Antinuclear

 By Ghillar, Michael Anderson, Convenor of the Sovereign Union, last surviving member of the founding four of the Aboriginal Embassyand Head of state of the Euahlayi People’s Republic

 Former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott confirmed yesterday (8/9/16) that they vigorously oppose any ideas of a treaty between the Commonwealth of Australia and First Nations peoples in Australia: ‘John Howard has described talk of a treaty as “appalling” ….”I’m appalled at talk about treaty, that will be so divisive and will fail,” Mr Howard said and Tony Abbott says he has never supported the idea. …”A treaty is something that two nations make with each other, and obviously Aboriginal people are the first Australians, but in the end we’re all Australians together, so I don’t support a treaty.” [ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-08/conservatives-lock-in-against-treaty-with-indigenous-australians/7825298 ]

It is their opinion that Australia cannot treaty with its own citizenry, because the notion of treaties is associated with international agreements between sovereign nation states. Clearly both these former prime ministers are historically demented. This dementia is fostered by the fact that both men hated studying any literature associated with the invasion and the ultimate rise of an oppressive occupying colonial power which had failed to complete the total annihilation of the First Nations peoples, whose country had been invaded.

The internationally accepted norm of freeing ourselves from oppression and tyranny being imposed by a dominant occupying power, even if recognised as a member state of the United Nations, is through the proclamation/declaration of a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) and the creation of our own governance on and within our own lands. This is an accepted practice under international law for peoples who are determined to free themselves from violent domination, humanitarian crises and tyranny by the illegal occupiers of our lands.

[ http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/unilateral-declaration-independence-udi-explained ]

The second way of freeing ourselves from tyranny and violent oppression is through the internationally accepted process of decolonisation and this can only be done by way of formal sovereign treaty/treaties between the invaded and occupied nations/peoples and the occupier state.

Any other way cannot be accepted.

Before we rush into any treaty/treaties processes we must listen to the experiences of the Canadian First peoples non-treaty nations and how the treaty process can be abused.

[ http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/forging-pacific-rim-alliances-understanding-our-shared-histories ]

The fact that Australia does not have its own sovereignty is illustrated in all Australian laws. The legislations that are created by the Australian parliament and/or the state and territory governments are not law, nor are they legal, if the Queen’s proxies in Australia, that is, the Governor-General and the state governors, fail to assent to the legislation by way of signature representing the Queen’s authorisation.

Now let’s ask ourselves is this a process of an independent nation?

NO!

The Australian state, territory and federal governments are colonial caretakers of the crown’s property now known as the island continent of Australia.

The Mabo (No. 2) judgment did more than cause concern for farmers’ rights, it caused concerns for the governments as a whole. There are two primary reasons why this concern was earth-shattering for these colonial governments. Firstly, Mabo (No. 2) totally dispensed with the past notion that the land that they occupied was terra nullius (land belonging to no-one). Secondly, the High Court held that there were inhabitants here with laws and customs of their own. The Mabo (No. 2) judgment clarified this point by ruling that Aboriginal law and custom is not a construct of the British common law, but now the British common law recognises it. This means that all and sundry living within this continent cannot overlook the rights of First Nations peoples to be governed by their own law and culture within their own respective nations’ boundaries.

John Howard and Tony Abbott no doubt have been advised that, in reality, Mabo (No. 2) completely changed history and the legal and political landscape of Australia.

It is important to acknowledge the concerns and influence that have been exercised by the Samuel Griffith Society of constitutional lawyers. I have previously cited from the expressed concerns by this society of lawyers when they advised John Howard in 1998 that Australia’s sovereignty was now under threat from Aboriginal nations and their peoples.

[ http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/dare-be-wise-decolonisation-underpins-sovereign-treaties-processes ]

[ http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/scholars-paper-points-aboriginal-mineral-rights ]

Former PM Tony Abbott, having recently addressed this body of lawyers in Sydney now no doubt shares the concerns of the Samuel Griffith Society of constitutional lawyers.

[ http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/overcoming-oppressors-absolute-brutality-targeting-our-children ]

Put clearly, Australia does not have its own sovereignty. Under its British constitution all governments in Australia are caretakers in occupation and govern for the non-Aboriginal people who call themselves Australians. In point of fact federal, state and territory governments govern in right of the crown of Britain…………..

No treaty/treaties or any settlement of any kind will be worth a pinch of salt if the sovereignty issue is avoided. Sovereignty is real, as Justice Willis concluded in R v Bonjon, 1841:

“the Supreme Court of New South Wales had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of Bonjon” and Bonjon was discharged and released from jail.

[in Macquarie University Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales 1788-1899]

Justice Willis stated in his judgment that: ” … if this colony were acquired by occupying such lands as were uncultivated and unoccupied by the natives, and within the limits of the sovereignty asserted under the commission, the aborigines would have remained unconquered and free, but dependent tribes, dependent on the colonists as their superiors for protection; their rights as a distinct people cannot, from their peculiar situation, be considered to have been tacitly surrendered. But the frequent conflicts that have occurred between the colonists and the Aborigines within the limits of the colony of New South Wales make it, I think, sufficiently manifest that the Aboriginal tribes are neither a conquered people, nor have tacitly acquiesced in the supremacy of the settlers”. 

Justice Willis adds: “I repeat that I am not aware of any express enactment or treaty subjecting the Aborigines of this colony to the English colonial law, and I have shown that the Aborigines cannot be considered as Foreigners in a Kingdom which is their own”. 

Justice Willis then reasoned that: “Aboriginal people remained ‘unconquered and free, entitled to be regarded as ‘self-governing communities’. Their rights ‘as distinct people’ could not be considered to have been ‘tacitly surrendered’. As they were ‘by no means devoid of legal capacity’ and had ‘laws and usages of their own’, ‘treaties should be made with them’. The colonists were ‘uninvited intruders’, the Aborigines ‘the native sovereigns of the soil’ “. [http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/anderson-unite-common-cause-defeat-deceit-fraud ]