what happened to inherent rights does a joint venture and an apprenticeship replace all we have been since the beginning - gratifying for how?.....iw The answer to Irene's question is - YES, as far as CERD is concerned at any rate. If you give your informed consent to replace all you were from the beginning with a joint venture and an apprenticeship, or another blanket queue called "social justice" , then all you were is gone. If you put your thumbprint on the bottom of a page, then they can say it was not forcible removal of your children, that it was not genocide, even if their intention is still the same -- to wipe you out as a distinct human group. Once you agree, as every good girl knows, it is no longer rape. The process that is now underway in Victoria is simultaneously going on in all States and Territories. It began almost as soon as CERD moved on to the next item on its agenda on 22 March. It is important to understand why. Back in 1994, Jackie and Mary rushed off to Geneva waving their copy of the 1993 Native Title Act and saying what a good little girl/boy am I. There was not a whisper of complaint to be heard. Certainly there was nothing formal lodged under the Optional Protocol process. In fact, there has NEVER (definitely shouting this time, Trudy!) been a complaint lodged by any indigenous person, or group, under this Process since they were first put in place way back in 1992 - so Elizabeth Evatt informs me. Is there nothing to complain about??? Well, of course there is, and it is certainly not limited to the 10 Point Plan. But back in 1994, CERD itself agreed with the assertions put by Jackie and Mary on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the NTA was a "special measure" under the Race Convention to protect "native title". Even the High Court did not go that far the following year. The problem within CERD today for HMG apparently arose when Gai McDougall was appointed to CERD, and became Special Rapporteur for Australia. While I see no direct contradiction attributed to her in the documents, she very clearly does not agree with CERD's fulsome position of 1994. She has now made her own position very clear. Her position is that it WAS discriminatory, but the discrimination was acceptable to CERD because consent was given. The full transcript of the March 2000 meetings is available on FAIRA's site. Here are her concluding remarks. They are on page 6 of 1395th Meeting Part 1 (Chairman) . So the delegation would prefer to let the Minister give the responses, if he arrives in time. So in the meantime I give you the floor to conclude the remarks you started this morning, and I apologise for interrupting you at that time. So, you have the floor Madam. (Ms McDougall) "Thank you Mr Chairman. Well I'm not, certainly don't want to go over anything I've said this morning, but I would make just a couple of additional points. First of all, I think its not quite right, if I heard Ms Horner's statement just a few minutes ago. When this Committee first looked at the Native Title Act - and I admit that I was not on the Committee then - it was not my impression from reading the record that the Committee based its decision on an acceptance of 200 years of white settlement as a sort of fait accompli that was then the basis for moving forward. I don't think so. My sense was that the Committee based its decision to accept the discriminatory aspects of the Native Title Act because there was sufficient evidence that it was the product of genuine negotiations with the indigenous population, and it was on that basis, on the basis that it was a product of genuine negotiations. Not that it wasn't discriminatory, and not from a sort of arbitrary decision by the Committee that 200 years must be accepted. I come back to this because it think that this question of negotiating with the indigenous population is central and it perhaps is not seen as much so by the delegation. I note that you have challenged our position that in situations regarding land rights of indigenous peoples, if there is a deviation from the rights established under the Convention, it must be by informed consent of the indigenous people. This is what's said in our General Recommendation. I must admit to not being able to see that as such an extraordinary standard. You know, if someone wants to purchase or divest me of land that I own, they must have my informed consent. You say of course that one cannot right all of the wrongs of the past, and I'm sure there is quite a bit of merit in that position, but I don't think that we can move forward without acknowledgment of the past. And this is a situation where I think of course we have to be mindful of the progress that's been made in that the indigenous community now has clear title of 15 % of the land mass of Australia, and I understand from the comments that were made yesterday how vast that 15% is. But I keep being reminded that 85% is being held under some other title, and that perhaps 200 years ago the situation was quite different. So when you talk about restitution to me, I don't, I think its giving back someone something that they fully owned originally. And that's got to be a very important aspect in the negotiations leading to reconciliation. And that would bring me to I guess the last point I would make, which sort of responds to the Minister's comment that no document is going to achieve reconciliation, and I fully, fully agree with that. And by asking . reconciliation process, I was not indeed asking for there to be a document that could be produced. Rather, for me, the real test is whether or not all of the parties agree that reconciliation has been achieved, and achieved on the basis of genuine negotiations between the, essentially in this case, two parties. But I think that one would have no doubt as to when reconciliation is achieved and its certainly not on the basis of a document, it is a process. But it's a process that will never be successful unless the aggrieved parties feel that they have negotiated an outcome that is satisfactory to them. With that, Mr Chairman, I will close." It is important to note from this that CERD sees us as an undifferentiated mass, as the "indigenous population". It is irrelevant, absurd that CERD accepts this "15% of the landmass" bullshit. But it will remain. It will continue to do so until people start standing up for themselves and their law. Her Majesty's Government will continue to send Jackie and Mary over, and CERD will continue to recognise Jackie and Mary while ever the Darkinong, the Wiradjuri, the Bundjalung, etc etc remain prostrate and silent, forever the whinging victims. We need to be up on our back legs and in their face. The Optional Protocol Process may be the way to go. The present process "Early warning procedure" is not good enough. I lodged critical submissions both last August (1999) and in March (2000) with CERD, and also with so-called Aboriginal representatives who attended these meetings in person. I have had not even a formal acknowledgement that they were ever received, apart from an auto-reply from Gai McDougall this time. Ms McDougall has not responded to subsequent letters. These "representatives" have also remained doggedly silent. If FAIRA's transcript is accurate, then CERD has chosen to ignore important issues that I raised with them, although the most important appears to have been accepted, and is now listed first (and for the first time) in their list of concerns (see below). Not that it's been even mentioned in the media. Meanwhile, Jackie and Mary and their dupes are now rushing around the countryside, obediently looking to get thumbprints on Indigenous Land Use Agreements. But they won't be mentioning that this is to get CERD off Her Majesty's back. If you are interested in getting your people, your land, your law, up in CERD's face, then feel free to email. Please include a phone number. TONY SPIERS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Concluding Observations on Australia by CERD (COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION) 56th session, 6 -24 March 2000 Summary List of Concerns and Recommendations CONCERNS ? The absence of any entrenched guarantee in law against racial discrimination (6) ? The national responsibility to comply with treaties, including compliance by States (7) ? Reduction of rights for Aboriginals in 'State regimes' on Native Title (8) ? Unsatisfactory response to CERD Decisions 2(54) & 2(55) on Native Title laws (9) ? ATSIC capacities to address the issues of Indigenous Peoples (11) ? HREOC capacities to address the issues of Indigenous Peoples (11) ? Loss of confidence by the Indigenous community in the process of reconciliation (12) ? Government refusal to apologise for separation of Aboriginal families (13) ? Government refusal to compensate for separation of Aboriginal families (13) ? Rates of Aboriginal incarceration (15) ? Lack of interpreter services (15) ? Seriously questions whether 'mandatory sentencing' complies with the convention (16) ? The extent of inequality still experienced by the Aboriginal population > From: Trudy Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: news-clip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: ABC News: New approach on native title > Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:38 PM > > ABC News > Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:23 AEST > New approach on native title > > The Victorian Government is claiming a national > first with plans to recognise native title through > mediation rather than via the courts. > > The Victorian Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, has > told the National Native Title Conference in > Melbourne, the Bracks Government's emphasis > will be on settlement rather than going through the > courts. > > He says it is a new approach which puts Victoria > at the forefront in relation to native title matters. > > "We believe that no one wins from litigation," he > said. > > Mr Hulls says some applications may be resolved > with a package of benefits including > apprenticeships and joint ventures. > > A draft strategy will be released shortly. > > The new approach has been described as > gratifying and significant by Bryan Keon-Cohen, > QC, from the Miriambiak Nations, which organised > the conference. > > But he is urging the Victorian Government to also > consider law reform as part of its native title policy. > > � 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation > > > ************************************************************************* > 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 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%40paradigm4.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ 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%40paradigm4.com.au/
