Another good idea, Suze! Or, why not just devise and pass a
Constitutional amendment with the proper wording. Then there's no
need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?
But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to
provide an aspirational framework for our public life: this is who we
are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.
That sort of thing.
Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
problems by themselves. The American Bill of Rights does not, of
course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the
police solely because they're black That still happens frequently.
(it's called "profiling". We shouldn't let it happen here). What the
Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been
abused a means of redress. But that only works if people are
sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of
the means of redress. And also only if the government of the day
is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of
paper.
(Incidentally, for Don Clark: You'll think I'm being hopelessly
pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of "the
people" to bear arms, not the right of "a man" to bear arms. The
same thing, I hear you say? In that case, you've got a problem!
But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always
been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment: Does "the
people" mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local
militias? I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively
on that. It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the
Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying
condition vis a vis guns.)
Cheers,
Sandy
> If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a Treaty
> agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But crikes, if it can
> be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's worth everyone's effort
> in the first place? hmm... oh, how about write into the Bill of Rights that
> no-one shall dishonour the Treaty? <g> *sigh, I wonder if solutions can be
> that simple?
>
> Suze
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Don Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2001 5:16 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
> >
> >
> > Hi Suze
> >
> > A treaty can be broken by any government which is in power just by having
> > the votes in parliament to do so.
> >
> > A Bill of Rights though is not something that can be broken so easily. As
> > in the US or France, any changes to the Bill of Rights would have to be by
> > referendum - if I understand correctly.
> >
> > In the US system anything that can affect the Bill of Rights can
> > be taken to
> > (eventually) the Supreme Court and that court adjudges whether the law, or
> > Act, or amendment or action has contravened the bill of rights.
> > They can't
> > change it, they can only adjudicate it.
> >
> > A bill of rights of course can have problems. An example is once again in
> > the US, where the gun lobby has successfully pleaded that banning of
> > firearms is a contravention of the bill of rights in that it
> > states that it
> > is a right of a man to bear arms.
> >
> > So the problem would be in the framing of such a bill. However,
> > that such a
> > bad part of the US bill can not allow lawmakers to take arms
> > away, indicates
> > to me that a bill of rights, framing indigenous aspirations and
> > rights as a
> > part of its statutes would be the preferable method for starting
> > to achieve
> > social justice for indigenous people.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Suze Collette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:07 PM
> > Subject: RE: [recoznettwo] Treaty questions (was Cool it etc etc)
> >
> >
> > > > In fact Rod, there seems to be some push for individual treaties in my
> > > > estimation.
> > > >
> > > > Many of the people I deal with are saying that if a treaty is
> > agreed to
> > it
> > > > should be negotiated with each and every different tribal
> > grouping, and
> > > > taking into account their different issues.
> > > >
> > > > Treaties are rarely kept with indigenous people the world over. I
> > wonder
> > > > what makes people think that a treaty would be any different in
> > Australia.
> > > >
> > > > I am very wary of treaties and those many of those who support it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > don
> > >
> > > Many people have told me of the Treaty's in the past that have been
> > > dishonoured and broken. So I now better understand why people are
> > reluctant
> > > to move toward a Treaty. But, if a Treaty will provide bugger all
> > > protection, then I gotta ask what's the alternative? Trudy mentioned a
> > Bill
> > > of Rights, and this led me to wonder well...if a Treaty is pointless
> > because
> > > it can simply be broken, then can't a Bill of Rights similarly be
> > > dishonoured? As I see things, we really don't have much of a choice but
> > to
> > > place faith in Australians now and in the future, to vote out
> > governments
> > if
> > > they fail to honour the agreements we reach. How much real protection do
> > any
> > > of these bits of paper give without people power?
> > >
> > > I honestly cannot see how we can proceed with Treaty
> > negotiations with the
> > > Commonwealth of Australia yet anyway. No-one I've been speaking with is
> > at
> > > all interested in ATSIC or our current Land Councils
> > negotiating anything
> > on
> > > their behalf. As things stand, anyone with business interests in our
> > > resources doesn't give a bugger who signs an agreement, just as
> > long as it
> > > will hold up in a court of law they're happy!
> > >
> > > People are seething mad that agreements are being made by a
> > few, when the
> > > majority of their Tribe does not agree! We have some serious
> > problems to
> > > sort out regarding fair and equal representation of all clan members
> > within
> > > each Tribal Nation! Aboriginal people have been, and still are,
> > obstructed
> > > from negotiating, decision making, and collaboratting, and its
> > contributing
> > > to extreme frustration, anger and division amongst the
> > Aboriginal Nations
> > as
> > > people seek to point the finger at other Aborigines suspected
> > of betraying
> > > our laws and ways.
> > >
> > > Why can't we firstly structure independant Aboriginal
> > representation so we
> > > can ensure everyone is fairly and equally represented in any
> > negotiations
> > > and decision making. ATSIC cannot qualify as our representative, nor can
> > the
> > > Land Councils because their structure does not cater to the diversity of
> > > views, issues, needs for our multiple Koori Tribes, let alone Clans; and
> > > because ATSIC and Land Councils are not independant from the government
> > > funds and agendas, lack of impartiality in negotiations comes under
> > > suspicion; and because Kooris are upset that some decisions
> > that have been
> > > made via ATSIC and/or Land Councils that conflict with
> > Aboriginal law and
> > > spirituality.
> > >
> > > I have no idea how ATSIC commissioners can cope with the stress of
> > > representing multiple Tribes when our laws do not permit us to speak for
> > > others? What a difficult situation this places the person in, as it goes
> > > squarely against our law! For example, why would anyone expect the Eora
> > > Tribe to trust me, from the Wiradjuri Tribe, to negotiate an
> > agreement on
> > > Eora land use? Could my allegiance to my own tribe impair my
> > impartiality?
> > > Yes of course it could, because this is a potential recognised in human
> > > nature. Could my lack of knowledge of Eora ways/places reduce my ability
> > to
> > > understand the significance of Land Use agreements? Yep...it's obvious
> > that
> > > there is such potentials for these things to happen.
> > >
> > > So to prevent any such suspicions arising in the first place we
> > have 'our
> > > law' to keep everything in order, and avoid alienating people.
> > Aboriginal
> > > representatives in ATSIC are placed in a very difficult
> > position, I do not
> > > envy their jobs at all, I can appreciate that they've tried to minimise
> > the
> > > damage to Aboriginal interests within the system "the government has
> > > dictated".
> > >
> > > Yeah...I really think we need an **independant** National Tribal Council
> > to
> > > be created/elected by Aboriginal people to ensure representation from
> > > 'every' Tribe (preferably two, a male and a female). It would make up a
> > > large National Tribal Council, but that's what is necessary to ensure
> > equal
> > > and fair representation...so it should not be compromised.
> > >
> > > Before any Treaty is drafted each tribe would firstly need to get very
> > > organised, to contact the entirety of their Clan members (a huge task!
> > lots
> > > of us scattered with the winds of change, some remote from our
> > homelands -
> > > probably advertise for kooris to contact their Tribal Council to get
> > > "everyone" registered) then ensure agendas, and negotiations are given
> > > plenty of time to allow inclusion and feedback from all members. Then
> > > collate and submit each Clans needs to their own Tribal Council, who can
> > > then collate those into the Tribal needs, and take those to a National
> > > Tribal Council. Then the National Tribal council will have a big job
> > > consolidating all the concerns into a list of Terms to present to the
> > > Commonwealth of Australia. Unlikely before 2004 I reckon, and that's
> > wishful
> > > thinking that funds pop up for us to organise an independant alternative
> > > properly.
> > >
> > > I'm unsure about the individual Treaty's idea, I spose because I'm
> > concerned
> > > individual Tribes may be tempted, and *highly pressured* to compromise
> > law;
> > > trade for economic opportunity...especially when you consider
> > we all keep
> > > getting indoctrinated to believe that our traditional ways and
> > values are
> > > inferior to this day and age of superior "economics and material
> > progress"!
> > > (eeesh!)
> > >
> > > A National Tribal Council might oversee and provide guidance on
> > alternatives
> > > that do not compromise our law. Plus, what one Tribe might wish to do
> > with
> > > their land could impact on their neighbouring Tribe, so a
> > National Tribal
> > > Council could mediate through these things. I'm thinking also of the
> > > concerns from Australians, some of whom are worried that
> > Aboriginal Tribes
> > > might get control of sensitive areas, then being perhaps vulnerable to
> > > pressure...strike deals with mining or logging companies which
> > compromises
> > > the environmental integrity of those areas. A National Tribal
> > Council can
> > be
> > > approached by all Australians to ensure their concerns are
> > taken on board.
> > > Some Australians are unsure at the moment how much they can trust
> > Aborigines
> > > to manage our resources because they have witnessed some of the
> > questionable
> > > "deals" that already have gone down. I can well understand.
> > >
> > > I would ask the Reconciliation Australia mob, please do not rush us to a
> > > Treaty! We have our sovereignty, it was never ceded, it is a **highly
> > > precious** resource...we must be extremely careful of what we
> > do with it!
> > > Lets first structure a National Tribal Council that can operate
> > > **independantly** from the government controlled funds and agendas.
> > Reliance
> > > on ATSIC, Lands Councils, or Australia's politicians and chosen citizens
> > > will not be respected, that I am very sure of.
> > >
> > > pardon the length, just had to get some stuff said.
> > > Suze
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived
> > at
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until
> > 11 March,
> > 2001 and
> > > Recoznettwo is archived at
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ from
> > > that date.
> > > This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
> > permission from the
> > > copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and
> > research under the "fair
> > > use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be
> > distributed further without
> > > permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
> Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/
>from
> that date.
> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
>from the
> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
>the "fair
> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
>without
> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sanders
Wormhole Books
27A Main Street
Upwey VIC 3158
Australia
ph/fax 61 (03) 9754 5440
www.wormhole.com.au
WORMHOLE BOOKS science/fiction and beyond . . . .
www.wormhole.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
