furthermore, it could be legislated for by the Parliament at Westminster but it never was not even at the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp).
Pause for a moment and contemplate the meeting between Captain Cook and the rude native. Cook observed: we could not discover that they had any head or chief, or form of Government, neither have they any usefull or necessary Utentials except it be a Bagg or Basket to gather their Muscels into: in a Word they are perhaps as miserable a set of People as are this day upon Earth. So when we compare and contrast Cook or indeed, the meanest, miserable convict and an aborigine, we may ask: what could an aborigine contribute to the governance and economy of Sydney Town? The settlers took so much of the English common law as was applicable to their circumstances in the colony. The local aboriginal law was not written down and their oral tradition was not as strong as the Brahmin oral tradition of the Rig Veda. When occupation for the purposes of a penal colony gave way to a policy of white settlement controlled and regulated by the Crown or its agents, then the aboriginal system, whatever it may have been, was superseded, repealed and abandoned. The policy of white settlement was an express intention to extinguish the then structure of the native society of the country. The settlement of white Australia could not have progressed if the white settlers had adopted local aboriginal law that is obvious; Australia was created ex nihilo. The two groups continued to exist and interact. As time went by, aborigines adopted aspects of Australian technology and the substances of satisfaction or abuse. They came to be a subclass of Australian society subject to the English law of the land. As land began to be the foundation of wealth, grants were made to settlers without any regard to aboriginal laws, customs or practices; indeed, they were made in the name of Queen as paramount landholder not in the name of Bennelong or some other native. The grant and conveyance of land to white settlers was fatal to the aboriginal concept of country. English land law was the conduit for a settler to acquire land. Slowly the colony began to set up its own machinery of government: legislature, executive and judiciary. Grants of land were made; nothing was appended to those grants by way of easement or reservation that aborigines had a right of freedom to roam. No doubt the Christian colonialists continued their psalm singing in regards the white man’s burden but it was never given the force of law, only a moral sop.
The next step that occurred was that the Colony on obtaining elected government began to legislate regarding the welfare and the control and regulation of blacks and mixed bloods. These statutes were very restrictive of movement in their application. These Acts were described as the most draconian, restrictive and repressive legislation that has ever been made to control a subject group yet this same criticism is ignored when arguing that aborigines retained their tribal custom and practice to roam and graze. This is the hypocrisy of the argument. The Arcadian fantasy to roam at large had long been exhausted, repealed and withdrawn. Settlement and control, both going forward hand in hand can be said to have broken, repealed or prevented the blacks from ever in the future continuing to roam and graze as they may have done in the dim dark ages both in mind and body. Moreover, the very people who cry the loudest when it comes to aboriginal rights and freedoms destroyed the once proud pristine native by demolishing his dreamtime and inserting in its place the ravings of a cantankerous and recalcitrant Jew called Jesus.
The passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) by the Westminster Parliament can be said to have created the sovereign States and the Commonwealth; on the coming into being of these legal entities, then native title or the right of existing nomads to roam and hunt would surely be extinguished. Yet we have a High Court seventy years after the event seeking to create a legal right or interest in and over land from a legal fiction called the common law. If the Parliament of Westminster did not chose to recognise, protect or preserve aboriginal rights and interests in the newly created Commonwealth of Australia or the several States then their rights and interests were lost, repealed or became defunct. The 1967 referendum only gave the Commonwealth power to legislate in respect of aborigines not territorial or land rights; not erect a shrine steeped in the stench of fakery, drawing obsequious reverence, garlanded with outrageous baubles of largess resplendent with rich tapestries of velvet rights and satin entitlements. It is significant that ss 106 and 107 of the Constitution continued the state constitutions and powers of the state Parliaments as at the establishment of the Commonwealth. At the time the Constitution was framed, the legislative powers of the former colonies were considered to be fundamentally territorial. It is still true to say that s 107 clearly refers to the power of the parliament of the state with respect to that state as a geographical portion of the entire Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has no power to legislate in respect of the common law land law of the states nor to impose a veil of innate land title over the territorial jurisdiction of the states post facto the Australia Constitution Act 1900 nor has the High Court jurisdiction or power to make ex professo declarations as to what rights attach to land in Australia. In fact, the High Court has the cart before the horse, aborigines were never seised of the land and thus never enjoyed the rights attached to the land but the High Court has argued the land is attached to the aborigines which is an absurdity because the dominant estate is held by the Crown.
All this woolly and wobbly argument by the High Court may or may not be right regards the situation pre-federation but on federation, the government of the UK gave up its rights and duties to administer and govern Australia and invested and transferred to the Commonwealth and the several States all the territorial lands pertaining to the Commonwealth and the States. If one was to look into The Indian Independence Act 1947, one would find that the UK Parliament readily accepted geography, language, race, ethnicity, religion, etc as markers on which legislation might be based thus discriminating for or against peoples, groups and tribes. The Act acknowledged religious incompatibility and established the principle of partition of India; the princely states would assume independent status and be preserved, effectively ignoring universal suffrage and self determination. The UK Parliament did not preserve, recognise or acknowledge aborigines in the Australia Constitution Act 1900 so they and their rights ceased to exist. They became extinct at law.
Then after the High Court brought about this legal absurdity of Native Title, this bucolic fantasy of the noble savage roaming the atavistic foothills of terra Australis, the Federal Government introduces laws which restrict non aboriginal citizens from debating, questioning or expressing a personal view regarding the merits of these entitlements granted by the Australian community to the aboriginal community because it is offensive in the subjective view of an individual aborigine. The gift of citizenship is their recognition; they need no further endowments. What more can your country do for you than give you equality, fraternity and liberty.
Therefore, the Cook Exchange is not an ideology but a phenomenon. Its effect was to transform Australia into a version of England so that the settlers might live more comfortably. The Abophiles have assiduously asserted that they have found dishonourable motives and hidden genocidal blueprints in the detritus of history. They have become obsessed with conspiracy theories behind every event in the calendar of settlement; writing and advocating a contrived and revisionist history of the aborigine. Regrettably this approach to Australian history has persuaded governments and the High Court of Australia to create the legal concept of native title simply because it is alleged that the contemporary values of the Australian people demanded it.
Mr Interlocutor, there is much merit in your discourse but who will arbitrate who has the power and the wisdom when the vested interest arrayed against it will be formidable. An extract from: Deception Bay by Paul Dillon ASIN: B0186GYV9A, Kindle Edition, Amazon.
No to an Aboriginal Treaty!
May I ask, said the Interlocutor, what is the point of this story?
I know of one blue-eyed, fair-haired man, he replied, who lives on Government charity as an aborigine, but who openly boasts that he can at any time re-enter Australian mainstream society because of his resemblance to a European. His right to welfare has never been questioned. He should, therefore, be encouraged to sever his connection with his aboriginal associates and become an Australian. It would be a good thing if more attention was paid to the congregation of full blood aborigines, while an attempt is made to reunite those of mixed blood such as half-castes, quadroons and octoroons, with the Australian population.
Accordingly, my dear Mr Interlocutor, many miscegenationists have taken to calling themselves aboriginal for the sole purpose of taking underserved benefits from the government. I feel for the purpose of aboriginal entitlements and endowments, individuals should be required to provide documentary evidence addressing his or her aboriginal ancestry, self-identification and community acceptance. To prove ancestry, the person generally, at his own expense, should be required to provide a verifiable family tree, or archival or historical documentation that links the person to a traditional full blood family or person; in other words, determined by lineal descent from a recognized verifiable full blood tribal member, with a minimum blood quantum of ¼ degree for recognition.
Therefore, the above story might define what an aborigine is, form a benchmark so to speak, he replied to the Interlocutor. The identifying characteristic of a wild black man from Australia might be, a man untouched by any form of civilisation, European or Malay/Asian. What might be said of the individual who is of direct lineal decent with no mixed blood. He could not be called uncivilised, he would speak English and he would have some understanding of Australian law, and he would be an Australian citizen, with a passport. All the other indices might seem and in fact be the same but would he be an aborigine or an Australian? This person would have no difficulty in addressing his aboriginal ancestry.
What though of the mixed blood, be he an aborigine or simply an Australian and nothing more, though in some quarters it would be of significant advantage to be called an aborigine? These questions might seem too fine, too unnecessary to ask, although the answers seem self evident, by definition.
But what of a mulatto child, who was removed to an all white Australian upbringing and then had a great grandchild completely europeanised and bleached who called itself aboriginal or First Nation? Is this question too fine or unnecessary now? In a multicultural world, perhaps it is meaningless but what if there were lucrative government grants to be had? Particularly, if the mullatto’s descendants had university degrees, but the full bloods were still semi illiterate and were still tied to their ancestral homeland? Does one deserve more than the other? Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
It is probably fair to say that anybody, who is alive today, who voted in the referendum to amend the Constitution to include Aborigines, given how the situation has turned out compared to what it was at the time of the referendum, regrets their affirmative vote. For the Constitution to be amended to legislate with respect to aboriginal people then either aborigines existed and could be identified as such at the time of the referendum or that at least, aboriginal people could be defined in the Australian context. Prior to the referendum the use of the word aborigine to classify or identify someone as an aborigine seems to have caused no concern, lack of rights may have but what Australian is unequal before the law today? Furthermore, laws were based on the everyday use of the word aborigine but they were regulatory, quasi-criminal, discriminatory and restrictive. The laws now bestow entitlements, grants, largess and endowments. Consequently, white Australia has difficulty in determining who is an aborigine.
Yes, said the Interlocutor, I have listened to your discourse much that you say is true but how does it benefit the whole if you introduce a Mischling test? All you do is entrench an ethnic group for ever and a day. There is no future in ethnicity, what unites is more important than what divides. So like all children help must be given in the early stage.
What then is the definition of an aborigine as at today, Mr Interlocutor?
Australian courts have held in the same manner as Humpty Dumpty, a word means just what I choose it to mean. Once again in the dim dark ages, the white man’s rainbow serpent said: At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so. People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying. Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance, just as disparagement directed at the real or imagined practices or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance. As a statement of principle can we object, perhaps not? But as a community are we required to give taxpayer’s money to every Tom, Dick and Harry to express his racial or ethnic heritage as he would see fit? Is he an Aussie, Lizzie, eh or a Hebrew waiting to return to his promised land?
The right to call yourself aboriginal perhaps exists but the real question is should a declaration of aboriginality entitle the individual to public money? So an Australian Aborigine is self defining. The biracial yuppies cling to their mestizo status as if their life depended on it when indeed, perhaps their pockets do.
If entitlements are enacted in law for the benefit of a class or race of people and if one can meet the prescribed criterion which is tick any box, then any grant would seem reasonable and fair on the face of it. The fact that society can not comment on the political value or worth of the legislation because it offends the recipients of the government largess seems inconsistent with the long held view of free speech.
The definition of aboriginality in the long run is irrelevant because the race or class pool that is calling themselves aborigine and taking their legal entitlements will grow to such an extent that the burdens of cost will in turn cause a tightening and restriction of the entitlements−welfare ad infinitum.
An extract from: Deception Bay by Paul Dillon ASIN: B0186GYV9A Kindle Edition, Amazon.