Susanne,

> it was not a petition - u were not presented with any petition at yr
> meeting!!!!!  have u lost the submission? if not read it again and u will
see

No I have not lost the petition (note the wording there)  It was a petition
and it was not presented it was thrust, if anything.
>
> 'sending me alone' refered to going to yr meeting - nothing at all to do
with
> my private email to someone else - which u have read and responded to

Private correspondence which I was given to read by the recipient and asked
for my response.  Paul, at that time was living in my unit and he thought I
should have a right of response to intimations, of racism, etc that were
contained in the document.
>
> what was sent to yr 'what now for nsw aborigines' meeting was not off
topic -
> read it!!!

It was off topic in that this Association had planned and implemented a
public meeting, had decided the agenda, and had invited guest speakers to
reply to that agenda.  Your rude intrusion into the meeting - on more than
one occassion - with your own immutable style (sic) and insistence that we
should all stop what we were doing in order to listen to you (and with that
agree with  you as it seems that if one does not agree with you then one is
racist) was boorish, rude and intolerant in itself.


> many at the meeting insisted that ray read it out - finally, at nearly the
end
> of the meeting - ray called for a vote from the floor because of pressure
from
> those gathered -

There was no insistence.  There were suggestions from some of those
present - all of which were non-indigenous.  I point out that there were
qyuite a few indigenous people there who objected to the petition and you
forcing that petition on us for the same reasons that I objected - because
they did not know, and still do not know who you represent.

u and ray were the only two who didn't want it read out as the
> show of hands revealed

Once again not true as I have stated in previous correspondence on this
issue.  However there was a majority at the meeting (once again
non-indigenous) who voted to have the PETITION read out.  And in a spirit of
democracy we did so.

- u both blocked it to the last - so much for yr claims
> to democractic process -

Is not the democratic process to about allowing people to choose  and then
go with the majority?? - or is the democratic process mean that people must
agree with you??  After a vote which chose to read out your petition it was
duly read out. I tend to think that is democracy.  I also tend to think that
democracy is about people having the right to voice their opinion - and I
did so, and will always do so.  Whether it agrees with your philisophy or
not.

There is also a thing about self-determination for Aboriginal people I seem
to have heard of at times.  The meeting was called by an indigenous
organisation, it was interrupted by a non-indigenous person CLAIMING to be
acting on behalf of indigenous people - but without a shred of proof for
that claim.  The indigenous people at that meeting were not listened to due
to, in my opinion, a knee jerk reaction by some non-indigenous people that
if it SEEMS to have black support then it must be right and good.  In many
ways I consider this to be a kind of reverse racism and paternalism.  I
might add that I pointed this out to members (non-indigenous) of this
Association at our next meeting and have often been very vocal on this
issue.  It is in the signer being discriminatory about what is being signed
and having full information about what they are signing not just signing
just because it seems to be from a black group.  IF you have such a
constituency and the focus is on the Block then others should realise that
there are also other indigenous constituents on the Blocvk who have a
differing opinion of what should happen there and they should give them due
credence to listen before they consider signing anything.

it was begrudgingly read out with contempt and sarcasm
> and slights about anarchist web spaces ... rather than focusing on what
was
> said in the submission

I might add the PETITION was unfocussed in many ways.  Although I agree with
the sentiment about bringing back Pemulwhuys head - what in bloody hell has
that got to do with the Block??  The petition was not a good one for that
very reason.  It was dissipated in focus by trying to be all things to all
people.  The sarcasm (your interpretation) was indeed comment on how some
people believe they have the right to make demands on others because of
their own obsessions rather than for logic.
>
> if u think what happened at yr meeting was democratic - then there is not
much
> hope for democracy - the only hint of democracy was when the audience
pressured
> for it to be read
> and i call this courage, not democracy which would have required no
pressure

Democracy was served in that a vote was taken and the petition was read -
self determination was not served in that the voters did not take heed of
those indiegnous people present who objected to the petition being read.
>
> there is solid proof (video) of what happened at yr 'public' meeting, and
the
> agro and silencing that abounded - anyone who wasn't there and feels that
they
> now need some tangible 'evidence' let me know and i will try to find the
video
> - if u weren't there that is

There is indeed a video.  I have viewed it a few times in order to clarify
what went on.  The "agro" came from you and no other.  Finding the video is
very easy.  The video is made by us and we make a presentation of the video
to those who offer to speak at our meetings.  It is not generally for sale.
However, if you like I would allow an independent person to view the video
to make comment on this issue.  They will then see your caricature-like
carrying on.
>
> a contribution for a tape, copying and mailing it would be appreciated as
i am
> not funded, or send a blank video (vhs) to PO Box 1 Eora Country
(Annandale
> NSW) 2038 with stamped addressed envelope and allow time to locate it
(have to
> find the person) then copy it

See above.  I might add that the Association is also not funded - but we get
things done.
>
> my post to this list about the grandmothers' petition has nothing to do
with
> the isja - isja is just one org that wont support it - not because they
doubt
> me i think as isja didn't support an active postion on the block before
meeting
> me

You are right about that.  ISJA does not have a position on the happenings
there, due to often explained reasons.  However, most members of the
Association do have positions and some of them even actively support the
differing groups on the Block.  They of course have the right to do so.  As
to myself, I even have a position on the Block and have written articles on
it for the Newtown Bridge.  You might find them interesting - although you
will deem them to be racist and undemocratic because they do not necessarily
agree with you or your petition.
>
> again
> individuals interested can send their individual contact and affiliation
> details which will be forwarded on - if anyone wants to put this
invitation
> into a newsletter - go ahead - would be please to get lots of people who
are
> interested in the ISSUES that affect daily life on the block

I would also encourage interested persons or organisations to investigate
the ISSUES that affect daily life on the Block - from EVERY angle and then
make their own decisions on any actions they would like to take, either
individually or organisationally.
>
> for u personally don - i am happy to meet u on the block for discussion -
let
> me know when u are available - spare the list the details please and
advise me
> directly

I will most certainly accept this invitation.  Thank you for your invitation
to go down to the Block.  I would have felt 'disadvantaged' without it.  I
go down to the Block on a very regular basis in fact.
>
> can we discuss on this list, issues that have been raised on the block?
> the reasons that isja is not supporting the block would be a good start -
i
> don't mean because of division (individuals) within the group - i mean the
> reasons in relation to the issues and non support
>

I leave it up to the list as to the first question.

You can discuss anything about ISJA that you wish.  However, we will do what
we believe to be the correct thing to do and will not be swayed from that
course.  Is there an intimation in this paragraph that we must, in some way,
be 'shown the path of the true and righteous' or something like that.  Do
you think that this list will, or has some authority to change ISJA's
direction.  Sorry, only members have the right to do that and although ISJA
membership is open to all and contribution is open to all, the management
committee (with a majority of indigenous members to ensure
self-determination) makes the final decision about direction.

And in fact ISJA does support the Block - only not as an organisation (as I
pointed out before we have members who have extensive relations with groups
and individuals who reside at the Block).  I believe that is called
democracy.  We have members who have different ideas and those members have
decided that individuals make their own decisions as to how that support
will occur.

In short susanne I believe you are attempting to brow beat any person or
organisation who does not agree with you position on the Block.  I will not
accept that you are the end all and be all of what is right and good for
people at the Block.  And I am not trying to justify my position or ISJA's
position.  I have constantly said that I have problems with your so-called
petition and have stated this quite clearly.  I have also suggested that
members of this list do what they want, but I have also suggested that they
be fully informed of the issues and problems that are inherent with the
situation at the Block.  Your rather hysterical rantings, half-truths,
talking and writing in slogans with an emotional content designed to sway
people from logic can only do your constituents (if you really have any)
more harm than good.  However, I do not believe you really have the citizens
of the Block in your focus.  I believe this is a more personal crusade to
try to place yourself firmly in the Aboriginal debate.

Josephine (our Vice President) who invited you to one of our general
meetings felt shamed by your boorish, demanding, rude behaviour.  After that
meeting I questioned your motives and I still do.  Also I am curious if the
two words below should go together.


> cheerless
> susanne
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
>

-------------------------------------------------------
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/

Reply via email to