Dare to be wise: Decolonisation underpins the Sovereign Treaties processes

pdf 'Dare to be wise' - Decolonisation pdf
Decolonisation underpins the Sovereign Treaties processes
in contrast to 'Recognise' which fosters assimilation

Copy of Letter from Sovereign Union to Secretary General of the UN

(This is 40 page document written by Ghillar, Michael Anderson and hand delivered to the Secretary General of the United Nations in New York on 16th June 2016 - On this page is the cover letter with an extract following it. Download the pdf file for the complete document.)

His Excellency Ban Ki-moon
Secretary General of the United Nations
United Nations Building
SA-1b15 New York
New York 10027 USA

16 June 2016

Your Excellency


I am forwarding you my analysis of the fact that the Commonwealth Government in Australia is still a self-governing colony of Britain and since colonialism is deemed to be a crime against humanity, it is time that the United Nations supports First Nations Peoples in our endeavours to free ourselves from 'the yoke of error'. The British invasion in 1788, under the cover of the Papal Bulls that established the Doctrine of Discovery, causes the Australians and the British to cover up the fact that Australia is technically a self governing colony of the UK, with one of the worse cases of an horrendous history to exterminate our Peoples.

Ghillar, Michael Anderson at the United Nations building in New York, on 16th June 2016, explaining the reasons why he wrote the essay 'Dare to be wise' and the need for Decolonisation.

Now the Australian Government is forcefully attempting to coerce the Australian people into assimilating our people through a referendum to include us into their colonial constitution without our prior free informed consent.

This Report that I have written is a description of Australia and its international wrongful acts against its Native population that continue unabated. You will note that Australia is the only western country that has been put on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) early warning and urgent action list. On top of this, Australia refused a visa for the UN CERD Rapporteur, Ms Gay MCDougall, to enter the country to see for herself what was happening.

The reports that Aboriginal people keep providing to the UN on the inhumane practices that continues must surely raise concerns. To say that the UN can only respond to loss of life, I say this: our people are dying at an alarming rate of preventable diseases; youth suicide is the worst in the world; 17,000 children have forcibly been removed from their mothers and families; racism has increased; people are being denied welfare aide because their children don't attend schools; government stores in remote and isolated communities (the only stores) charge exorbitant charges for food and basic essentials, causing the people to move away from their traditional homelands; Elders die because of the forced removal from the homelands; the Intervention is a Military take over of Traditional lands; and the people are being forced to re-settle on the edges of white townships as paupers. The list goes on.

We have no need to loose blood, we lose it already on a daily bases. We are indeed refugees in our own country.

Our call is for the UN to pay real attention to our situation. Diplomacy is one thing but, to have the UN deal with issues of this under the mat, does nothing to lift the spirits of a subjugated people by a colonial tyranny.


Michael Anderson
Convenor of Sovereign Union of First Nations and Peoples in Australia
and Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic
Mogila Station, Goodooga NSW 2838, 0499 080 660

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summary of attachment:

Delivered to the United Nations in by Ghillar, Michael Anderson,
16 June 2016


Decolonisation underpins the Sovereign Treaties processes
in contrast to 'Recognise' which fosters assimilation


The UN Special Committee of Decolonisation has now set its sights on including Australia in the revised decolonisation list, partly influenced by our recent Unilateral Declarations of Independence (UDIs) and our continued communications with the United Nations and other international bodies with like-minded Aboriginal political thinkers and advocates for "The International Sovereignty Movement", who fight to overcome the consequences of the papal 'Doctrine of Discovery".

The imperative for Australia to decolonise was subtly concealed in the High Court Mabo (No. 2) judgment, instead the Court repeatedly supported its colonial foundation, rather than bringing Australia into line with the contemporary rule of international law. The Court itself, having realised the problems, failed its fiduciary obligations to proclaim the urgent need to decolonise in accordance with modern decrees of international law.

When the judges used the phrases 'skeletal principle', 'fracturing the skeleton of principle' and 'skeleton of principle', the Court is screaming for a political solution. The Court's only recourse in this case was to make a political decision to uphold its own colonial foundation, in preference to admitting it is time to bring Australia into the modern era, in which colonisation, in all its manifestations, is condemned. The 1960 United Nations General Assembly resolution on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
… Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
And to this end
Declares that:

1.   The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of co-operation and world peace … all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their Sovereignty, and the integrity of their national territory.

[UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 [xv] The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 947th plenary meeting, 14 December 1960]

In order to break the impasse, it is not a necessary requirement that First Nations and Peoples in Australia be 'recognised' in the Australian Constitution. To pursue the 'recognise campaign' through Constitutional recognition will only serve to totally diminish our rights as the sovereign First Nations and Peoples of the soil with the right to our own identity. I am Euahlayi and Gomeroi, not Australian. It is my inherent sovereign right to express who I am. The desired ambition of the Australian Government is to completely assimilate the First Nations and Peoples into a non-Aboriginal Australia. The success of such a campaign completely obliterates any notion of the independence of the First Nations and Peoples and would end our right to retain our independent national identities such as Gomeroi, Yidinji, Mbarbrum, Murrawarri, Wiradjuri, Euahlayi, and Yorta Yorta.

If First Nations and their Peoples fail to ward off the assimilationist recognition in the colonial Constitution, First Nations and their Peoples will be subsumed into this illegal structure derived from Britain. The more First Nations and Peoples make Unilateral Declarations of Independence (UDIs), the clearer our sovereign position becomes to the international community. Supported by pressure from the international community, Australia, in right of the Crown, will finally be forced to decolonise, as all other former British colonies have done.

Australia's fear of being decolonised was expressed in 1998 by the Samuel Griffith Society of Constitutional lawyers when Dr Stephen Davis delivered his paper Native Title: A Path to Sovereignty to former Prime Minister John Howard:

The issue of domestic sovereignty is set to dominate future international discussion of indigenous rights, and discussions made by the United Nations, together with precedents in other countries, could potentially change the map of this country. Land rights and native title in Australia are examples of a very dynamic debate which is open ended, and which can be simply linked to international conventions and trends to develop a credible basis for a range of outcomes with far reaching irreversible consequences.

Australians tend to take their sovereignty for granted. That sovereignty is now being contested. We must become more aware of the issues, the players and be prepared to defend our sovereignty if we are to maintain it. 

[Davis, Stephen 1998, Native Title; A Path to Sovereignty, ]

The Australian government in right of the Crown is working feverishly to deceitfully acquire the total patrimony of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples without them knowing of the profound consequences that will befall all First Nations and Peoples, a disaster with much more devastation than the original invasion.

Constitutional recognition is the Federal government's move to shut down the Sovereignty Movement, for Australia now fears for its own existence.
The recent legal argument from a senior lawyer runs like this:

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia establishes the Commonwealth of Australia as a Colony of Britain. Colonialism is an international Crime Against Humanity. This Constitution was a Bill of the British Parliament, never signed by the Monarch. Instead, the monarch signed a separate document, referring to the Parliament's Bill. The Constitution was a mere appendix to this British Bill. Thus, the Constitution has the legal status of Letters Patent from the Crown.

Although the Constitution itself provides that it can be amended only by a process of referendum, in fact it has been amended many times by Letters Patent of the Crown. For example, when Australia was to have a female Governor-general, the gender words were amended without referendum to include a female occupant of the post of Governor-General. Thus, it is not a constitution of the people of Australia. It is a Royal Decree of another country.

The Constitution refers to the appointment of people as Ministers, but nowhere does it refer to, express, or provide, for the appointment of any person as Prime Minister. It does vest the Executive Power in the Queen, to be exercisable by the Governor-General. Monarchs customarily have a Prime Minister, a Chancellor, or similar high Ministerial official. Thus, there is an ambiguity in the Constitution as to whether or not it provides for the position of Prime Minister. Since there is an ambiguity, the rules of construction may be used to interpret the document. The rule of construction expressio unius personae vel rei est exclusio alterius, (The express mention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another - Coke Litt. 210a), applies in this case. Thus, the express mention of the position of a person as minister, without any mention of a person appointed as prime minister, means that according to this Constitution there is to be no person appointed as Prime Minister of Australia.

The concluding argument is best illustrated by the Lord Chancellor of the UK's answer to a question on Australia in the British parliament in 1995:

The British Constitution Act 1900 was for self government. It was never intended to be and is not suitable to be the basis for independence. The right to repeal this Act remains the sole prerogative of the United Kingdom. There is no means by which under United Kingdom or international law this power can be transferred to a foreign country or Member State of the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Charter precludes any such action.

The above is the summary to a 40 page document attached to the letter - the entire document is below for downloading.

pdf 'Dare to be wise' - Decolonisation pdf
Decolonisation underpins the Sovereign Treaties processes
in contrast to 'Recognise' which fosters assimilation