Susanne > again - this is a personal response and i want this to be my last response of > this sort - I have now had to burden people who already are in a living hell, > with responding to isja's demands as the grandmother's petition is being > discredited because of its bearer - they are discussing it now My demand - and my only demand is to know who you are representing. You have been very unforthcoming on this point. The nebulous term "people on the Block" certainly does not seem enough to me as I know there are differing views by residents of the Block. And, in fact, I am not trying to discredit any petition - I am trying to clarify who the petition is coming from. Personally I will not sign any petition the authors and supporters of which I do not have information on. I believe one has the right to know who one is supporting. > > for those who have pecked it up or boycotted it, because it doesn't fit the > 'bona fide' form, or isn't for non residents - a non resident one is now in the > works and when finished will be posted asap for signature so if u want to > contribute to the wording - please do it now so that no 'blockage' occurs later > will send copies for critique and input to any asking so that support is the > outcome, not divisive arguments sapping energy that could be more productive > doing something else > > for those who wont support it because of isja's feelings about it, I restate > that I WILL NOT give the names of those who asked me to deliver a message to > their social justice guardians because I have given my word that I will not - > without trying to be dramatic, this is a life and death situation - on a > generational scale I feel you are being very dramatic, perhaps even melodramatic. And yes I am now sure you would want to mention the drive by shooting on the Block. Once again I have heard different conclusions from many people, resident and non-resident, about the nature of that incident. I do not feel that I can necessarily blame the incident on the housing argument at the Block with the many conjectures and little proof I ahve seen. > > however, i must wonder about them 'sending me alone' now, as this seems to be > what is stuck up isja's nose and may be blocking support for the petition - but > knowing that others have met with big trouble from their own when trying to > personally speakout about the terror, I am still not surprised, just dismayed - > especially considering that they already know their indigenous social justice > association is not taking a positive stand for the safety of their community, > no matter who the predator The sending you alone was a response to your email to Paul Canning. Paul informed you of my worries and you emailed him back with what is becoming your usual diatribe. Since that email was not posted to the list, I decided that I woul also not post my response to the list. That, as far as I know is the only 'sending me alone' post I have ever sent you. The intimation of not keeping this discussion open and public - if such was the intention - is false and inaccurate. > > to don/isja - ray, josephine and those in isja I don't know, and those on this > list who can be bothered to read on > > the only thing signed that day was a mailing list for those who wanted to > receive the submission from the block because ray and don had refused to read > it to the meeting, which yr flyer said all could attend and contribute to This is not true. You stated that this was a petition. In fact you stated this many times. We held a public meeting to which any person with an interest in the topic could attend. You demanded that we go off topic. If you wish to hold a public meeting about what is going on at the Block then please do so. However, I would not be so rude at your meeting to demand that people - who had come to the meeting that was advertised for their interest - listen to what I had to say if it was off topic. We would have welcomed your contribution to our meeting if it was on topic. We chose not to read your petition (your words) at the meeting exactly because we could not clarify your bona fides; even when asking people who lived at the Block or who worked at the Block, or who visited the Block daily in their work, we could not clarify your bona fides. > > again for clarity - what went to the public meeting of isja was NOT the > grandmothers' petition so pls stop going on about it - it was not presented to > u Again, for clarity I state that you stated on more than one occassion that what you had was a petition. I will stop going on about it when you admit the truth. > > once more - u were NOT asked to sign or distribute a petition - yr minutes > should confirm this - u must remember that what ray read out over the > microphone, after others at the meeting insisted, and after the ministers left, > was NOT a petition as u were there and saw the submission with yr own eyes > Public meetings do not carry minutes, so we have no minutes to confirm anything. You interrupted the meeting on more than one occassion (that phrase again) demanding that a petition from the Block be read out. No-one at the meeting insisted. In fact Ray asked the meeting to vote on the subject. There was no insistence at any time. And yes the vote went to reading the petition out. Ray, in true democratic form, adhered to the vote and read out the petition. However, it brought to me (and we discussed it at our next meeting) the fact that for some people if you put the words Aboriginal, etc to anything some people will sign - something to think about eh? What most people did not hear is the Aboriginal person saying "Hey, I go down to the Block every day adn I've never seen you down there. Nor Lennie Pottinger saying that he had no knowledge of you, nor Josephine Fisher (who goes down the Block so often in her work with ISJA, Mudgin-gal and her ministry work) say she had no knowledge of the petition. Perhaps part of that is that they did not raise their voices, nor rant, nor rave, but spoke quietly. I did see the petition with my own eyes, and believe that the wording and your words indicate a petition. > u challenged me to arrange a meeting for u and yrs with the block community > speakout people and margaret reynolds No I didn't I suggested - why the agressive terms? I also wondered if Margaret Raynolds had ever visited the Block. In fact I now paste what I originally wrote. Quote And yes it is long overdue for all those mentioned above to get their arses into gear and do something positive for the Block - more so for the residents of the Block. But I wonder if Margaret et al have ever visited the Block and asked ALL the residents what they would like to have happen. Perhaps Susanne you might like to organise such a meeting. I would come along and I know many others would too. Perhaps the grandmothers could tell us of their concerns in a safe, supportive environment. Unquote > the last scheduled meeting was 9/7/99 - if u send yr own contact details, and > the many others who u referred to, who would like to attend meetings, i will > put it to those on this walk I believe you already have my contact details form the posts I have sent don't you? And I beleive that many others would come because of their interest. I know I would make space available in our newsletter, which is quite widely distributed if you would like to arrange a meeting. > others interested can forward their details also - then those who come will be > able to see and hear for themselves - not rely on messages, no matter who > authors them as information can be misrepresented - eg a submission can be > confused with a petition, information can be discredited because of its > deliverer etc Or a petition can be misrepresented as a submission I would think more likely. I do not even necessarily discredit the deliverer (bearer?) just the methods and the lack of proof of who she represents. The meeting you refer to is for ALL residents of the Block I believe so it will still not give me any information on who you represent will it? Nice try though. > > meanwhile - can don post the minutes of meeting at which members of isja > discussed the block and decided to not take a stand - Is this the same as you demanding - on your first (and only) visit to our general meeting that we submit diaries of all our contacts and actions and conversations with people who sought our assistance - even though you were not a member and even though it was stated by members present at the meeting that much of what we do could be considered to have a private contract with those we come into contact with? who didn't support them - In fact all members stated their support for one or the other of the groups at the Block. So all supported something. > and what are the issues - The issues are that there are different groups supporting different ideas of what the Block should be and how that end should be reached. And because of the difference of opinion with the groups, and also within our Association, we have remained neutral. I will pass this on to the block community so they > can then understand why there is no support from isja We have members from the Block in our Association so I think any who are interested in our stance would know. Whenever I am asked I state the above. Just as another thing anyway, our minutes are open to members at any time. > any others on this list whose groups are not taking a stand, please also send > info as to why not > reason would allow the community to respond at least, as it is evident that we > don't all know the same things - but it doesn't have to stay like this It will stay like this as long as there is misinformation out there. > > re: > "It is my understanding that the Block IS to have housing. At least those are > the plans that have been filed. Do you know something that the planning people > do not know?" > > u obviously know something that the aboriginal housing company and the south > sydney council has denied, and the residents of the block are unaware of - > which is an indication of non consultation with residents - a copy would help > inform this community - can u arrange a copy to po box 1 annandale 2038 please > as u have implied access to this from what u said I do not have a copy, but I will try to get one for you. I will send to that address if I can obtain one. To whom should I address it. you or someone else? > > re: > "this Association is not participating" > > residents do not have much trust in groups anyway, and are aware that groups > are not coming together to assist - so yr news is not surprising - just > disappointing because if a social justice group wont do anything . Logical?? that your group does not trust groups?? The Association works on enquiries from indigenous people. As stated previously, the Association would look into any request from an indigenous person as to their individual social justice issues. That does not necessarily mean we would attempt to keep them at the Block - but could do - but that they are not disadvantaged by any actions taken against them. We do not go into anywhere we are not asked. > > re: > "And yes it is long overdue for all those mentioned above to get their arses > into gear and do something positive for the Block" > > then please explain yr position "this Association is not participating" > get off yr own arse and stop knocking me - i AM trying to do something > I realise you are trying to do something. I am just not sure who you are trying to do it for. And this Association has been off its arse since its inception in many different areas. > re: > 'GENOCIDE?? - you liken what is happening there to genocide??" > > yes i do - as do many others who understand what is happening - if u read the > treaties oz has signed and ratified, u will see that the criteria for genocide > has been met - and not just on the block > The criteria has certainly not been met. That is emotional claptrap. quote In the present Convention, genocide means ANY of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group condition of life calculated to being about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. unquote By the way, to my knowledge (and I may be incorrect) there is only one convention on genocide that Australia looked at - the above. I do not believe the criteria has been met on the Block. One of the unstated criteria is that the aggressor and the victim have to be of different races, ethnicities, etc. This is just not the case at the Block. As for whether the criteria has been met in Australia per se, most certainly true and something which we claim at all times. > re: > "well-meaning people like you have been telling Aboriginal people what is best > for them for over 200 years and look where it has gotten them". I still say > this" > > so, i should be like u - "this Association is not participating" - and do > nothing? > not likely If you cannot do it properly then don't do it is my motto. The above quote from my last post still stands. > > i was delivering a message to a social justice meeting for people who asked me > to You were not delivering a message you were demanding that people sign a petition. And to this day I do not know who asked you to. > > they had organised to get together with other groups on clean up oz day - the > day isja organised the public meeting - further indication that the isja does > not consult with this community - surely wouldn't have a meeting on a date that > u knew a group couldn't attend There are meetings on all the time which overlap. It was also ESORA's meeting, and many others. If we waited for a day when there were no meetings we would never hold any meetings. Get real. > > imagine their despair when their message was silenced by their own as well - a > message that is already published as minutes of a public meeting held on the > block and that had been delivered to the isja at a previous ordinary meeting > after the driveby shooting on the block - which should be credential enough > regardless of who delivered it It was never brought to ISJA at any time previous to the public meeting. That is just a plain lie. Was their message silenced?, whosoever owns that message. I believe it was read out and I believe you also stated that in posts. Are we getting forgetful? Once again the public meeting you refer to held on the Block was NOT public meeting by your constituents. It was a general public meeting. Trying to take ownership of that meeting when many people were there who know nothing of you is ridiculous. I believe I have mentioned the drive by shooting previously - which by the way was what the other public meeting at the Block you keep referring to was about. The word credential to me means proof, credibility, etc. You have never 'credentialed' me enough to convince me. > > if any want to make more of it than this, i suggest that they attend a meeting > to sort this out, or nominate someone that they trust to attend and relay > information if they are not locals themselves I live in Waterloo - not far from the Block. I would be only too happy to attend any meeting with those you claim to support. I will make myself avaliable at any time - please do. If I my suspicions are allayed at that meeting then I would be only too happy to publicly state that in this forum. > > this list must be sick of this sort of post - i am - would rather be focusing > on the issues that people face rather than individual faces I am bored, but determined. > > don - i am amazed > - u object to me giving u a message from the block > - but u demand i give the block a message from u I do not object to anyone giving me a message from the Block. I object to not knowing it is from the Block. You, yourself have seen that I actually represent real people (83 at last count), so at least the bona fides of my message can't be questioned. > also - regarding yr objection to the use of interpreters for non english > speaking background peoples, i suggest that u inform yrself - there are plenty > of orgs that represent different nesb people - the shame is that none that I am > aware of are for indigenous peoples - people wanting to support the > establishment of such an org can let the community know I know of very few people at the Block who have difficulty with the english language (literacy for some may be another question). I also believe that very few have come form places where 'language' is used as a first language - if at all, therefore neutralising the NESB tag. I believe it is patronising in the extreme to claim otherwise. > > again - it is up to each of us individually to address genocide, no matter who > is the perpetrator There are no conditions for genocide at the Block - emotional claptrap again > again - please don't wait too long to inform yrself then decide to act - big > numbers are needed I agree with susane that we should all keep ourselves as informed as possible. Don Clark President Indigenous Social Justice Association PO Box K555 HAYMARKET NSW 1240 ------------------------------------------------------- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce 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." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
