I find that interesting because that is at odds with the Australian Government’s view of where it’s sovereignty stems from.
In Australia we have two competing claims to sovereignty by right of heredity over the continent: that of the Crown and of Indigenous peoples.
But what you’re suggesting is essentially ‘might makes right.’ I control this land therefore I am sovereign.
In Arnhem Land and other locations, where Indigenous people only came into contact with Europeans in the 20th century, their law remains the predominant legal system.
Those pockets of uninterrupted continuity of law and culture have enabled Indigenous peoples Australia-wide to refuse to be erased, despite the weight the nation has thrown behind the elimination of their culture.
You’re right that the Australian state’s legitimacy does not rest upon a treaty with First Nations. In a constitutional monarchy, both the Crown and the parliament borrow their authority from a combination of heredity and the people: the Crown by consent and heredity, and the parliament through the electoral process.
First Nations are not recognised as nation states under international law. But that legal system was authored by those same nation states whose invading colonies are founded on Indigenous lands and now draw their authority from them.
The phrase “sovereignty was never ceded” might sound like a rabble-rousing protest line, but it’s deeper than that. White Australia landed on top of black Australia and then either ignored the laws of the land or purposefully tried to destroy it depending on the mood, it’s refusal to reconcile with the first people of the land is what has landed is where we are today.
If sovereignty comes by right of heredity, then we need to strike an accord between the two competing claims. If sovereignty come by way of ‘might makes right’ then the oppressed claimants should violently revolt, we will have a war in the streets and one will be left standing. Or we could revolutionise our understanding of sovereignty, reject heredity all together and recognise that sovereignty stems from the people alone. The only other option is that we try and muddle through, each make some concessions to each other.
It is less “might makes right” than “might is reality” when it comes to sovereignty in my view.
Look at our anti-protest laws and tell me with a straight face that our sovereignty is granted by the people and not by the States ability to enforce its will through the exclusive use of violence within its borders.
As for your suggestion of violent rebellion, well that’s exactly how sovereignty is taken but if you’re being realistic we both know that isn’t possible.
In my opinion this talk of sovereignty only harms public opinion of reconciliation efforts.
Tell me, in Arnhem land if someone is murdered which legal system deals with the murderer? Your answer tells us all we need to know about the reality of sovereignty.
I can tell you that in Tiwi the disconnects between who deals with what crime is a constant source of conflict between elder leadership and federal police. Quite often the police said ‘oh it’s black on black violence, you lot sort it out.’
The talk of reconciliation is literally dealing with issues like this. Sovereignty. Traditional Law. Cultural Recognition. Until it’s dealt with there can be no true reconciliation.
I totally get what you’re saying with regards to the state’s exclusive right to violence but in a lot of places this murkiness between what the law says and what people do is such a powder keg.
PS. I’m not downvoting you, or even trying to be rude or abrasive, just trying to lend you my own perspective and experiences.
I find that interesting because that is at odds with the Australian Government’s view of where it’s sovereignty stems from.
In Australia we have two competing claims to sovereignty by right of heredity over the continent: that of the Crown and of Indigenous peoples.
But what you’re suggesting is essentially ‘might makes right.’ I control this land therefore I am sovereign.
In Arnhem Land and other locations, where Indigenous people only came into contact with Europeans in the 20th century, their law remains the predominant legal system.
Those pockets of uninterrupted continuity of law and culture have enabled Indigenous peoples Australia-wide to refuse to be erased, despite the weight the nation has thrown behind the elimination of their culture.
You’re right that the Australian state’s legitimacy does not rest upon a treaty with First Nations. In a constitutional monarchy, both the Crown and the parliament borrow their authority from a combination of heredity and the people: the Crown by consent and heredity, and the parliament through the electoral process.
First Nations are not recognised as nation states under international law. But that legal system was authored by those same nation states whose invading colonies are founded on Indigenous lands and now draw their authority from them.
The phrase “sovereignty was never ceded” might sound like a rabble-rousing protest line, but it’s deeper than that. White Australia landed on top of black Australia and then either ignored the laws of the land or purposefully tried to destroy it depending on the mood, it’s refusal to reconcile with the first people of the land is what has landed is where we are today.
If sovereignty comes by right of heredity, then we need to strike an accord between the two competing claims. If sovereignty come by way of ‘might makes right’ then the oppressed claimants should violently revolt, we will have a war in the streets and one will be left standing. Or we could revolutionise our understanding of sovereignty, reject heredity all together and recognise that sovereignty stems from the people alone. The only other option is that we try and muddle through, each make some concessions to each other.
It is less “might makes right” than “might is reality” when it comes to sovereignty in my view.
Look at our anti-protest laws and tell me with a straight face that our sovereignty is granted by the people and not by the States ability to enforce its will through the exclusive use of violence within its borders.
As for your suggestion of violent rebellion, well that’s exactly how sovereignty is taken but if you’re being realistic we both know that isn’t possible.
In my opinion this talk of sovereignty only harms public opinion of reconciliation efforts.
Tell me, in Arnhem land if someone is murdered which legal system deals with the murderer? Your answer tells us all we need to know about the reality of sovereignty.
I can tell you that in Tiwi the disconnects between who deals with what crime is a constant source of conflict between elder leadership and federal police. Quite often the police said ‘oh it’s black on black violence, you lot sort it out.’
The talk of reconciliation is literally dealing with issues like this. Sovereignty. Traditional Law. Cultural Recognition. Until it’s dealt with there can be no true reconciliation.
I totally get what you’re saying with regards to the state’s exclusive right to violence but in a lot of places this murkiness between what the law says and what people do is such a powder keg.
PS. I’m not downvoting you, or even trying to be rude or abrasive, just trying to lend you my own perspective and experiences.