In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. But, as the little boy pointing at the emperor knew, telling the truth is often the first trickle that sets in motion the tide that sweeps away an Augean stable worth of horseshit. Which is why authoritarians are so determined to ruthlessly stamp on anyone who starts telling the truth and calling out bullshit.
Melbourne lawyer Lana Collaris is fast finding that out.
At every meeting of the Victorian Bar Council, president Georgina Schoff acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which the meeting is held and pays her respects to elders past, present and emerging.
At a recent meeting, I decided to acknowledge all Australians.
Cue the collective meltdown from the Collective.
I posted the minutes on social media and was promptly labelled a “racist”, a “visitor” and an “introduced species”. I was publicly condemned by two of my fellow Bar councillors and was told by the Indigenous Justice Committee that I had brought the Victorian Bar into disrepute.
Well, I guess the last thing the legal profession wants is someone telling the truth.
Australians are told that acknowledgments of country are about showing respect to “First Nations” people and the rich cultural history and connection to country they have developed over more than 60,000 years of living on this great land.
This may be a great land, but nearly every other word of that statement is arrant bullshit. “More than 60,000 years”? This claim expands by a few millennia a week. By this time next year, we’ll be told that Aborigines predated the Cambrian Explosion.
As for the absolute bollocks of “First Nations”… for all that it’s, apparently from nowhere, suddenly become near-ubiquitous doesn’t make it any less a lie.
The term First Nations deserves attention. A nation is a distinct political society. Therefore the term First Nations suggests there was once a number of distinct political societies, separated from the others, that lived upon our land and were the first nations.
While the existence of tribes or clans at the time of British settlement is an established fact, the notion there were “nations” by any definition cannot be established. The idea has also been rejected by the High Court of Australia and is accordingly wrong in law: Coe v Commonwealth [1979] HCA 68 at [12].
To whit:
It is not possible to say, as was said by Marshall CJ, at p. 16, of the Cherokee Nation, that the aboriginal people of Australia are organised as a “distinct political society separated from others”, or that they have been uniformly treated as a state... he contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain.
The first nation on this continent came into being on January 1st, 1901. Before that, there was British colonies, before that, a patchwork of tribes, clans and family bands of hunter-gatherers. No matter how much that offends the contemporary ‘indigenous culture’ vultures, that remains an indisputable fact.
But there’s a method to the bullshit. A very devious, dangerous method.
The term First Nations is wrongly used to strengthen the claims of the “sovereignty was never ceded” and “always was, always will be” movement, and to give some Indigenous people of today, who seek to make treaties with the states of Australia, the appearance of some kind of legal standing.
Too many of the sort of people who sanctimoniously parrot such catch-phrases have no idea what the words they’re using actually mean. Sovereignty is a very clear concept in law: the supreme, indivisible law-making power over a defined territory. Proclaiming that Aboriginal “sovereignty” was “never ceded” is an outright statement that the Commonwealth is not the sovereign power in Australia.
As for treaties: sovereign states cannot, by definition, enter into treaties with their own citizens. Treaties are agreements between sovereign states.
Therefore, anyone proposing an “Aboriginal treaty” is tacitly proclaiming that Aborigines are a legally separate sovereign power. Whether that sovereign power occupies some parts of the Australian continent, or its entirety, means that non-Aboriginal Australians are effectively stateless non-citizens, in whole or part.
Not only would such a two-tiered legal system be antithetical to equality and the rule of law, but the real-world consequences are unknown, would be without precedent and are not currently the subject of any public discussion.
Because they know that, just as happened in the Voice referendum, as soon as we’re allowed to talk about it, everyone sees through the bullshit in an instant.
Acknowledgments of country are not about showing “respect”. They are political statements signalling support for a two-tiered system based on race. They have no place in the law, including in our courtrooms, and the average Australian instinctively knows this. A colleague recently told me that when court commenced with an acknowledgment of country, their client immediately felt the judge would take a view against them and lost any notion of receiving a fair trial. This is what happens when the legal system infects itself with politics.
For as long as people continue to make political statements by way of acknowledgments of country, I will continue to acknowledge all Australians, signalling my support for an Australia where we are all equal and subject to the same laws regardless of our race.
Why, what are you? A racist?
