Ballina, NSW, July 2, 2012 -- Michael Anderson, the political activist and last surviving member of the four Aboriginal men who challenged the State by erecting the beach umbrella Aboriginal Embassy on the front lawns of Parliament house in 1972 says he has been made aware that the Aboriginal sovereignty movement is being undermined by a number of people who it seems are attempting to derail the process and the movement for personal gain and to protect the interests of the British Crown.
His statement in full:
I was prepared for a government assault on the movement with chosen Aboriginal collaborators, but not from a group of people who are purporting to be the shared drivers of the sovereignty movement in concert with the organic movement that is sweeping this country.
It is alarming that Mark McMurtrie and his Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is travelling throughout the country denouncing the Interim Sovereign Union, National Unity Government movement. The National Unity Government’s fight is against the invader state of Australia and their state colonies, not our own kind. This sovereignty movement is not about a measuring competition, it is about fighting a fight for our inherent rights as the true sovereign people of the soil. This movement is about unifying our people, not continuing division. Division only serves the interest of the state.
My concern with the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is that it is led by Mark McMurtrie who was the whistle blower on paedophilia in New South Wales, when he made a number of allegations. Mr McMurtrie’s advice to the former State Member of Parliament, Franka Arena, saw her raise the allegations in the State parliament of New South Wales. Mr McMurtrie failed to back up the allegation with credible evidence. As a consequence of this, Mr. McMurtrie lost everything that he ever owned and was publicly disgraced. I am afraid that Mr McMurtrie is now using the Aboriginal sovereignty movement to carry out a personal vendetta against the whole of the Australian state.
Moreover, my other concern is that he has been advised by a legal official who is a life member of the Lincoln’s Inn in London. His other confidante is a knight of the British Commonwealth Sir John Walsh of Brannagh. Having learnt this, I am concerned about the integrity of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation objectives.
At a recent weekend retreat that I attended with Mr McMurtrie and others, I met his personal advisors who have been working with him for the past 8 years. I have in the past applauded Mr McMurtrie’s legal efforts in challenging the jurisdiction of the State to prosecute our people. For him now to go around this country knowingly undermining and creating division within the Aboriginal communities amounts to treason against the very people with whom he seeks to work and wishes to represent. The fact that he has the backing of some very wealthy non-Aboriginal people makes it possible for him to move around the country unrestrained, creating a major challenge for the National Unity Government’s efforts to bring about the national unity that we all aspire to achieve.
During the weekend retreat Mr McMurtrie gave me the impression that he sought to work together to unify our people across this country but it appears the contrary is occurring. I was alarmed and concerned when I was advised that Mr McMurtrie said that he did not come to the Wollongong meeting because he was not issued with a written invitation. My legal advice suggests that Mr McMurtrie’s intention to only come to the Wollongong meeting by way of a written invitation was only to validate in writing the recognition of his Original Sovereign Tribal Federation.
My other concern is that we have now completed our own research on Mr McMurtrie’s legal advisers. The conclusions suggest that Mr McMurtrie’s most senior adviser is Mr Jerry Prus. Mr Prus is a former British prosecutor and a life member of the Lincoln’s Inn in London. Mr Prus is also a silent radical who seeks to unite Indigenous Prussians and fight for the re-instatement of the original Prussian state in Europe in country now known as Poland. The second of Mr McMurtrie’s legal team is Sir John Walsh of Brannagh who operates from Norfolk Island and practices law on the mainland. Sir John Walsh is not the most likely of persons who would seek to deliberately rock the political boat against Crown interests in Australia. In fact Sir John Walsh and Mr. Prus advised Mr McMurtrie that known Aboriginal people must be included in the leadership of the Aboriginal sovereignty movement.
Other significant advisors to Mark McMurtrie are former staff members of the former conservative Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Malcolm Fraser. It may be a dream team, but as an Aboriginal person I find the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is being steered down a road that will only serve to further entrench the authority of the invader state over our people’s interests and inherent rights.
Another significant concern is knowing that Mr McMurtrie’s intention while travelling around Australia is to get Aboriginal people to sign an agreement that provides himself with the power to represent Aboriginal people and their respective Nations’ interests. His ambition is, once he signs up the people, to then go to England with these signatures with the set objective to go after a Compensation and Restitution package from the English as a trade for the de-colonisation of Australia, but this may come at a very big price for our people if it is done right.
Another move by Mark McMurtrie in the past 8 years has been somewhat deceitful in that he went to central Australia and got himself initiated into the Walpiri law in order to gain a tribal name and association. Having achieved this, he now argues that he has the authority of the ancient lore/law of the Aboriginal people which permits him to represent the elders of the law.
In this NAIDOC Week it appears that we have reached a three way cross road in Aboriginal politics. Aboriginal people, it seems, are being asked to choose between different pathways forwards. Assimilation/Integration through the signing of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA’s). That is, giving up your land and power of attorney of all that is yours as a sovereign people for less than 3% of the natural wealth that our people are entitled to. Moreover, the people with whom these ILUA’s are signed may not personally see or gain any significant benefit in the short term. If they do, what they get now is the end. It may be that their grandchildren or great grandchildren may gain some small benefit in the future. I can say that signing ILUA’s that recognise your nations as the ancient owners of land that are national parks and reserves is all show with no real meaning and purpose other than to have our people sign lands back to the State in perpetuity. This is not gaining full and outright ownership for our people. It is a deceitful method to gain ownership under your signature in favour if the invader state. This deceit then allows the federal government and their leaders to show to the world, look what we do for our Aboriginal people.
The National Congress of Australia’s First Nations people is a federal government sponsored organisation that represents Australia’s iconic Aboriginal body thus, falsely representing to the world that Australia has a black parliament who ‘ADVISES’ the governments on policies and policy directions for Australia’s Aboriginal people. A pity they failed to adhere to their advice on the ‘stronger futures’ legislation.
Then there is the ambition of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation that seeks to have Aboriginal people sign over power of attorney to them and their leadership that includes non-Aborigines in order for them to be the Aboriginal representatives here in Australia and overseas on the sovereignty question while attempting to negotiate in England on our peoples’ behalf for a compensation and restitution package which they plan to administer on our peoples’ behalf if successful.
The Sovereign Union National Unity Government are attempting to unite our people into a national representative government without any directions, influence or control in our affairs by the invader states. We must take responsibility and ownership of our affairs by establishing local, regional and national governance. Furthermore, we must establish our own International profile as a united national government asserting our independent sovereign identity.
Only by showing that we have a population who have the appropriate capacity to govern, have our own laws, religion and the ability to establish our own economics to build our own infrastructure for our people, can we expect to be taken seriously as a people.
To permit ourselves to be divided is to lose. To be put into a position where we have to make choices in respect to ways forward for our people is a definite danger sign. To fail to unite will be a disaster for future generations and the invader state will be the only winners.
Michael Anderson can be contacted at 02 68296355 landline, 04272 92 492 mobile, 02 68296375 fax, ngurampaa@bigpond.com.au, ghillar29@gmail.com
More Aboriginal activism is reported at National Unity Government and Treaty Republic.
Comments
Without gender pact it's male privilege whitefella sovereignty
If it’s not governed by formal agreement between women’s and men’s assemblies it’s not Aboriginal Sovereignty, it’s male privilege whitefella sovereignty.
Anderson trying to derail the sovereignty process
Michael Anderson is rich in his tirade against me....he fails to inform people that HE was working for the Prime Ministers office when Whitlam poured the meaningless sand through Vincent Lingiaries hands those years ago. He also knows it was Michael Anderson who worked for the US State Department for the same Whitlam government...and it was Michael Anderson and his friends who tried to disavow the research he now sprewks when he first heard the evidence regarding the Pacific Islander Protection Act Order In Council etc..etc... from me two and a half years ago in Canberra...NOW, after being backed by the same ALP government knobs he worked for in the past to derail the Sovereignty process by trying to detract from the Treaty process started by OSTF in 2010, he finds himself having to reduce himself to personal attacks....I would suggest you get your facts straight before you start next time Michael as your statement above is more puff than you.
Women's jurisdiction, then treaty
A treaty is the first order of business after the Constitution is reformed to provide for a women's jurisdiction, has been for the past four decades I know about.
You didn't back/support the man who gave you this wonderful news
As I understand it, Michael, you invited Elders from all over Australia and this is where i first heard the wonderful news from Mark McMurtrie that we are in fact...Original Sovereigns of this Beautiful Country which is Ours by Birthright. Michael, you have been a qualified lawyer for a number of years and yet you did not find this information Mark has freely given to you and all and sundry. I am also amazed that you didn't back/support the man who gave you this wonderful news and join with OSTF???
I'm sure you were aware of the meetings re-invigorating Our Law at Barramattagyl and then at Bu-undi on the 23rd~24th of May where Legally binding Sovereignty Papers were prepared by all those Elders present, including myself and a number of others. With Mark on the pc, we all discussed what would be the content of the papers and the name of the movement, deciding unanimously to call ourselves 'Original Sovereign Tribal Federation'. Our first public statement and disclaimer was to the National Congress of Australia's First People (NCAFP)stating that anything they do or say does not, in any way, represent Members of the OSTF.
You chose not to attend and i did wonder why as it is a matter of fact that we are Original Sovereigns rather than 'Aboriginals' which denotes "of" or "from" but not the actual Originals and while we are not the People of the Land who were here when the invaders came and wreaked havoc on Our People, We are indeed, Original. Of or from gives the sense that we are not equal to Our People who were here when the invasion took place but i argue that we are Original as they were, despite the fact that our skin colour may and does vary from theirs, we are Originals, as there are none like us.
I hear you say much derogatory stuff about Mark but i also wondered why you would try to form the group you did when already OSTF was already up and running. When i queried Mark on this, he said that people from the OSTF had wanted to link up with you and it was their choice and so, it has been my understanding that Mark said nothing derogatory about you at all. If people want to join with you he has not tried to dissuade them at all. Mark has absolutely no desire to be the Boss of anyone, he just wants to let anyone and everyone know what has been hidden from us for so long and he also has no intention of doing deals with the queen or any of those fools, he just wants to bring them down with their own lies and deception. He has stated to me and others that he doesn't want to be a leader but rather a servant and that We, the People, must organize ourselves and take charge of Our Own Country. He is prepared to speak on Our behalf if we asked him to but that we all need to step up and make a stand for Ourselves so i can't believe what you have written. And if he lost all that he has/had due to trying to bring some paedophiles down then he is to be commended most highly!!!
The old adage...'me thinks he doth protest too much' comes to mind. Mark has said nothing bad about you. Which begs the question...why do you still call yourself Ab-original? and why try to reinvent the wheel when Ours has been turning smoothly for 2 years before you held your meeting exactly 2 years later, to the date.
And since when has it been a crime to have people with inside knowledge as contacts??? Isn't that standard when doing something so momentous as to free Our People from the slavery and genocidal policies of this and the former governments, some of whom you yourself have worked for and with.
I'm wondering whether you realize that gary simmons is using you to prove a point regarding Mark and that he has in fact sold out to OSNA which would have all us Originees called Maori, and he has done this with a view to accessing monies ASAP. To quote him, 'Fuck Sovereignty, I just want the money' him and heemi hau, who is also misleading a mob from the Far North Queensland.
It seems to me that it is you, garry and heemi who are dividing the People and trying to throw off and blame Mark when he has done nothing wrong by you or the others. He is just being True to OSTF and the people who agreed with him and put our names to the documents.
Sovereign Union National Unity Government and Treaty Republic agree with Mark to a certain degree but it seems to me that the men behind these groups and their egos are getting in the way of us all truly uniting as One People and standing firm as Original Sovereigns together.
For me and my Mob, we are going full bore ahead and making our ways through all the b/s of both blacks and whites but we carry on regardless and Our numbers increase slowly but surely!!!
Why is the OSTF seeking to sideline women in treaty with govt?
Hi Alison, why is the OSTF seeking to sideline women by doing treaty with a government which doesn’t recognise a women’s jurisdiction. I’ve raised this concern on several forums, and as with here, and unlike correspondence I’ve previously received from Michael, Mark just doesn’t respond. All I ever get, if anything, is sweet words claiming to support tradition, and women, accompanied by half-cocked schemes which perpetuate the male privilege at cause of the invasion in the first place. It’s not the tradition of my ancestors or any others of origin on this continent I’ve ever come across to treaty without a women’s jurisdiction. Can you please explain?
Women pushed aside?
I see you don't fully comprehend what OSTF is about. We women are recognized and and respected fully. We are not ignored at all by OSTF and whoever is spruiking this shit along these lines doesn't know what they're talking about. In order to fight the white system we must have allies so what the been is anyone going on about. Also Mark doesn't address stupid questions
Why is the OSTF seeking to sideline women in treaty with govt?
Phillip, you ask "Why is the OSTF seeking to sideline women by doing a Treaty with a government which doesn't recognize a womans' jurisdiction."
The simple answer is that the OSTF isn't seeking a Treaty with the 'government' at all....our Treaty is amongst the Tribes - on an equal Sovereign basis. The OSTF - unlike Andersons baby the Sovereign Union Government, does not wish to sell out and treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia nor any other Crown entuity as we view them as lesser entities without true Sovereignty and certainly without any authorative jurisdiction on Tribal lands.
Your ignorance of OSTF and its' operation and intention/s is divulged in your dribble as at the creation of the OSTF was body of law people which was mostly women in number. The OSTF has always respected the place of our women, a fact you would know IF you had as much knowledge as you purport to have.
Also, maybe you could identify yourself and your bona fides by also stating your full name and not just a bodgy one word tag ?
Please get your facts straight before putting both feet in your mouth ?
Classical political divide and conquer
It is a sad day when character assassination is used to further one person's claims to rightful leadership or one groups legitimacy over another; this is classical political divide and conquer where we ALL lose - again.
We must raise ABOVE this self-aggrandising tendency by putting others down, for the sake of truth, land, culture and all Original Sovereigns. The truth must finally come out and be presented without distraction regardless of who does it, but with all humble recognition of those who have made it known. Unity takes grace and much effort has been made by Mark and OSTF team to educate and communicate the intricacies of the truth which is as yet largely unknown. CREDIT WHERE CREDIT'S DUE.
WHO IS UNDERMINING WHO AND WHAT
Michael, you conclude your harsh and nasty attempted hatchet job of a former ally, with the words: "To permit ourselves to be divided is to lose. To be put into a position where we have to make choices in respect to ways forward for our people is a definite danger sign. To fail to unite will be a disaster for future generations and the invader state will be the only winners...." So what are you attempting to do? I have witnessed Mark sharing important information with you, and you using it to advantage without due acknowledgement to your source. I have watched and listened while you sidelined the OSTF by exclusion and running with bad advice. I am just left flabbergasted at your nasty tirade on your brother...(why?) ..it smells of the dirty politics that the invaders (you say you oppose) play......From what i have seen over at least the last 5-10 years, Mark has put everything he owns and much more on the line, purely for his belief in the truth for his people. Also, do you infer shaded racist insult to 'non-aboriginals' with whom Mark has been seen - when; back where it started, a 'non-aboriginal' gave you 'original four' the money to get to Canberra from Sydney to set up the beach umbrella that you pinched out of the 'non-aboriginals' garage, before he drove you to Canberra to set up the Embassy. And who fought with you side by side when the cops came to close the embassy up, but 'non-aboriginals'. We all agree with you Michael. This is no time for division. So why are you doing it? If it is not the money for you, it is with all the respect that is due, that i suggest that you and other old limelighting sovereignty warriors get your egos out of the way, learn to unite for your people (for a change) and get on with the business at hand. There is no time for talk of seperatism any longer. We are all in this together now. Black,White and Brindle.
The OSTF treaty is signed by both men and women Elders
'Philip,
You claim that the OSTF isn't accommodating womens law/business. The very existence of the OSTF is based upon equality and equity across the Tribe/s. The OSTF treaty is signed by both men and women Elders as the chosen representatives of their Tribe/s to do so. The basis of participation of a Tribe in the Federation is the equity between men and women. You know - representing mens and womens' law.
Philip, maybe you need to look at the facts before you speak as you are so far off the money it makes your comments easily distinguishable as nonsence.
One foot is better than two crutches
RE: DECLARATION OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND NATIONHOOD OF THE AUTONOMOUS AUTOCHTHONOUS ORIGINAL TRIBAL PEOPLES OF TERRA AUSTRALIS
OSTF Declaration of Sovereignty
Does any of this sound familiar about the politics of self-determination ?
One foot is better than two crutches -- Kemal Ataturk
The contradictions about Sovereignty in the proposal of the ORIGINAL SOVEREIGN TRIBAL FEDERATION (OSTF) mean that it is effectively proposing two crutches as the best way forward now for the Original, and the Descendants of the Original, Peoples of Australia, when there is a clear opportunity for the Original, and the Descendants of the Original, Peoples of Australia to put one foot forward and exercise a national political power that eschews tribalism for the legitimacies of aspiring to take their place in their own countries in the forms of a modern state under a Sovereignty that is taken hold of by these constituents of their own self-determination rather than seek to have recognition for the confusions of the devolved form of Sovereignty that is being proposed by the OSTF to be available to them from another source as a right that has been denied. It is a clear contradiction in terms to assert sovereign power and at the same time to pray for the right to hold it from any other source including the Creator.
BUT YOU, the reader, DECIDE FOR YOURSELF in view of the current state of play for the Descendants in South Australia indicated below !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20465752
27 November 2012 Last updated at 09:44 GMT
Viewpoint: How tribalism stunts African democracy
...
The importance of building nations around ideas rather than clan identities.
... in the absence of efforts to build genuine political parties that compete on the basis of ideas, many ... countries have reverted to tribal identities as foundations for political competition ... Leaders ... were primarily focused on pursuing their tribal interests rather than uniting around a common political programme. They in effect played into the hands of the government in power that could divide them along tribal lines.
FOR THE PRINCIPLES AND GOALS OF A PATH TO SELF DETERMINATION NOT BASED ON TRIBAL AFFILIATION PLEASE REFER TO THE FOLLOWING:
Subject: Justice is the infrastructure of proprietorship - Kemal Ataturk.
Justice is the infrastructure of proprietorship - Kemal Ataturk.
But what is the visionary thinking of the Aboriginal leadership at Mutitjulu about Boxing Day ? Has the community been able to escape the repression and enslavements of colonisation constantly cultivated against it by white politics ?
How much energy is bottled up literally and would fuel a positive advancement in Aboriginal self-determination with the articulation in community languages of a visonary economic future based on a political option ?
Who will stand up and set the record straight on where Aboriginal people are going ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-27/mutitjulu-riot-police-attacked-box...
Police attacked in Red Centre grog-fuelled riot
By Gail Liston
Updated 2 hours 19 minutes ago
Police say fighting continued throughout the day and they had to call for reinforcements from Yulara, Imanpa and Kulgara. (Terry Trewin: AAP)
Northern Territory Police were attacked with rocks and iron bars during a riot at a remote Aboriginal community in central Australia on Boxing Day.
Four people have been arrested and police say they expect more will be charged after fighting broke out at Mutitjulu, near Uluru, about 360 kilometres south-west of Alice Springs.
Southern Watch Commander Siri Tennosaar says a group of more than 40 people threw rocks, bottles and iron bars at police when they were called to deal with the incident.
She says police were forced to withdraw at first and call for help.
"A clinic nurse in the community was assaulted as she tried to assist," she said.
"It does appear that alcohol was a contributing factor," she said.
"There was a break-in at a licensed premises in Yulara during the night and the proceeds of that unlawful entry have actually come into the Mutitjulu community.
"That is how large groups of persons have become intoxicated and it certainly seems to have sparked the incident."
Police say fighting at the community of about 300 people continued throughout the day and they had to call for reinforcements from Yulara, Imanpa and Kulgara.
The strengthened police contingent will remain at the community today.
(eorpt)
Sovereignty is not given, it is taken -- Kemal Ataturk
Murray Valley Standard
Thursday December 20, 2012
http://www.murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/1195966/native-title-claim-...
Native Title claim causes offence
THE Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority (NRA) says statements made against the rightful existence and ties to country of the Ngarrindjeri by a group of Ramindjeri Aborigines were offensive.
NRA chairman Tom Trevorrow said statements made by Ramindjeri spokesman Karno Walker in an article in The Standard on Tuesday were incorrect.
By Joanne Fosdike
Dec. 20, 2012, 3 a.m.
THE Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority (NRA) says statements made against the rightful existence and ties to country of the Ngarrindjeri by a group of Ramindjeri Aborigines were offensive.
NRA chairman Tom Trevorrow said statements made by Ramindjeri spokesman Karno Walker in an article in The Standard on Tuesday were incorrect.
He said the native claims made in the Federal Court on Friday denied the existence of the Ngarrindjeri and caused great offence to those living today and their ancestors.
"The Ngarrindjeri have occupied and managed their lands and waters for thousands of years," Mr Trevorrow said.
"Since colonisation the Ngarrindjeri have fought hard to maintain their culture and many Ngarrindjeri have died without knowing whether their children will be safe or whether their culture, heritage and beliefs will be recognised and protected no matter which group they come from within Ngarrindjeri
Mr Trevorrow said the Ramindjeri Native Title Claim covered almost all of metropolitan Adelaide, Kangaroo Island and a third of the Ngarrindjeri people's claim and had already been rejected by the Native Title Tribunal.
A State Attorney General's Department spokesperson said the Government was not surprised by the Ramindjeri Native Title Claim but said it would be up to the court to decide if the claim for rightful ownership of the land, from an anthropological point of view, was valid.
"The hearing was in relation to an application by the State to strike out the claim for failing to comply with the requirements of the Native Title Act," the spokesperson said.
"The Government was not surprised, the group had foreshadowed the claim for many years and it is one of 22 current native title claims across the State."
The spokesperson did not say why Premier Jay Weatherill and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Paul Caica had refused an audience with Ramindjeri representative and tribal leader Karno Walker but said Mr Walker had been contacted by relevant Government officers regarding the matters.
"Mr Walker asserts he represents the Ramindjeri and seeks recognition of native title rights and interests." the spokesperson said.
"Many of the persons listed as claimants in his claim are listed as claimants in either or both of the pre-existing, and overlapping, Ngarrindjeri and Kaurna Native Title claims.
"Mr Walker is seeking orders for those overlapping claims to be withdrawn to the extent of the overlap."
The case of the Ramindjeri versus the State of South Australia and Ngarrindjeri began in Adelaide on Friday in the National Native Title Tribunal in Federal Court and has been adjourned until April.
It is challenging the naming of the Ngarrindjeri as traditional land owners from Kingston, in the State's south east, to the Coorong and River Murray.
But the Ramindjeri are not pinning all their hopes of recognition on the Federal justice system.
The group have applied to the United Kingdom Privy Council to be recognised as sovereign owners of the land and hope for an initial hearing early next year.
(eorpt)
Does any of this sound familiar about the politics of self-determination ?
The importance of building nations around ideas rather than clan identities.
... in the absence of efforts to build genuine political parties that compete on the basis of ideas, many ... countries have reverted to tribal identities as foundations for political competition ... Leaders ... were primarily focused on pursuing their tribal interests rather than uniting around a common political programme. They in effect played into the hands of the government in power that could divide them along tribal lines.
... parties were unable to find common ground through coherent party manifestos. ... The way forward for ... democracy lies in concerted efforts to build modern political parties founded on development ideas and not tribal bonds. Such political parties must base their competition for power on development platforms.
... Defining party platforms will need to be supported by the search for ideas—not the appeal to tribal coalitions. Political parties that create genuine development platforms will launch initiatives that reflect popular needs. ... Party manifestos are fundamentally documents in which parties outline their principles and goals in a manner that goes beyond popular rhetoric. They arise from careful discussion, compromise, and efforts to express the core values and commitments of the party.
Building clear party platforms requires effective intellectual input, usually provided through think-tanks and other research institutions. ... By stating a vision for the future, political parties provide voters with a ways to measure their performance. Forging platforms fosters debate within parties that transcends tribal and religious differences.
Such debates are a central pillar of democracy. Building modern political parties and associated think-tanks is, therefore, the most urgent way to counter tribal politics.
Policy debate is a key element of democracy. Specific manifestos would foster healthy political competition that would force parties to distinguish themselves from each other.
Conversely, such debates would also help to illustrates areas of common interest. Indeed, it is becoming clear that issues such as infrastructure - energy, transportation, irrigation, and telecommunication - and youth employment are emerging as common themes in ... politics irrespective of ideological differences.
The predominance of such issues will select for pragmatic leadership over ideology. ... at the local level, politics is primarily a long footnote on demands for power, transportation, irrigation, and communication. Closely linked to these foundational concerns are demands for access to education and health. Political parties are unlikely to differ on essential points, but they might offer different approaches. So long as democracy offers the best chance for sustained growth and prosperity, tribal politics must be replaced by genuine party platforms and modern democratic institutions like think-tanks. Otherwise ... [the] road to doom will continue to be paved by tribal intentions.
FOR THE PRINCIPLES AND GOALS OF A PATH TO SELF DETERMINATION NOT BASED ON TRIBAL AFFILIATION PLEASE REFER TO THE FOLLOWING:
ABORIGINAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT DRAFT 2012 FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON THE ABORIGINAL DESCENDANTS LETTERS PATENT PROVINCE (ALM Copy)
DRAFT#5 – 24 November 2012 – For Descendant Elders Assembly
In the Name of the Creator Being.
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON THE ABORIGINAL DESCENDANTS LETTERS PATENT PROVINCE
The South Australian Government (SAG) and the Aboriginal Liberation Movement (ALM) herein
referred to as the Parties to this Agreement,
HAVE AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS FOLLOWS:
I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ABORIGINAL DESCENDANTS LETTERS PATENT PROVINCE
1. The Parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and that the Aboriginal Descendants Letters Patent Province (ADLPP) shall be established to replace the dispossessed and Aboriginal land rights areas in the State of South Australia (SSA) that herein after is referred to as the “State”. The ABORIGINAL DESCENDANTS LETTERS PATENT PROVINCE (ADLPP) is the new autonomous political entity (NEP) envisaged as an original Province under the 1834 South Australian Foundation Act of the British Parliament effective from 15 August 1834 and pursuant to which the descendants’ land rights in South Australia originally were vested under the Letters Patent of 19 February 1836.
2. The government of the ADLPP shall have a ministerial form.
The Parties agree to entrench an electoral system suitable to a ministerial form of government. The electoral system shall allow democratic participation, ensure accountability of public officers primarily to their constituents and encourage formation of genuinely principled political parties. The electoral system shall be contained in the ADLPP Basic law to be implemented through legislation enacted by the ADLPP Government and correlated with State and as required, Federal, laws.
3. The municipalities and geographic area within its territory shall be the constituent units of the ADLPP.
The authority to regulate on its own responsibility the affairs of the constituent units is guaranteed within the limit of the ADLPP Basic Law. The principles already enjoyed by the local government units under existing laws shall not be diminished unless otherwise altered, modified or reformed for good governance pursuant to the provisions of the ADLPP local government code.
4. The relationship of the State and where required, Federal, Government with the ADLPP Government shall be asymmetric.
5. The Parties recognise ADLPP identity. Those who at the time of English plantation and colonization were considered natives or original inhabitants of South Australia and it’s adjacent islands and their descendants whether of mixed or of full blood shall have the right to identify themselves as ADLPP by ascription or self-ascription.
II BASIC LAW
1. The ADLPP shall be governed by a Basic Law.
2. The provisions of the ADLPP Basic Law shall be consistent with all agreements of the Parties.
3. The Basic Law shall reflect the ADLPP system of life and meet internationally accepted standards of governance
4. It shall be formulated by the ADLPP people and ratified by the qualified voters within its territory.
III POWERS
1. The State and where required, Federal, Government will have reserved powers, the ADLPP Government shall have its exclusive powers and there will be concurrent powers shared by the State and where required, Federal, Government and the ADLPP.
The Annex on Power Sharing, which includes the principles on intergovernmental relations, shall form part of this Agreement and guide the drafting of the Basic Law.
2. The State and where required, Federal, Government shall have powers on:
a) Defence and external security
b) Foreign policy
c) Common market and global trade, provided that the powers of the Aboriginal Descendants to enter into economic agreements already allowed under the State Constitution Act as consistent with the Australian Federal Constitution provided for in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act shall be transferred to the ADLPP
d) Coinage and monetary policy
e) Citizenship and naturalization
f) Postal service
This list is without prejudice to additional powers that may be agreed upon by the Parties.
3. The Parties recognise the need to inaugurate the Aboriginal courts and strengthen other customary courts in the State and to extend their jurisdiction over cases. The ADLPP shall have competence over the Aboriginal and other customary justice systems. The supremacy of Aboriginal customary law and its application shall only be to Aboriginal Descendants comprising the Aboriginal citizenry of the ADLPP.
4. The ADLPP Basic Law may provide for the power of the ADLPP Government to consider and accredit customary Aboriginal cultural practice.
5. The ADLPP basic law shall provide for justice institutions in the ADLPP. This includes:
a. The competence of the Aboriginal and other customary justice systems, as well as the formal institutionalization and operation of their functions, and the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Aboriginal and other customary courts.
b. Measures to improve the workings of local civil courts, where necessary; and
c. Alternative dispute resolution systems.
6. The customary rights and traditions of Aboriginal peoples shall be taken into consideration by the ADLPP in the formulation of the justice system. This may include the recognition of Aboriginal processes as alternative modes of dispute resolution.
IV. REVENUE GENERATION AND WEALTH SHARING
• The Parties agree that wealth creation (or revenue generation and sourcing) is important for the operation of the ADLPP.
• Consistent with the ADLPP Basic Law, the ADLPP will have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to limitations as may be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. This power shall include the power to determine tax bases and tax rates, guided by the principles of devolution of power, equalization, equity, accountability, administrative simplicity, harmonization, economic efficiency, and fiscal autonomy.
• The ADLPP will have the authority to receive grants and donations from domestic and foreign sources, and block grants and subsidies from external local municipal government, the State and where required, Federal, Government. Subject to acceptable credit worthiness, it shall also have the authority to contract loans from domestic and foreign lending institutions, except foreign and domestic loans requiring sovereign guaranty, whether explicit or implicit, which would require the approval of the State and where required, Federal, Government.
• The ADLPP shall have a just and equitable share in the revenues generated through the exploration, development or utilization of natural resources obtaining in all the areas/territories, land, air, water or seas, covered by and within the jurisdiction of the ADLPP, in accordance with the formula agreed upon by the Parties.
• The ADLPP may create its own auditing body and procedures for accountability over revenues and other funds generated within or by the region from external sources. This shall be without prejudice to the power, authority and duty of a tripartite ADLPP - State – Federal Commission on Audit that jointly may be agreed by the Parties to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and the use of funds and property owned and held in trust by any government instrumentality.
• The details of revenue and wealth sharing arrangements between the State and as required, Federal, Government and the ADLPP Government shall be agreed upon by the Parties. The Annex on Wealth Sharing shall form part of this Agreement.
• There shall be an intergovernmental fiscal policy board composed of representatives of the ADLPP and the State and where required, Federal, Government in order to address revenue imbalances and fluctuations in regional financial needs and revenue-raising capacity. The Board shall meet at least once in six (6) months to determine necessary fiscal policy adjustments, subject to the principles of intergovernmental relations mutually agreed upon by both Parties. Once full fiscal autonomy has been achieved by the ADLPP then it may longer be necessary to have a representative from the State or where required, Federal, Government to sit in the Board. Fiscal autonomy shall mean the generation and budgeting by the ADLPP of it’s ownsources of revenue, its share of the internal revenue taxes and block grants and subsidies remitted to it by the State or where required, Federal, Government or any donor.
• The parties agree that sustainable development is crucial in protecting and improving the quality of life of the ADLPP people. To this end, the ADLPP shall develop a comprehensive framework for sustainable development through the proper conservation, utilization and development of natural resources. For efficient coordination and assistance, the ADLPP legislative body shall create, by law, an intergovernmental body composed of representatives of the ADLPP and the State and when required, Federal, Government, which shall ensure the harmonization of environmental and developmental plans, as well as formulate common environmental objectives.
V. TERRITORY
1. The core territory of the ADLPP shall be composed of: (a) the present geographical area of the State and any Federal Granted Land Rights, Aboriginal Lands Trust and Native Title areas: (b) the (Aboriginal) Municipal areas contiguous with or adjunct to granted land right and Lands Trust areas that opt for transition to the Territory upon municipal plebiscite along with such freehold areas as the Freeholders thereof elect to present for transition to the Territory; (c) all other contiguous areas where there is a resolution of the local municipal government unit instigated upon a petition of at least ten percent (10%) of the qualified voters in the area asking for their inclusion at least two (2) months prior to the conduct of the ratification ofthe ADLPP Basic Law and the process of delimitation of the ADLPP as mentioned in the next paragraph.
2. The Parties shall work together in order to ensure the widest acceptability of the ADLPP Basic Law as drafted by an agreed Transitory Commission and the core areas mentioned in the previous paragraph through a process of popular ratification among all the ADLPP within the areas for their adoption. An international third party monitoring team shall be present to ensure that the process is free, fair, credible, legitimate and in conformity with international standards.
3. Areas which are contiguous and outside the core territory of the ADLPP where there are substantial populations of Aboriginal Descendants may opt at anytime to be part of the territory upon petition of at least ten percent (10%) of the residents and approved by a majority of qualified voters in a plebiscite.
4. The disposition of internal and territorial waters shall be referred to in the Annexes on Wealth and Power Sharing.
5. Territory refers to the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it. Governance shall be as agreed upon by the parties in this agreement and in the sections on wealth and power sharing.
VI. BASIC RIGHTS
In addition to basic rights already enjoyed, the following rights of all citizen residing in the ADLPP bind the legislature, executive and judiciary as directly enforceable law and are guaranteed:
Right to life and to inviolability of one’s person and dignity;
Right to freedom and expression of religion and beliefs;
Right to privacy;
Right to freedom of speech;
Right to express political opinion and pursue democratically political aspiration;
Right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means;
Right of women to meaningful political participation, and protection from all forms of violence;
Right to freely choose one’s place of residence and the inviolability of the home;
Right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination in social and economic activity and the public service, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender and ethnicity;
Right to establish cultural and religious associations;
Right to freedom from religious, ethnic and sectarian harassment; and
Right to redress of grievances and due process of law.
2. Vested property rights shall be recognized and respected. With respect to the legitimate grievances of the ADLPP people arising from any unjust dispossession of their territorial and proprietary rights, customary land tenure or their marginalization shall be acknowledged. Whenever restoration is no longer possible, the State and where required, Federal, Government and the Government of the ADLPP shall take effective measures for adequate reparation collectively beneficial to the ADLPP people in such quality, quantity and status to be determined mutually.
3. Aboriginal people’s rights shall be respected.
4. The State and where required, Federal, Government shall ensure the protection of the rights of the Aboriginal people residing outside the territory of the ADLPP and undertake programs for the rehabilitation and development of their communities. The ADLPP Government may provide assistance to their communities to enhance their economic, social and cultural development.
VII. TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Parties agree to the need for a transition period and the institution of transitional mechanisms.
The Parties agree to adopt and incorporate an Annex on Transitional Arrangements and Modalities, which forms a part of this Framework Agreement.
There shall be created a Transition Commission through an Order in Executive Council and supported by State and where required, Federal, Parliamentary Resolutions.
The functions of the Transition Commission are as follows:To work on the drafting of the ADLPP Basic Law with the provisions consistent with all the agreements entered and that may be entered into by the Parties;
To work on proposals to amend the South Australian and where required, Federal, Constitution for the purpose of accommodating and entrenching in the relevant constitution the agreements of the Parties whenever necessary without derogating from any prior Reconciliation agreements;
To coordinate whenever necessary development programs in ADLPP communities in conjunction with an agreed ADLPP Development Agency and ADLPP Leadership and Management Institute and other agencies.
5. The Transition Commission shall be comprised of fifteen (15) members all of whom are Aboriginal Descendants. Seven (7) members shall be selected by the SAG and eight (8) members, including the Chairman, shall be selected by the ALM.
6. The Transition Commission will be independent from the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) and Maralinga Tjarutja (MT) Lands Councils and Aboriginal Lands Trust and other government agencies. The SAG, and as may be required the Federal Government, shall allocate funds and provide other resources for its effective operation. All other agencies of government shall support the Transition Commission in the performance of its tasks and responsibilities until it becomes functus Officio and cease to exist.
7. The draft ADLPP Basic Law submitted by the Transition Commission shall be certified as a constitutional bill by the Governor.
8. Upon promulgation and ratification of the Basic Law, which provides for the creation of the ADLPP Transition Authority, the APY and MT Lands Councils and Aboriginal Lands Trust and other government agencies in Aboriginal Affairs are deemed abolished.
9. All devolved authorities shall be vested in the ADLPP Transition Authority during the interim period. The ministerial form and Cabinet system of government shall commence once the ADLPP Transition Authority is in place. The ADLPP Transition Authority may reorganize the bureaucracy into institutions of governance appropriate thereto.
10. The ADLPP Transition Authority shall ensure that the continued functioning of government in the area of autonomy is exercised pursuant to its mandate under the Basic Law. The ADLPP Transition Authority will be immediately replaced in 2016 upon the election and assumption of the members of the ADLPP legislative assembly and the formation of the ADLPP Government.
11. There will be created a third party monitoring team to be composed of international bodies, as well as domestic groups to monitor the implementation of all agreements.
12. At the end of the transition period, the SAG and ALM Province Negotiating Panels, together with the Jointly Designated Facilitator and the Third Party Monitoring Team, shall convene a meeting to review, assess or evaluate the implementation of all agreements and the progress of the transition. An ‘Exit Document’ officially terminating the Province negotiation may be crafted and signed by both Parties if and only when all agreements have been fully implemented.
13. The Negotiating Panel of both Parties shall continue the negotiations until all issues are resolved and all agreements implemented.
VIII. NORMALIZATION
• The Parties agree that the normalization is vital to the Reconciliation process. It is through normalization that communities can return to conditions where they can achieve their desired quality of life, which includes the pursuit of sustainable livelihoods and political participation within a peaceful deliberative society.
• The aim of normalization is to ensure human security in the ADLPP. Normalization helps build a society that is committed to basic human rights, where individuals are free from fear of violence or crime and where long-held traditions, cultural heritage and value continue to be honoured. Human insecurity embraces a wide range of issues that would include violation of human and civil rights, social and political injustices and impunity.
• As a matter of principle, it is essential that policing structure and arrangement are such that the police service is professional and free from partisan political control. The police system shall be civilian in character so that it is effective and efficient in law enforcement, fair and impartial as well as accountable under the law for its action, and responsible both to the State and where required, Federal, Government and the ADLPP Government, and to the communities it serves.
• An independent commission shall be organized by the Parties to recommend appropriate policing within the area. The commission shall be composed of representatives from the parties and may invite local and international experts on law enforcement to assist the commission in its work.
• The ADLPP shall undertake a graduated program for commissioning of a policing force so that they are put into operational use.
• In a phased and gradual manner, all law enforcement functions shall be transferred from the SAPOL to the ADLPP policing force. The Parties agree to continue negotiations on the form, functions and relationship of the ADLPP police force taking into consideration the results of the independent review process mentioned in paragraph 4.
• The Joint Coordinating Committees on Cessation of Dispossession (JCCCD) as well as the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group (AHJAG) with the participation of the International Monitoring Team (IMT) shall commence to monitor the agreement until the full commissioning of the ADLPP policing forces. These coordinating mechanisms, as agreed, shall be the basis for the creation of a Joint Normalization Committee (JNC) to ensure the coordination between the Government and incoming ADLPP policing forces, and through which the ADLPP shall assist in maintaining peace, order and good government in the area of the ADLPP until the commissioning of ADLPP policing shall have been fully completed.
• Both Parties commit to work in partnership for the reduction of crime, violence and control of firearms in the area and the disbandment of SAPOL oversight of policing.
• The details of the normalization process and timetables for commissioning shall be in an Annex on Normalization and shall form part of this Agreement.
• The Parties agree to intensify development efforts for rehabilitation, reconstruction and development of the ADLPP, and institute programs to address the needs of ALM proponents, internally displaced Aboriginal and other Indigenous persons, and povertystricken communities.
10 The Parties recognize the need to attract multi-donor country support assistance and pledges to the normalization process. For this purpose, a Trust Fund shall be established through which urgent support, recurrent and investment budget cost will be released with efficiency, transparency and accountability.
The Parties agree to adopt criteria for eligible financing schemes, such as, priority areas of capacity building, institutional strengthening, impact programs toaddress imbalances in development and infrastructures, and economic facilitation for return to normal life affecting proponent and non-proponent elements of the ALM, Aboriginal peoples, women, children, and internally displaced persons.
11 The Parties agree to work out a program for transitional justice to address the legitimate grievances of the ADLPP people, correct historical injustices, and address human rights violations.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
This Agreement shall not be implemented unilaterally.
The Parties commit to work further on the details of the Framework Agreement in the context of this document and complete a comprehensive agreement by the end of the year.
AGREEMENT
between the South Australian Government and the Aboriginal Liberation Movement on an independent plebiscite on Self-Government for the Aboriginal Descendants
Adelaide, *** December 20**
AGREEMENT
between the South Australian Government and the Aboriginal Liberation Movement on an independent plebiscite on Self-Government for the Aboriginal Descendants
The South Australian Government and the Aboriginal Liberation Movement have agreed to work together to ensure that an independent plebiscite on Self-Government for the Aboriginal Descendants can take place.
The parties are agreed that the plebiscite should:
• have a clear legal base;
• be legislated for by the South Australian Parliament;
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of all Australian parliaments, governments and
people; and
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of the Aboriginal Descendants and a result that everyone will respect.
The parties have agreed to promote a single question plebiscite on Aboriginal Self-Government to be held before the end of 20*. The question will put it beyond doubt that there may be an Aboriginal Parliament to legislate for the Self-Government of the Aboriginal Descendants.
It will then be for the Aboriginal Government to promote legislation in the subsequent Aboriginal Parliament for the implementation of an independent Aboriginal Province. The parties are agreed that the plebiscite should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The plebiscite legislation of the South Australian Parliament will set out:
• the date of the plebiscite;
• the franchise;
• the wording of the question;
• rules on campaign financing; and
• other rules for the conduct of the plebiscite.
The details of the agreement between the parties are set out in the following
memorandum and draft Order, which form part of this agreement.
_____________________________ _____________________________
************************
Premier Aboriginal Liberation Movement
_____________________________ _____________________________
Adelaide, ** December 20**
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20465752
27 November 2012 Last updated at 09:44 GMT
Viewpoint: How tribalism stunts African democracy
By Calestous Juma International development professor at Harvard University
Africa's democratic transition is back in the spotlight.
The concern is no longer the stranglehold of autocrats, but the hijacking of the democratic process by tribal politics.
Kenya's 2007-08 post-election violence revealed the extent to which tribal forces could quickly bring a country to the brink of civil war.
The challenge to democracy in Africa is not the prevalence of ethnic diversity, but the use of identity politics to promote narrow tribal interests.
It is tribalism.
There are those who argue that tribalism is a result of arbitrary post-colonial boundaries that force different communities to live within artificial borders.
This argument suggests that every ethnic community should have its own territory, which reinforces ethnic competition.
The last 20 years of Somalia have shown the dangers of ethnic competition and underscore the importance of building nations around ideas rather than clan identities.
Much attention over the last two decades has been devoted to removing autocrats and promoting multiparty politics.
But in the absence of efforts to build genuine political parties that compete on the basis of ideas, many African countries have reverted to tribal identities as foundations for political competition.
Leaders often exploit tribal loyalty to advance personal gain, parochial interests, patronage, and cronyism.
But tribes are not built on democratic ideas but thrive on zero-sum competition.
As a result, they are inimical to democratic advancement.
In essence, tribal practices are occupying a vacuum created by lack of strong democratic institutions.
Tribal interests have played a major role in armed conflict and civil unrest across the continent.
'Clever and calculating'
But the extent to which it blunts efforts to deepen democracy has received little attention. This is mainly because much of the attention has focused on elections.
According to US-based pro-democracy group Freedom House, [ http://africanelections.tripod.com/electoral_democracies.html ]19 African countries were considered electoral democracies in 2012, down from 24 over the 2005-08 period.
These trends conceal the influence that tribal politics exerts on the democratic process.
It took Kenyan political parties nearly a decade to unite and defeat Daniel arap Moi's regime.
Leaders of the different opposition parties were primarily focused on pursuing their tribal interests rather than uniting around a common political programme.
They in effect played into the hands of the government in power that could divide them along tribal lines.
The opposition parties were unable to find common ground through coherent party manifestos.
According to research carried out on Kenya by [ http://www.aiu.edu/applications/DocumentLibraryManager/upload/stephenkaj... ]Stephen Keverenge at the US-based Atlantic International University in 2008, 56% of 1,500 respondents did not know that their parties had manifestos.
The manifestos are generally issued late because much of the effort goes into building tribal alliances.
The new constitution of Kenya seeks to address the issue of ethnicity by ensuring that a president needs broad geographical support to be elected.
A winner must receive more than half of all the votes cast in the election and least 25% of the votes cast in each of more than half of the country's counties.
But tribal leaders are clever and calculating.
They are quick to dress in the latest fashion and co-opt emerging trends to preserve their identities.
They buy influence and create convenient alliances, shopping for international support in power centres such as London, Paris, and Washington DC.
Their sole mission is self-preservation, with the side effect of subverting democratic evolution.
For them tribal politics is a zero-sum game, so they are prone to using hate speech and inciting violence.
Intellectual input
The way forward for African democracy lies in concerted efforts to build modern political parties founded on development ideas and not tribal bonds.
Such political parties must base their competition for power on development platforms.
The 1994 genocide in Rwanda has led to years of ethnic conflict in DR Congo
Defining party platforms will need to be supported by the search for ideas—not the appeal to tribal coalitions.
Political parties that create genuine development platforms will launch initiatives that reflect popular needs.
Those that rely on manipulating ethnic alliances will bring sectarian animosity into government business.
Whoever is elected as president will spend most of his or her time on tribal balancing rather than on economic management.
Party manifestos are fundamentally documents in which parties outline their principles and goals in a manner that goes beyond popular rhetoric.
They arise from careful discussion, compromise, and efforts to express the core values and commitments of the party.
Building clear party platforms requires effective intellectual input, usually provided through think-tanks and other research institutions.
Most African political parties lack such support and are generally manifestos cobbled together with little consultation.
Tribal groupings see themselves as infallible but parties have to be accountable to the people.
By stating a vision for the future, political parties provide voters with a ways to measure their performance.
Forging platforms fosters debate within parties that transcends tribal and religious differences.
'Road to doom'
Such debates are a central pillar of democracy.
Building modern political parties and associated think-tanks is, therefore, the most urgent way to counter tribal politics.
Policy debate is a key element of democracy.
Specific manifestos would foster healthy political competition that would force parties to distinguish themselves from each other.
Conversely, such debates would also help to illustrates areas of common interest.
Indeed, it is becoming clear that issues such as infrastructure - energy, transportation, irrigation, and telecommunication - and youth employment are emerging as common themes in African politics irrespective of ideological differences.
The predominance of such issues will select for pragmatic leadership over ideology.
It is therefore not a surprise that African countries are increasingly electing engineers as presidents.
In 2012 six African countries put engineers in top political offices.
This reflects the fact that at the local level, politics is primarily a long footnote on demands for power, transportation, irrigation, and communication.
Closely linked to these foundational concerns are demands for access to education and health.
Political parties are unlikely to differ on essential points, but they might offer different approaches.
So long as democracy offers the best chance for sustained growth and prosperity, tribal politics must be replaced by genuine party platforms and modern democratic institutions like think-tanks.
Otherwise Africa's road to doom will continue to be paved by tribal intentions.
Calestous Juma is professor of the practice of international development at Harvard Kennedy School and co-chairs the African Union's High Level Panel on Science, Technology and Innovation - [ https://twitter.com/Calestous ]@calestous on Twitter.
You can join the debate now by using the form below or via Twitter using #bbcafricadebate or @bbcafrica on Facebook and Google+
Tribe or ethnic group?
By Basil Ibrahim, Nairobi-based political consultant
Those who oppose using the word "tribe" desire that African ethnic groups are understood as similar to those elsewhere.
They want the complexity of these groups paid attention to, and are attentive of the word "tribe's" associations with notions of backwardness, atavism and superstition - its roots in colonial policies aimed at defining African societies and making them legible for control.
They are attentive to the fact that the term is only used to describe their cultural formations, of the fact that Western societies' cleavages would never be defined as tribes.
They also reject the notions of fixity, of common ancestry that come with the term "tribe", preferring the looseness of the term ethnic group, and how this acknowledges internal differences of language, culture and descent, and permits accretion.
Conversely, this, along with constant media use, may explain why many African people continue to use the term "tribe".
Even with their fictive kinships, many Africans may prefer to establish the bonds between them as based on common descent, as biological, than to acknowledge the complex ways in which their present-day ethnic groups were formed.
The many peoples of Africa
Most diverse countries:
DR Congo: Population 72m; More than 250 ethnic groups
Nigeria: 170m people, more than 250 groups
Tanzania: 47m people; 130 groups
Chad: 11m people, more than 100 languages
Ethiopia: 91m people, 77 groups
Kenya: 42m people; more than 70 groups
Most homogenous countries:
Lesotho: 2m people; 99.7% Sotho
Somalia: 10m; 85% Somali (divided into clans)
Burundi: 11m people; 85% Hutu; 14% Tutsi
Rwanda: 12m people; 84% Hutu; 15% Tutsi
Swaziland: 1m people; 84% Swazi
Botswana: 2m people; 79% Tswana
Source: CIA World Factbook, US state dept, Encyclopaedia Britannica, UN
As usual Patrick has taken the vitriolic opposing position
Dear people,
as usual Patrick has taken the vitriolic opposing position to an initiative he didn't have the support to initiate himself.
The OSTF secretariat has posted this Declaration in respect of the OSTF Member Tribes ONLY.
Those Tribes which wish not to be a party to this Declaration are not included. That is their choice it is not the choice of the Federation.
The OSTF also denies we are using 'two crutches as the best way forward' and will be moving forward as a committed Federation of independent Sovereign Tribes despite the gain saying and negative mind set of the likes of Patrick Byrt.
We comprehend the short Notice in respect of the Declaration, and have been in contact with the OSTF Member Tribes Elders in the process of developing this Declaration.
The OSTF welcomes Patrick Byrts commentary, he is welcome to his opinion, like everyone else. however, given he is not associated with the OSTF, his opinion will be given commensurate consideration by the Member Tribes and secretariat of OSTF.
The OSTF wishes Patrick Byrt all the very best in his personal endeavors to sabotage the Sovereignty movement and those actually taking pro-active steps to protect the Sovereignty of the Tribes and prohibit the Crowns unlawful inclusion of Tribal peoples in their CON-stitution.
Kind regards
Gunham Badi Jakamarra
OSTF Convenor
Divide & conquer game Michael?
In my personal experience and from personal knowledge I cannot & never will trust another Lawyer/Solicitor ever again in my life. I have learned that they take an Oath to the Law Society or Bar Association and in that Oath they swear that if their clients needs (rights) conflicts with the Court/s then they MUST side with the Court (whitefella's) as they are an Officer of the Court. So on that basis a lawyer/solicitor is a liar & will lie straight to your face (& I have seen that happen) then go & do a dirty deal behind your back & sell you up the river & still take your money for their fee to represent you - so that is a crime = obtaining money by false pretences, fraud, deceit.
So what that means for those who do not understand is that even if you are right, but the Court does not want you to win your case, or the Police did the wrong thing & they want to hide that fact, your lawyer/solicitor MUST side with the Court & has to sell you out - so then you either lose & get fined or you are the one who goes to gaol etc - so there is NO JUSTICE in our Courts even though they do let some win, but only enough to keep the people fooled into thinking/believing they can receive justice... It's all a scam & as Michael is a lawyer I cannot & will not trust him. He can speak very well as most lawyers do, & he may fool a lot of people doing that, but in the long run, what is he REALLY saying & doing behind your backs? Especially after the fact that Mark gave him the information to begin with & now he is using that knowledge to suck people in & turn on those that started all this? Keep in mind that he also worked or maybe still is working for the same Government that has done all the wrong things to the people from the beginning and does anyone trust any Politician? I don't - they lie every time they open their mouth.I have to wonder WHY he started up another group to divide people when it was already in place...? Divide & conquer game Michael...?
Anderson promising tribes compensation, pot calling kettle black
It is interesting that Anderson is NOW going around to Tribes and promising them the Compensation that he claimed last year the OSTF was chasing - a mis-representation at best.
The FACT that Anderson is chasing compensation and promising the same to Tribes was confirmed this morning by Elders from the Yidinji Tribe from the area referred to as far Nth QLD.
He has again been outed as being mis-representative of the truth.
Another perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Who's the kettle shaming the pot for its red bot?
Given denial's the biblicist's right, who then's the kettle shaming the pot for its red bot ?