“Aborigines,
you are with us or against us - make your choice”
Goodooga, northwest NSW,
22
December 2011
- -
A number of significant, very
concerning incidents have occurred since arriving back in Australia from
my trip to London. The
Internet site austlii.edu.au that had the Pacific Islanders
Protection Act of 1872-75 up has pulled it down after I had revealed that the
actual wording of the 1875 Act was altered by person (s) unknown who in effect
altered the intent and law that it established here in Australia.
Then to hear through the main
stream media that the federal government had given ultimatums to the NAIDOC
Committee not to use the 40th anniversary
of the Aboriginal Embassy as its theme for 2012, clearly sends signals that
they are under pressure and seek to avoid a confrontation on the question of
Sovereignty.
It was further revealed that a
key Aboriginal organization within the Australian Capital Territory who had
agreed to be an auspicing body for any funds raised for the 40thanniversary
of the Aboriginal Embassy had their computers hacked by person (s) unknown at
the same time as they were having printed out their bank details and then for
the information to disappear from the computer as it was printing out.
On the far north coast line of
NSW at Pottsville, an Aboriginal man who had been occupying vacant crown
reserve has been advised that he will be evicted from the place. In the past 12
months he said that he had been running cultural camps for Aboriginal children
and youth so that they can continue to have knowledge of their country and what
that country means to them as a people. I am now advised that the council and
police were coming to evict him from this place today (22 December). This appears to developing into our first
battle ground in the fight for our sovereign status and rights as the real
sovereigns of the soil.
In the last twenty four hours
Anderson it has become very clear to me that in the lead up to the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal Embassy,
I have been put on notice that people who have been close to the Aboriginal
Embassy all these years are planning a confrontation on the question of the
anniversary becoming a focus on sovereignty and not the Embassy. This is
concerning, considering that the first intention of the Aboriginal Embassy was
to raise and maintain the protest of our people nationwide that sovereignty was
never ceded, rights to our lands was our inherent right that we have since time
immemorial.
If this is going to be the case
then we must now gather together and unite to put down this antagonism against
our movement, no matter whether they are Aboriginal people or not. Sovereignty
is the key to our future as a people. Right now we are losing our children to
the welfare departments, the criminal justice system, our culture is now owned
by the white ministers of the state. In Western Australia, the Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs is not just the minister, he is also the CEO of the Western
Australian Aboriginal Planning Act 1972. In the federal arena, the Labor
government refuses to deal with a bill proposed by the leader of the
Opposition, Tony Abbot, that will give ownership and management of the Cape
York rivers system and remove the wild rivers law created by the Queensland
state Labor government.
It is sad to be given this
warning but I think our people can stand up to the detractors and those who
seek to keep the divisions amongst our people, but we are on the edge of
achieving the one thing that has kept us going all these years. This is our
country, our lore/law and no Aboriginal collaborators or government junta will
stop us from fighting our fight. We will stand up against those who oppose us
and if you are Aboriginal and seek to interfere then we will know who you are
and will condemn you to the white invaders. This is a case of you are either
with us or against us. Make your choice.
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contact Michael
0427292492 or (02) 68296355
Further reading
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.