Mutiny: Imprisonment, Deaths in Custody and the NT Intervention

 

 

This month is the 7th anniversary of Mutiny Zine! Mutiny are an anarchist collective based in Sydney. The zine that they produce explores  ideas about anarchist thought and practice, as well as different avenues of disobedience and resistance. Mutiny are also closely associated with Jura Books, which is well worth a visit if you ever happen to find yourself in Sydney-town.

The following piece – which is based on a previous post hereon -  appears in the latest Issue of Mutiny Zine, # 69. Thank you to the Mutiny crew for the opportunity to share info and stories about Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and institutionalised racism, and congratulations on your 7th anniversary -  keeping a radical project alive for this length of time is no small feat.

 

Imprisonment, Deaths in Custody and the NT Intervention

 

THE CENTRAL FINDING OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ABORIGINAL DEATHS IN CUSTODY WAS THAT ABORIGINAL PEOPLE DIE IN CUSTODY AT A RATE RELATIVE TO THEIR CUSTODIAL POPULATION. HOWEVER, ‘THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION IS GROSSLY OVER-REPRESENTED IN CUSTODY. TOO MANY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ARE IN CUSTODY TOO OFTEN.

 

THE ROYAL COMMISSION FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO WAYS OF TACKLING THE PROBLEM OF THE DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN CUSTODY. THE FIRST WAS TO REFORM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; THE SECOND APPROACH WAS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS WHICH BRING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE INTO CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM – THE UNDERLYING ISSUES RELATING TO OVER-REPRESENTATION. THE COMMISSION ARGUED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION MUST UNDERLIE BOTH AREAS OF REFORM. IN PARTICULAR THE RESOLUTION OF ABORIGINAL DISADVANTAGE COULD ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION.

 

* * *

 

On the evening of January 4th, Kwementyaye joined a large group of friends in the vicinity of Flynn Oval, which is approximately 5kms from the centre of town in Alice Springs.

Constable Gareth Evans began walking towards the group, wanting “to see if they had any information about an alleged fight at the shops.” [i] When he was half way across the oval, however, one of the young women in the group shouted out to the others and they all began to disperse. Constable Evans called for back-up on his radio and began to pursue the group on foot. He jumped a fence and began to jog after a smaller breakaway group of five or six. At the back of that group was Kwementyaye, “and when he got close to a large iron gate beside the school, he slipped on the bitumen or dirt and fell.” When Kwementyaye got up, he had a cut above his left eye, described as a “laceration above his eyes that had burst. There was fresh blood around the cut but it wasn’t gushing or dripping down his face.”

After this initial “fall” Kwementyaye got to his feet and allegedly started swearing. Constable Evans then allegedly gave him a direction to “take a step back” which Kwementyaye allegedly ignored. Constable Evans then “pushed him in the chest with an open left hand, causing him to stumble and fall into the gate, before falling forward.” Kwementyaye was then secured on the ground using a three point hold position, which involves placing one knee on the side of his shoulder and securing his right hand behind his back. Keep in mind that Kwementyaye was not even suspected of having committed a crime. He was taken into Protective Custody because he was deemed too intoxicated to look after himself.

Upon arrival Kwementyaye was placed in an observation cell with two other men. Approximately thirty minutes later he was ordered to come out from the cell to join four or five other detainees who were being processed in reception. On the way into the corridor towards reception, Kwementyaye swayed slightly, turned back and grabbed the door handle, appearing then to lean in to get his shirt that was left on a bench. Constable Evans noticed that Kwementyaye wasn’t following behind the others and “he took him by his wrist to escort him to reception. While Kwementyaye was being escorted his legs went out from under him and he fell forward onto the floor.”

Kwementyaye was then dragged by Constable Evans into the reception area where he was left sprawled out on the floor. A number of other detainees were being processed around him. Kwementyaye lay on the floor for several minutes before Constable Evans “took a pen and applied pressure to his fingernail to see if he would respond to a pain stimulus, a technique he learnt while working as a security officer at a Hospital.” CCTV footage shows that Constable Evans left Kwementyaye lying face down on the ground as he walked away.

 

* * *

 

IN UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF IMPRISONMENT, CUNNEEN WRITES, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS TO GRASP IS THAT A RISING IMPRISONMENT RATE IS NOT DIRECTLY OR SIMPLY RELATED TO AN INCREASE IN CRIME. THE USE OF PRISON IS A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT: IT REFLECTS GOVERNMENT POLICY AND LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING. GOVERNMENTS MAKE CHOICES THAT EITHER DIRECTLY IMPACT ON THE USE OF IMPRISONMENT (FOR EXAMPLE, LEGISLATION COVERING SUCH MATTERS AS STANDARD NON-PAROLE PERIODS, MANDATORY SENTENCING, MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES, ETC) OR LESS INDIRECTLY (FOR EXAMPLE, AVAILABILITY OF NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCING OPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOUR OF BAIL, AVAILABILITY OF PAROLE, ETC). [ii]

 

* * *

 

At one stage Kwementyaye was clearly emotionally distressed and can be seen on the CCTV footage to be sobbing and groaning. He was incapable of taking his own shoes off and he lay on the floor barely moving while another detainee took them off for him at the request of police. The CCTV shows Kwementyaye lying on the floor for several minutes while several officers walk around him, concerning themselves with the other things. As he lay there, police were joined by Sergeant William McDonell, who was performing the role of Watch House Commander. He appeared untroubled by Kwementyaye’s state, in spite of observing a smear of blood on the reception floor caused by a laceration above Kwementyaye’s right eye. Sergeant McDonnell merely cleaned up the blood smear, asked who Kwementyaye was and ordered him to get up. Kwementyaye did not respond, but Sen Sgt McDonnell was then distracted by another detainee and he left the area.

After repeated commands from Constable Evans to get up, Kwementyaye managed with some difficulty to lift his weight up onto the bench seat, but he was obviously unsteady and lacked control of his faculties. Soon after he sat down on the bench, he got up and leant against the wall. “He was then sat back down, firmly but fairly by Constable Evans.” Kwementyaye stood up again, but this time, “instead of firmly guiding him again or giving him a stern verbal direction, Constable Evans pushed him hard with an open hand and sent him sprawling backwards into the wall.”

After the push, Kwementyaye “looked upset and picked up a blue plastic property box that was between him and another prisoner. He did so in a drunken manner, and the plastic box was easily taken from him by an older man seated beside him who was being processed as a protective custody.” Constable Evans looked relatively unperturbed and motioned for Kwementyaye to put the box down. Kwementyaye stood up with a clenched fist, although his arm and fist stayed down by his side. In response, Constable Evans “grabbed him by the arm and slung him towards the reception counter with undue vigour, causing Kwementyaye to hit his arm and head on that surface.”

 

* * *

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CONSTITUTES SOCIAL GROUPS AS THREATS,’ CUNNEEN WRITES, ‘AND REPRODUCES A SOCIETY BUILT ON RACIALISED BOUNDARIES. INDEED IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE PROCESS OF CRIMINALISATION ITSELF NOW CONSTITUTES A SIGNIFICANT RACIALISING DISCOURSE – THAT IS WE UNDERSTAND RACE THROUGH DISCOURSES ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, AND WE UNDERSTAND CRIME AND PUNISHMENT THROUGH IMAGES OF RACE.  THE NORTHERN TERRITORY INTERVENTION PROVIDES A PARTICULARLY GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF INDIGENOUS MEN IN PARTICULAR AS SEXUAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSERS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. SUCH ABUSE WAS ALSO LINKED TO TRADITIONAL ABORIGINAL CULTURE. AN INCREASED CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE WAS SEEN AS APPROPRIATE TO DEALING WITH THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM AND INDIGENOUS IMPRISONMENT RATES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY HAVE CONTINUED TO INCREASE DRAMATICALLY.

 

* * *

 

Kwementyaye was then spread out on the ground and searched by Constable Evans, assisted by Constable Blansjaar and Constable Grey. It is apparent from the CCTV footage that where his head was positioned, a small pool of blood formed from the leaking wound above his eye brow. Kwementyaye was then carried face down to Cell 9 by the three officers, with one on each arm and one picking up his legs. Prison officer Parker hurriedly threw a mattress into the cell on an awkward angle which stretched diagonally across the two concrete slabs in the room, and Kwementyaye was placed faced down at the same angle without anyone moving the mattress into a more comfortable position.

When Kwementyaye was carried along the corridor, blood from the head wound fell in droplets on the floor. That drew the attention of four or five sober prisoners in cell 16 who saw the blood and called out to the officers, telling them that the man they saw should be taken to hospital. After being placed on his mattress Kwementyaye was left alone in Cell 9. What happened next was captured on CCTV. Seconds after being placed on the mattress, he rolled onto his back and hit his head on the concrete bench. A minute later he attempted to stand up but fell hard onto the bench, hitting his head again. At 10.14pm, he attempted to sit up but fell and landed face down with his head and chest on the bench and the rest of his body on the floor.

Soon after Kwementyaye was placed into Cell 9, Prison officer Parker began a series of brief but regular checks, which involved her standing in the corridor and looking in to confirm that he was breathing. Prisoners in Cell 16 were watching from their vantage point and, once again, expressed their concern that Kwementyaye needed immediate medical care. In her own words, this was Prison officer Parker’s response: “I just turned around and I might have been out of line when I said it but I just turned and said, ‘Well, youse all carry on like this when youse are drunk,’ and you know, ‘And when youse are sober you just want to be nice to us,’ then I – I think I’ve walked off.”

At around 11pm the evening Watch House shift changed over to the overnight shift.

Over the next two hours, the two officers on duty rarely left their desks; only three cell checks were done by Constables O’Keefe and Kershaw. In evidence they admitted being distracted from their duties ‘by various things, including an iphone, an ipod and the internet.’ The officers also failed to respond to the distress calls made by prisoners in Cell 16, who could see and hear that Kwementyaye was in trouble.

 

* * *

 

INCREASED POLICE NUMBERS IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES WAS A KEY MEASURE OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY INTERVENTION (2007). THIS HAS TRANSLATED INTO OVER-POLICING, RACIAL PROFILING AND A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF ARRESTS. AS ALTMAN AND HINKSON NOTE OF CENTRAL AUSTRALIA, ‘MANY ARE FOR VEHICLE RELATED OFFENCES. MANY OTHERS RESULT FROM ANOTHER OF THE INTERVENTION’S MEASURES—THE OUTLAWING OF CUSTOMARY LAW, ESPECIALLY THE USE OF PAYBACK TO SETTLE DISPUTES. WHEN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ATTEMPT TO USE THEIR OWN CUSTOMARY MEASURES TO RESOLVE SIGNIFICANT TRANSGRESSIONS, POLICE WHO ONCE TURNED A BLIND EYE ARE NOW LEGALLY OBLIGED NOT TO DO SO. [iii]’

 

* * *

 

At 11.44pm, prisoner Warren McDonald activated the call button in his cell. It is clear from CCTV footage that he and other prisoners were looking across to Kwementyaye in Cell 9. The Coroner writes that, “it is likely that the prisoners in Cell 16 were seeing Kwementyaye in the last moments he was alive and at the last opportunity police had to save his life. I heard from Warren and Kyle McDonald and from Mr Impu that they could hear distressing noises from Cell 9, described by the men as coughing, gasping and choking. A review of CCTV footage shows that the last movement of Kwementyaye’s body was a very slight twitching of his limbs, at 11.42pm, just two minutes before the call button was activated.”

The call rang three times over several minutes. Constable O’Keefe answered the call a few minutes later, however, he hung up the receiver, “because when he glanced up at the CCTV screen in front of him and could see that the prisoners in cell 16 were seated back on their mattresses.”

The prisoners gave evidence that they also tried to get the attention of police on more than one occasion, by calling out. The report notes that, Officer Kershaw had “shut the door between the corridor and reception area, in order to block out the noise of a prisoner who was at the end of the row of cells where Kwementyaye was housed.”

When Sen. Sgt Barram returned to the Watch House at 1.30am, he commenced a round of cell checks and at 1.41 am, he noticed that Kwementyaye had not moved from the position he had last seen him in at 11pm. The Watch House Commander moved straight to Cell 9, entered it and found that Kwementyaye was not breathing. He yelled for an ambulance to be called and commenced CPR, but his body was cold. According to the Coroner’s report, “he had probably passed away around two hours earlier.”

In October 2012 Deputy Chief Minister Robyn Lambley ruled out taking disciplinary action against any of the Police officers involved. This is the story of so many Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. All the facts and figures in the world cannot account for this level of institutionalised racism. There is nothing post- about colonialism in Australia.

* * *

 

ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE COMPRISE 2.5% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION IN AUSTRALIA, & YET THEY COMPRISE 26% OF THE TOTAL PRISON POPULATION.

 

 

ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE COMPRISE 32% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY, & YET THEY COMPRISE 82% OF THE NT PRISON POPULATION.

 

 

THE IMPRISONMENT RATE OF ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE HAS RISEN 46% IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY IN THE PAST DECADE & CONTINUES TO RISE. [iv]

REST IN PEACE KWEMENTYAYE BRISCOE & ALL WHO HAVE DIED AT THE HANDS OF POLICE WHILE IN CUSTODY.

 

 

 

---

[i] All in-line quotations taken from the Coroner’s Report: http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/courtsupp/coroner/inquestlist.shtml

[ii] Chris Cunneen (2011)

[iii] Jon Altman & Melinda Hinkson (2012)

[iv] Bureau of Statistics (2011)

 

 

More exclusion please: Gove Land Rights (1971) and Justice Blackburn’s ruling against Yolŋu claimants

 

 

The Gove Land Rights case – Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, (1971) 17 FLR 141 – was the first litigation on Native Title in Australia. Justice Blackburn ruled against the Yolngu claimants on a number of issues, rejecting the doctrine of Aboriginal Title in favor of terra nullius. His ruling says a great deal about the Balanda (white people, European) concept of ‘private property’ and the social relations that comprise it.

 

‘I think that property, in its many forms, generally implies the right to use or enjoy, the right to exclude others, and the right to alienate. I do not say that all these rights must co-exist before there can be a proprietary interest, or deny that each of them may be subject to qualifications. But by this standard I do not think that I can characterize the relationship of the clan to the land as proprietary.

 

It makes little sense to say that the clan has the right to use or enjoy the land. Its members have a right, and so do members of other clans, to use and enjoy the land of their own clan and other land also. The greatest extent to which it is true that the clan as such has the right to use and enjoy the clan territory is that the clan may, in a sense in which other clans may not (save with permission or under special rules), perform ritual ceremonies on the land. That the clan has a duty to the land-to care for it-is another matter. This is not without parallels in our law, which sometimes imposes duties of such a kind on a proprietor. But this resemblance is not, or at any rate is only in a very slight degree, an indication of a proprietary interest.

 

The clan’s right to exclude others is not apparent: indeed it is denied by the existence of the claims of the plaintiffs represented by Daymbalipu. Again, the greatest extent to which this right can be said to exist is in the realm of ritual. But it was never suggested that ritual rules ever excluded members of other clans completely from clan territory; the exclusion was only from sites. The right to alienate is expressly repudiated by the plaintiffs in their statement of claim.

 

In my opinion, therefore, there is so little resemblance between property, as our law, or what I know of any other law, understands that term, and the claims of the plaintiffs for their clans, that I must hold that these claims are not in the nature of proprietary interests.

 

That disposes of the question in general terms, but it is proper also to consider the applicability of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1966. That Act does not define “property” but defines ” interest,” in relation to land, as “(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land; or (b) a right, power or privilege over, or in connexion with, the land” (s. 5 (1)). The earlier Act had substantially the same definition, applied to “land,” with the inclusion of the word “easement.”

 

The Solicitor-General submitted shortly (the point, in his submission, did not require extensive argument) that the Act does not apply to any interest other than one already known to the law of property at the time when the Act was passed.  It therefore could not protect the plaintiffs’ interests. I do not think I need decide the theoretical question whether a proprietary interest of a new kind which was created, or held to exist, after the passing of the Act, would be protected by it. Mr. Woodward submitted that the words “right, power, or privilege over, or in connexion with, the land” were wide enough to cover “communal native title” which was shown by the evidence to be vested in the Rirratjingu and the Gumatj in respect of the land attributed to their respective clans. With respect, I think this is begging the question. It amounts to saying that whenever aboriginal natives are found in occupation of land under a system which does not recognize private property in land, that is “communal native title,” and that that alone is sufficient to attract the protection of the words “right, power, or privilege over, or in connexion with, the land” in the Act.’

 

 

- Federal Law Report, Milirrpum and other v. Nabalco Pty. Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia (1971, pp. 272-273)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations to Traditional Owners of Koongarra, Kakadu.

 

Jeffrey Lee

 

Jeffrey Lee and Traditional Owners of Koongarra and surrounds have shown such integrity and strength in their collective struggle to protect their Country. Congratulations and much respect – Koongarra and Djok lands set to be protected as part of Kakadu National Park. The following statements are from Jeff Lee and Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation.

 

Statement by Djok Senior Traditional Owner, Jeffrey Lee AM, 6 February 2013

‘This is a great day for me, my country and my culture. My mind is at peace now that I know that there will be no mining at Koongarra and that Djok lands will be protected forever in Kakadu National Park. My mothers and grandmothers who taught me about the plants and animals, my uncles and aunties who shared their knowledge, to all the elders and my creation ancestors – I give my humble respect for standing here today.

I have said no to uranium mining at Koongarra because I believe that the land and my cultural beliefs are more important than mining and money. Money comes and goes, but the land is always here, it always stays if we look after it and it will look after us. So many people have helped me along the way. Firstly, I want to thank the Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke, for his determination to see this finally done. I also want to thank the Mirarr people and especially the senior traditional owner, Yvonne Margarula, and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation. They have stood by me and showed me that Aboriginal people can say no. I hope that one day Kakadu National Park will be truly complete with the Mirarr lands at Ranger and Jabiluka included in the national park.

There are too many people to thank. Special thanks to my family Stephen, Jacqui & Mai Katona; Dave Lindner, Ian Conroy, Tony Heenan & my Kakadu friends; Gareth Lewis, Richard Ledgar, Rian Rombouts; Dave Sweeney and Justin O’Brien, Clare and Darcy Henderson, Peter Garrett, Trish Crossin, Peter Wellings, Chris Haynes, Peter Cochrane, Clare Martin, the Northern Land Council, The Greens, The Australian Democrats, the NT Environment Centre and Larry and Gabrielle O’Loughlin. I also thank those people in the early days from the 1970s who also offered their support. I thank the journalists and film makers who took the time to listen to my story and then told it so that others could hear.

To all the Aboriginal people from Australia and Indigenous peoples from overseas that have supported me and to all those that go on to fight for your own rights – I thank you. All the people that have written to me from across Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Italy and other parts of the world – thank you. To all the people who I have not met and who I know are out there helping others to stand up and say no, I thank you because you have always been there. I sincerely thank the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for respecting the values of my country and culture and to the Australian and Northern Territory governments for supporting the inclusion of the Koongarra area into Kakadu National Park.

This has been a very long and difficult struggle for me. I have gone through a lot of trouble and heartache and waited a long time to see this day. However, the fact that I am here today proves that if you are true to your culture and to your land one day you will win.’

 

 

Media Statement from Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation: Koongarra Set For Permanent Protection (6 February 2013)

Mirarr Traditional Aboriginal Owners today welcomed Environment Minister Tony Burke’s introduction of a bill which clears the way for the incorporation of the Koongarra area into Kakadu National Park. This move recognises the long held Aboriginal aspiration to protect this unique area from the threat of uranium mining.

The introduction of the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill was also welcomed by the Djok Senior Traditional Owner of the Koongarra area, Jeffrey Lee AM. Mr Lee was in the Federal Parliament to witness the introduction of the bill, accompanied by a delegation representing the Mirarr. Jeffrey Lee was awarded the Order of Australia in 2012 in recognition of his work to protect his country and gift it to the nation. He has firmly opposed uranium mining on his country on the grounds of the deep cultural significance of Koongarra to its Traditional Owners and concerns about the dangers of uranium.

In his long struggle to protect his country Mr Lee has drawn inspiration from Yvonne Margarula, the Senior Traditional Owner of the neighbouring Mirarr people. Since the 1990s Yvonne Margarula has led the Mirarr opposition to the proposed Jabiluka mine, north of Koongarra and the existing Ranger uranium mine also on Mirarr land. Ms Margarula spearheaded the international campaign against mining at Jabiluka. Her resolve and leadership guided the campaign and prompted a special UNESCO mission, resolutions in the European Parliament and US Congress and several Australian parliamentary inquiries. In the late 1990s Ms Margarula won several prestigious international awards in recognition of her work to protect her country.

In 2001, the Rio Tinto majority owned mining company Energy Resources of Australia acknowledged the opposition of the Mirarr traditional owners and agreed to halt work at Jabiluka. Ms Margarula said, “Traditional Owners must be allowed to make their own decisions about development on their country. Jeffrey has been speaking out to protect his country and we support him. He has always said no to mining at Koongarra and we support him when he says he wants to see that country put into the National Park. We want to see the same protection for Mirarr country.”

The Mirarr people have this month executed a renegotiated agreement for the existing Ranger mine, which was imposed on them in 1978. This agreement, along with provisions of the federal Atomic Energy Act, provides for the Ranger area to also be included into Kakadu National Park as the mine is rehabilitated. The executive officer of Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, Justin O’Brien, said, “This action by the government is to be applauded, although the name of the bill incorrectly implies that this completes the national park. There is further work to be done and we still look forward to the day when all of Kakadu is included in the National Park and adequately protected from unwanted industrial development.”

 

 

 

These statements can be found on The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation website.

 

Laying it down, impressing it in place: the separation and/or authority of morality and ‘law’

 

Repatriated image from The Mulka Project.

 

Yolŋu people share a well articulated local theory of morality and value, comprised of local shared understandings, of local terms and concepts. This local theory is not radically marked by the distinction between ‘personal’ and ‘impersonal’ social fields and social relations. The foundation of rom (‘proper manner of doing things, custom, law’) is that of both morality and law.

 

Moral: mid-14c., ‘pertaining to character or temperament’ (good or bad), from Old French moral (14c.) and directly from Latin moralis ‘proper behavior of a person in society,’ literally, ‘pertaining to manners,’ coined by Cicero (‘De Fato,’ II.i) to translate Greek ethikos (see ethics) from Latin mos (gen. moris) ‘one’s disposition’ – in plural, ‘mores, customs, manners, morals,’ of uncertain origin.

 

Law: Old English lagu (plural laga, comb. form lah-) ‘law, ordinance, rule, regulation; district governed by the same laws,’ from Old Norse *lagu ‘law,’ collective plural of lag ‘layer, measure, stroke,’ literally ‘something laid down or fixed,’ from Proto Germanic. *lagan ‘put, lay’ (see lay). (Replaced Old English æ and gesetnes, which had the same sense development as law. Cf. also statute, from Latin statuere; German Gesetz ‘law,’ from Old High German gisatzida; Lithuanian istatymas, from istatyti ‘set up, establish.’)

 

Lay (verb): Old English lecgan ‘to place on the ground (or other surface),’ also ‘put down (often by striking),’ from Proto Germanic. *lagjanan (cf. Old Saxon leggian, Old Norse leggja, Old Frisian ledza, Middle Dutch legghan, Dutch leggen, Old High German lecken, German legen, Gothic lagjan ‘to lay, put, place’).

 

When people talk of the ‘proper manner of doing things’ they talk of ‘following’ [in] the footprints of previous generations of their respective family groups, lineages, and ancestors. When people talk of the specifics of rom (‘proper manner of doing things, custom, law’) they refer to particular ancestral footprints, which were ‘put down, laid down,’ impressed or ‘imprinted’ in place.

The more important, focused points of rom are those that are ‘pierced into place.’ These many and various aspects of rom are collectively reenacted and thus reinforced every time a ceremony takes place as people – literally and performatively – reenact and/or retrace these footprints, tracks, trajectories and traces. The mali’ (‘image, picture, impression’) -  the stylised impression or ‘design’ of such footprints – are collective forms of title to Country and other forms of property to which the imprint refers/from whence it derives (see suffix -buy/-puy/-wuy). Relevant terms or expressions include:

 

Luku, ‘foot, footprint, anchor, root [of a tree].’

 

Nheeran is a transitive verb that refers to the act (or action) of ‘placing, emplacing, putting down.’ It carries a sense of ‘impress, imprint.’

 

Nhirrpan also refers to ‘placing, emplacing, putting down,’ but has a sense of ‘piercing’ – as in with a spear – into the ground, in place, in, or ‘as’ the foundation of rom.

 

I generally think of morals as evaluative shared (i.e. cultural) understandings about normal, good, ‘proper,’ right behaviour – shared understandings and expectations about how one should be treated and how one should treat others. Morals become laws when they are not only shared but enforced in some way – when they are ‘laid down’ or ‘emplaced’, so to speak.

It makes sense that there exists a strong socio-spatial dimension to concepts of morality in the absence of centralised authority, given the fact that the further the socio-spatial distance, the more difficult it is to enforce one’s ideas about how one should be treated and how one should treat others.

As for the separation of morality and law, as I remarked in a previous post, this takes a special kind of fetish and a special kind of tyranny – the fetish of djorra (‘paper’) and the tyranny of centralised authority.

 

 

#amen

#thinkingaloud

#yeahhi

#happynewyearandthings

#seealsothispreviouspostthoughonsimiarsuchthings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A brief history of recent Government attacks: Remote Indigenous Homelands, NT.

 

 

I thought to reiterate this recent history, to offer context to the previous two posts. This is a story about the remote Indigenous Homelands and how successive governments have tried to shut them down.

 

 

A brief history of recent Government attacks on the remote Indigenous Homelands of the Northern Territory (NT), Australia [1]

 

1) Withdrawing, rescinding and withholding  . . . economic opportunities

In 2007 then Liberal Government announced it was abolishing the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP). The CDEP provided people with opportunities for gainful employment on country, for people to both live and work on their traditional Homelands.

Altman and Gray (2005) point out that the CDEP performed five main roles in remote and very remote areas of Australia: first, it provided flexible employment opportunities, often in contexts where there are no, or limited, mainstream employment opportunities, particularly for Indigenous people; second, it provided income security and the opportunity to earn additional income from employment and enterprise; third, it provided an opportunity for education and training; fourth it can assist participants to move into mainstream (unsubsidised) employment; and finally, it acted as an instrument for economic and community development.

With the abolition of CDEP people were denied the opportunity to live and work in gainful employment on Country.

 

2) Withdrawing, rescinding and withholding . . . social and political representation

In 2004 the Federal Government (again, under Howard) abolished the only elected Indigenous political body in Australia, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).

ATSIC (1990–2005) was the government body that formally involved Indigenous people in processes of government. There were a number of additional Indigenous (led and run) programs and organisations that fell under the umbrella of ATSIC. The agency was ‘dismantled’ by the Howard Liberal Government in 2004 based on allegations of corruption.

The second point to note under this heading is the fact that the government has reduced sixty-two (62) Municipal and Community Government Councils in the NT to sixteen (16) over the last four years. Eight of these are new ‘super’ Shires, which each serve (i.e. allegedly represent) an unmanageable number of townships and remote communities and, furthermore, include large areas of land not previously administered by Local Government.

It is now widely acknowledged that the previous, smaller remote-based councils and resource agencies played a crucial intermediary role between remote communities and government.

 

3) Withdrawing, rescinding and withholding . . . basic services

In May 2009 then NT Minister for Indigenous Policy announced the Working Futures Policy which saw the introduction of a Hub and Spoke model of service provision in remote areas.

The ‘hub’ aspect of this model was the preferential focus on large, centralized communities and townships such as Yuendumu, Borroloola and Maningrida. The government hand-picked and declared twenty of these centralised communities Northern Territory Growth Towns, which were from then on to function as ‘hub centres’ for surrounding areas and the many and diverse smaller Homeland Communities throughout the region.

There was no mention at the time that many of these Growth Towns were already (and still are) experiencing social problems associated with chronic housing shortages and overcrowding. Many families are still living in tents, for example, on the fringes of these so called Growth Towns.

The ‘spoke’ aspect of this model was the withdrawal of basic service provision to smaller Homeland Communities. Many Homeland schools, for example, were shut down and medical provision rolled right back. These services that were withdrawn or rescinded are basic services that every Australian citizen is entitled to; they are basic services that every (other) Australian citizen is able to take for granted. Crucially, at this time the government also announced that it would ‘not build any new houses on outstations and homelands.’

 

4) Withdrawing, rescinding and withholding . . .  basic civil rights

In 2007 the NT Intervention into remote Indigenous communities shocked even the most cynical of government critics. Legislatively known as the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, the NT Intervention was allegedly a response by the Federal government to the Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, and the subsequent Little Children are Sacred report.

It is now widely acknowledged that this report did and does not contain any information nor any recommendations that support or justify the measures included in the NT Intervention. Indeed, lawyer Rex Wild QC who co-authored the report has since spoken out against the Intervention on a number of occasions calling for it to be dismantled.

In order to ensure that the ‘emergency response’ was not in breach of current legislation and law the Federal Government suspended the Racial Discrimination Act (see ‘Clause 132 of the first Bill that states that provisions are classified as ‘special measures’ under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and therefore exempt from Part II of the Act).

The NT Intervention’s main logistical operation, Operation Outreach, was enacted or carried out by the military – by a force of 600 soldiers and detachments from the Australian Defense Force (including NORFORCE). This deployment was, in effect, a military sortie that saw the military convoys deployed into small, remote Indigenous communities. This, despite the fact that they were situated on private property owned and held as inalienable freehold title in fee simple absolute, by Traditional owners.

To the widespread and sweeping measures that comprised this intervention. The following measures were introduced by the Federal government as part of the NT Intervention:

 

Introduction of widespread alcohol restrictions on NT Indigenous land, even though the majority of Aboriginal communities are already ‘dry.’

 

Introduction of welfare reforms now known as welfare quarantining, which dictates when, where and how people can spend their money.

 

The imposition of compulsory ‘health checks’ – mandatory anal and vaginal examination – for all Indigenous children regardless of their and their parent’s wishes.

 

The forceful acquisition of townships from Traditional Owners, through non-negotiable five-year leases, with the prospect of permanent loss of communal customary title. This required undermining aspects of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976.

 

Increased policing levels in Indigenous communities.

 

Enforced on the ground clean up and repair of communities with the military, police, and (involuntary) local Indigenous work-forces, ‘marshalled’ through work-for-the-dole. These ‘local work-forces’ had their welfare payments made conditional on such activities.

 

The imposition of market based rent on land, which was up until last week Indigenous land which require Indigenous people to pay the government market based rents for living on land that the government compulsorily acquired.

 

Banning the possession of X-rated pornography and introducing audits of all publicly funded computers to identify illegal material.

 

Abolishing the permit system (a central pillar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976) for common areas, road corridors and airstrips for prescribed communities on Indigenous land.

 

Introduction or imposition of government installed managers in all Prescribed Communities.

 

The current Gillard Labor Government has continued with these policies under the rubric of Stronger Futures.

 

 

 

Long live the Homelands.

---

[1] There are approximately 60,000 Indigenous people that live in the NT, comprising approximately 1/3 of the NT population. There are more than 100 Indigenous languages and dialects spoken in the NT, with many people speaking English as their third or fourth language.

Indigenous Traditional Owners today own approximately 50% of land in the NT. There are ~560 Homeland communities on this Indigenous estate. While they are remote these communities are anything but isolated – they are interconnected and interwoven by kinship networks and socio-political ceremonial ties that crosscut the many culturally distinctive regions in the NT.

Some of these Homeland communities have existed and been maintained through continuity of occupation, residence and patterns of mobility since pre-colonial times. This is true of the Homeland community where I lived throughout the course of my fieldwork. These are among the only Indigenous people who have not yet been dispossessed of their country – who have never – not yet ever – been moved off their country for any period of time since contact.

Many other communities were established as part of the ‘Homelands Movement’ in the 1970s by traditional owners who had previously been ‘shepherded’ coerced or ‘herded’ into centralised government settlements and mission stations. In the 1970s there was a shift in public opinion and government policy toward ‘Self Determination’ and ‘Land Rights.’ People were then free to return to their country, which they did in large numbers and with great haste.

This decentralised migration became known as the ‘Homelands Movement.’ People cleared their land by hand, cleared roads and airstrips and built their own shelters etc; these people were trailblazers who endured a great deal of hardship in order to reestablish their lives and families back on their respective countries.

Living on the Homelands allows people to maintain their socio-religious, political and economic connections to country, to maintain their respective traditional languages, customs and culture and, most importantly, to raise their families and future generations on country in the same way.

 

Yolŋuw Makarr Dhuni (Yolŋu Nations Assembly): statement from the 2nd Assembly.

 

2nd Yolŋuw Makarr-Dhuni (Yolŋu Nations Assembly)

 

Thanks to David Suttle for sharing on the statement.

 

Yolŋuw Makarr Dhuni (Yolŋu Nations Assembly)

Statement from the 2nd Assembly.

Maningrida: October 11th – 13th, 2012.

Yolŋuw Makarr Dhuni represents the people of 8 nations in the Western, Central and East Arnhem Land areas of the Northern Territory:

Miwatj, Laynha, Raminy, Marthakal, Garriny, Gumurr-Rawarraŋ, Gaṯtjirrik and Miḏiyirrk

 

SHIRES AND COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE:

We want our community council’s back and our assets returned. We call for an end to the Super Shires model of community governance, and we want the Northern Territory Government to act on this quickly and in real consultation with landowners and clan leaders in each community.

We want genuine empowerment and the jobs we used to have when we were responsible for delivery of our own local services. These are our communities and we want to proudly take ownership of them and nourish them for the future.

 

HOMELANDS AND THE “HUB TOWNS” MODEL:

We want equal funding for all communities, whether they are small homelands or bigger ex-mission towns. We want the “National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Service Delivery” that underpins the hub-town model to be scrapped.

All communities are viable, when they are given the funding to grow and develop. Homelands have been neglected for decades, and they must not be thrown aside. These communities are not “just fishing camps”, they are home to a third of all Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Our children grow up healthier, stronger and more confident in homeland communities when they live on country that is related to them through Yolngu law.

 

HOUSING AND LEASES:

We want housing for all communities, including homelands. We want the requirement of leases for housing to be withdrawn. We will refuse to sign these leases and we will encourage others to do the same.

The requirement of leases is an attack on our land rights and acts like blackmail. The same is true for leases for the Shires. We want to have local, community run organisations to build and maintain housing assets and to be responsible for community governance.

We want people from the community to have the jobs that are associated with this. We can learn on the job and our young people would be proud to be part of an organisation run by the community, for the community.

 

STRONGER FUTURES:

We want self-determination. We want democracy. We want the power of the people in Arnhem Land and in all Aboriginal communities to be recognised and our rights respected.

We want the Intervention to be thrown out, and we want the Northern Territory Government to lobby the Federal Government on our behalf. The Federal Government must start to listen to the voices on the ground. No more deception, no more lies, we want the Intervention out now and self-determination to be taken seriously.

We never consented to this law, and we were never asked if we wanted the continuation and extension of these laws under the deceptively named “Stronger Futures” Act. We will not tolerate this bullying and it is no way to treat human beings. We are being led around like dogs on a lead with the Basic Card, compulsory acquisition of our land, police coming into our houses without a warrant, and having our law disqualified from recognition or consideration in court.

All this was done and continues to be done under the lie that we are hiding pedophiles and that child abuse comes from our culture. This is disrespectful, slanderous and fundamentally untrue. It is undermining our law, our culture and our whole identity. All this so Government can get legitimacy for taking over our communities.

We demand an apology from the Federal Government.

We have our own system of law to prevent disagreements from escalating. We keep peace and order through good governance and we have very serious and consistent ways of teaching respect and discipline to all our young people. We have ways of dealing with people who have broken the law that means they are not a threat to the community while they are taught responsibility and maturity. These processes are being eroded through community disempowerment and Government attacks on our legitimacy as leaders and our society as a whole.

 

CHILD NEGLECT:

We want genuine input into the policies that affect our children’s lives.

We acknowledge that neglect sometimes happens, but it is not a simple issue of unruly children or negligent parents. Our people are suffering from a deep collective depression due to disempowerment. Our kids can’t see a vision of their own future. Their strong role model old people no longer have waged positions through CDEP and nearly everyone is on welfare with the Basics Card.

Since the intervention and the ban on bilingual education, school attendance has dropped because Yolngu children don’t have a familiar school environment, and they don’t see the point in going when all the jobs have gone.

This depression is leading to devastation. The self-harm and suicide rate is 5 times higher than before the intervention. These are our children that are paying with their lives for the false accusations and assimilationist policies.

This is a pressing issue and it is us more than anyone that want our children to be safe. We need genuine empowerment to come up with the solutions and to be able to work with children’s and family service providers.

 

ALCOHOL:

Many of our communities were self-nominated dry communities for decades before the Intervention. We refuse to be collectively branded as having problems with alcohol abuse because it was our decision to be alcohol free and we enforce that.

A few communities decided to introduce various permit systems that regulate the amount, the strength, and the regularity of alcohol that permit holders are allowed to purchase. People who are found to be abusing this system have their permits taken from them. Our dry areas and alcohol permit systems must stay, this is the responsible will of our people.

 

EDUCATION:

We want bilingual education to be promoted as the successful program that it was. We want to be able to have independent schools in homelands and larger communities where local law holders, clan leaders and family old people can have influence over curriculum development and school structures.

We will be able to address school attendance through communities feeling genuine ownership of schools and the education process. Punishing parents by removing their welfare payments because their children miss a day per week of school will only isolate families from the education system and will mean that those kids have no food to eat.

 

RELATIONSHIP WITH NT GOVERNMENT AND POLICE:

The Northern Territory Government must fundamentally recognize the existence of our Maḏayin System of Law.

Our law has always kept the peace in our communities and has always dealt with people that break the law. Maḏayin Law holders are the right people to be dealing with issues in the community because it is based on concepts that the whole community understand and acknowledges.

Our law is no longer recognised in Court and this not only creates serious problems in the community, it also prevents respected people from dealing with those problems.

All police that work in our communities must go through more thorough cultural training to understand the way our law works, and the complexities of clan relations in mission towns, where many clans have historically been pushed into foreign country. There should be local “middle police” that work with NT police so that we can work together to deal with issues in our communities and so police do not seriously offend and damage relationships.

 

 

 

An ethnographic and political note in two parts: the history and strength of the Yolŋu Homelands.

 

Waku, yapa and gaminyarr (2008)

 

The history of the Yolŋu Homelands in remote NE Arnhem Land is unique to Australia. There are, generally speaking, three key historical factors that make it so. These historical factors also go some way to explaining – or contextualising, rather – the notable confidence that Yolŋu people have in the integrity and value of their culture and their way of life.

George Rrurrambu from Warumpi Band? Yolŋu. Yothu-Yindi? Yolŋu. Geoffrey Gurrumul, Salt-Water Band, Chooky Dancers, Ten-Canoes – all Yolŋu people. Who sent the Bark-Petition to Parliament House that led to the Land Rights case, which led to the Woodward Commission – the recommendations of which formed the basis for the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976? Yolŋu people. Who set fire to official Government documents to protest scrapping the Permit System? Yolŋu people.

Most recently, this confidence and strength can be seen in way people across the region have come together to form the Yolŋu Nations Assembly – as a collective force to oppose Federal Government policies that seek to undermine their rights and the integrity of their rom (‘proper manner of doing things, culture, law’).

 

Part 1. Three historical factors.

First, and most notably is the fact that there was no violent colonial frontier in remote Arnhem Land,[1] nor was there any broad-sweep of dispossession. It is difficult to stress just how unique and significant this is; With few exceptions, Yolŋu people have maintained continuity of residency on – and rights to – their respective Traditional Homelands (their ‘Country’) from pre-colonial times up until the present day. I am not aware of any other region in Australia where this is the case. Their rights to Country, moreover, were recognised and enshrined in law, under the strength of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976, as freehold title held in fee simple.

Secondly, there is much to be said about the comparatively fortunate relationship between Yolŋu people and the Methodist Missionaries who were stationed in the region for some thirty years. The first Methodist Mission in the region was established in 1923 at Milingimbi, but had a localised sphere of influence in the West Arnhem region. The second Mission was established in 1935 at Yirrkala. The Mission Station most relevant to my field-site – to my family’s local history – is that established on nearby Galiwin’ku island (then ‘Elcho Island’) in 1942.[2]

There was a period of some twenty years when my brothers and sisters regularly visited and variously nhina-nha (‘stopped, stayed’) at Elcho Island,[3] in the company of their Mothers, along with other close and extended kin. Some attended the Mission school, others “helped Papa Sheppy” – the Reverend and Superintendent at the time – in the various Mission ‘departments,’ which included sewing, timber milling, fishing, construction, and the like. Notable about all these activities is the fact that Mission Staff (which were only ever few in number) went out of their way to learn the local language,[4] the kinship system, and those aspects of Yolŋu ceremonial life that Yolŋu consider both important and valuable. Not only did they go out of their way to learn about these things but they incorporated them into everyday activities and everyday Mission life. It is clear – in oral histories of family and relevant historical and archival material – that these were relationships characterised by reciprocal cultural exchange. Bala-räli-yun-mirri, as one would say in Yolŋu-matha – they were ongoing relationships characterised by dynamic reciprocity and mutual interdependence.

Thirdly, there is also something to be said about pre-colonial relations between coastal Yolŋu groups and traders from the port of Makassar, Sulawesi – known as Maŋgatharra in Yolŋu-matha. From as early as the 1600s Maŋgatharra made the annual voyage to Arnhem Land, where they were hosted by coastal Yolŋu groups throughout the season of trade.[5] From all accounts these were also relationships of cultural exchange. The local history of these relationships, for example, is encoded or ‘enshrined,’ for want of a better word, in Yolŋu languages – in the many loan words from Makassarese and Malay etc. There are also many ceremonial songs, dances, and material designs which are either derived from, or direct references to these historical relationships with Maŋgatharra. Indeed, these relationships are still commonly invoked as a comparison to present day relationships with Balanda (‘Europeans, white people’). For example, in a recorded conversation with my waku, yapa and ŋandi about their relationship with present day Government, the following came up, just in the course of discussion:

 

‘Yolŋu had the first economy, first trade before Captain Cook or Matthew Flinders’ time!  [. . . ]  Balanda didn’t give us the clothes! Maŋgatharra gave us galiko (‘calico’) for clothes and other different things [uses] as well [. . . ]“

 

These historical relations with Maŋgatharra and Methodist Missionaries were valued relationships of sociality, exchange and trade established and maintained across what may otherwise have been boundaries of cultural difference. These aspects of local history have given Yolŋu people a strong sense or vision of themselves in relation to significant cultural others – in social and cultural terms, but also in political and economic terms. They have given people a strong sense of what they know and feel to be proper and right in cross-cultural situations and intercultural relations.

These three historical factors – the fact that there was no major discontinuity of rights and residency; the fortunate relationship with Methodist Missionaries, and; the local history of pre-colonial relations with Maŋgatharra -  go some way to explaining the observable confidence that Yolŋu people have in the integrity and value of their culture – their rom (‘proper manner of doing things, culture, law’) – their relationship to Country and their way of life more generally.

The integrity of the foundation of rom is unquestioned on the Homelands. While I would not describe the region as a ‘stateless society’ – because it implies boundedness and separability – it is definitely true to say that forms and patterns of stateless sociality predominate on the Homelands and throughout the region. The social fabric of the Homelands is not only strong but vibrant, and the ceremonial life of the region – the socio-political processes that comprise it – ensures that it remains so.

 

Part 2: a contemporary case study

I was on a panel to discuss the effects of the Northern Territory Intervention some months ago. I was asked for an ‘on the ground’ ethnographic account or perspective on how the Intervention was playing out.

I started my talk with the following case study, which gives a sense of the strength and confidence of people on the Homelands. It also, I hope, gives a sense of ‘what is at stake’ with regard to Government policies that purposefully and systematically undermine the rights of Traditional Owners in the Northern Territory – and the legislative strength of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NT) 1976. (I have written about successive policies of this kind before hereon.)

 

August 2008

 

‘Early yesterday morning we heard the sound of a car engine coming up over the ridge. I was still inside, half asleep with ŋandi. Everyone assumed it was our dhuway driving in from the nearby township, to bring us supplies and shopping. His was the only functional car in the local network of Homelands at the time – and therefore the only car that we expected to be driving in. The car’s name, by the by, was ‘Matjala’.

 

A chorus of delighted anticipation broke out -

 

Matjala! Matjala! Dhuway marrkapmirri ŋarali ŋayi yukurra gäma ŋilimurruŋgu! (Matjala! Mataja! Ah beloved husband! He’s bringing us all tobacco!)

 

By this stage I had wandered outside over to the campfire, to scoop myself a pannikan of tea.

 

“Ŋyäl-yurra! - yaka ŋayi ŋunhi ‘Matjala! Yol ŋayi, yuwalk-dnja?” I said (‘Oh not true! fibs! – it isn’t Matjala. Who is it, truthfully?)

 

“Yuwalk Gutha’ – Matjala-wu rirrakay!” (‘It’s true little sister – it’s the voice/sound of Matjala!’)

 

We all stood there squinting into the glint of the morning sun, lit orange-and-red on the gravel, pannikans of tea in one hand, lit cigarettes in the other . . . waiting to see who it was.

 

Two cars appeared. They were military vehicles.

 

“Aarmy! Army Army”! the kids shouted, loud enough that family down at bottom camp – who hadn’t been following the goings on – could hear.

 

What the fuck?! I thought . . .  still half asleep.

 

As the army vehicles pulled in, most of us – including myself – made a quickstep  out of view into the shade of the mango tree near the veranda. But not yapa; she raised her hand and marched calmly toward the vehicles, signaling for them to ‘halt’. And they did – at the edge of the only entrance to camp.

 

Two Balanda army men got out, one from each vehicle, dressed in army greens. One of them attempted to address yapa politely – using her English name. Not only did she ignore him but she turned her back on them. In an exaggerated, almost comic fashion, yapa leaned back on the bullbar of the front vehicle, propping herself up with her elbow, as if lounging. She was facing towards us, with a *just* discernible grin on her face.

 

“Goo-ood morning!” she chimed in a loud, overly-polite tone of voice.

 

One of the men replied, but yapa had no intention of engaging them in polite conversation – she was making a point, and making it very clear. At this stage we all started to giggle.

 

“So-o” ! she continued, still leaning against the bullbar with her back to them, “What is this?? The Emergency Intervention??!”

 

We didn’t hear the reply – we were too busy giggling and emerging from the shadows to enjoy the moment. One of the men was heard to say something again, but yapa interrupted him in her rather booming voice.

 

“Well I don’t like surprises! You should ring us up before you drive in! Next time you ring us up first – yaka just driving in! You ring us up first before you drive out here. Now you go and tell your boss.”

 

And that was that.’

 

/end of case study/

 

This is probably not the kind of scene that most people imagine when they think of the Northern Territory Intervention, and in many ways it’s probably the kind of story that the Federal Government doesn’t want you to hear – empowered, confident people who are living and standing strong on their Traditional Homelands – who are part of a strong and healthy integrated network of Communities comprising an entire region – a huge swathe of the Northern Territory – all living happy, healthy lives.

 

This picture is not consistent with the dystopian fantasies of the Federal Government as pedaled by the mainstream media – dystopian fantasies that have been used as reason and justification for policies like the NT Intervention [ . . . . ] “

 

 

 

 

Long live the Homelands!

---

[1] There were, however, a number of violent incidents in the region, which should not be downplayed.

[2] While the Elcho Island Mission was established in 1942 it was not active in earnest until after the end of the war.

[3] after the death of their father.

[4] I should note that there are six mutually intelligible languages included under the umbrella of Yolŋu-matha – divided into twelve different dialects. The Mission unofficially adopted Gupapuyŋu as the lingua franca.

[5] Trade was focused on, but certainly not limited to, trepang. This small industry involved the temporary establishment of productive camps on the mainland and considerable accommodation by local Yolŋu groups, who facilitated and assisted the collection and preparation trepang -  they dived, dredged and collected the trepang, helped to build the smoke houses to cure it, and sailed aboard the praus with their visitors, to known trepang sites along the coast (Macknight, 1976; Berndt, 1954).

They also prepared for these seasons of trade in advance, collecting items they knew to be of value to the visitors (Macknight 1976, Worsley 1955). These included items such things as turtle shells, pearls, and pearl shells (Worsley, 1955). In return, the visitors introduced new items of trade and technology including dugout canoes, masts, pandanus sails, long thin smoking pipes, knives, cloth, axes and other iron products, pottery, new variants of tobacco and alcohol – and the list goes on.

The last recorded visitation was 1907; Maŋgatharra were stopped from visiting the shores of Arnhem Land by the Australian Government – through the creation and enforcement of innumerable rules, regulations, levies, taxes, etcetera.

For more about these trade relations – this is the link to the relevant wiki-entry.

 

 

 

Rest in Peace Kwementyaye Briscoe

 

This is an especially long post. It details the circumstances surrounding, and leading up to the death in custody of Kwementyaye Briscoe. Kwementyaye Daniel Briscoe was only 27 years of age when he died on 4 January 2012, alone in a cell in the Alice Springs Watch House. At the time of his death, Kwementyaye was being detained in the Alice Springs Watch House. He had committed no crime.

I have chosen to reproduce large sections of the Coroner’s report in the text that follows, because I think much of the detail speaks for itself. (Aside from brief intermediary comments that I couldn’t help but include, there is little to no analysis.) In many ways, this is the story of how and why Aboriginal men continue to die in police custody.

The Coroner recorded the cause of death as, “airway obstruction due to a combination of positional asphyxia, aspiration and acute alcohol intoxication”. Based on the Coroner’s report, I suggest a more accurate cause of death would read something like, “racial-profiling, over-policing, abuse of power, failure to fulfill duty of care, excessive use of force, assault, and willful and/or criminal neglect.”

 

January 4th.

On the evening of January 4th, Kwementyaye joined a large group of friends in the vicinity of Flynn Oval, which is approximately 5kms from the centre of town in Alice Springs.

Police received a complaint from a member of the public about intoxicated persons “arguing and fighting near Flynn Drive Supermarket. Constable Evans and his partner Constable Blansjaar responded to the call.

When they arrived “in the vicinity of Flynn Drive” they noticed a man and a woman behind the school. The couple were not fighting. They were, however “heavily intoxicated.” Constable Evans and Constable Blansjaar detained them both in “protective custody.”

Constable Evans then noticed “a large group of people sitting along the tree line on the opposite end of the oval.” In his oral evidence, Constable Evans explains that “his initial intention was to see if they had any information about the alleged fighting at the shops.” (Sure.)

Constable Evans began walking towards the group, Constable Blansjaar drove towards them in the police van. When Constable Evans was half way across the oval, one of the young women in the group shouted out to the others, “in an Indigenous language Constable Evans could not understand.” Everyone in the group, including Kwementyaye, began to disperse:

“The group continued to move and some appeared to cross into Centralian Middle School to cross over into the vicinity of the School.”

At this point Constable Evans called for back up on his radio, and began pursuing Kwementyaye, among others, in earnest.

Why? Didn’t Constable Evans just state that his intention was simply to ask if they had any information about the alleged fighting at the shops?

Constable Evans is careful to note that he saw a number of [empty?] liquor bottles etc. on the ground, when the group began to disperse. This would have given him reason to believe that some members in the group had been drinking in a public place. This is not, however, the reason he cites; In his record of interview, Constable Evans explained the following to the investigating officer:

“Initially due to his aggressive manner towards myself, um, I feared that of that was the reaction he was going to take from me (sic) that he may go on to harm someone else, um, the feeling from Police and going into the school, um, which has been known to be a hot spot within the Gillen area, I feared that there was likeliness (sic) to offences being committed in there, drinking further or actually damaging the school itself’.”

What? That’s right, it doesn’t make any sense. The only possible justification for pursuing the group, and calling for backup – let alone what happened next – was the fact that there was evidence the group had been drinking in a public place. The Coroner doesn’t seem to have a problem with Constable Evans’ reasoning. In fact, the Coroner found that it was completely acceptable for Constable Evans to detain Kwementyaye, based on the following facts:

“There is little doubt that Kwementyaye had been drinking beer for much of the day and into the evening and his friends suggest that he had consumed a significant amount of the VB that was brought by the group from the take away outlets. Furthermore, he was drinking in a place that had been designated as a non-drinking area, where at least some members of the group had been fighting or arguing to an extent that prompted a phone call to police. I accept the assessment made by Constable Evans that it was appropriate to detain Kwementyaye pursuant to s129.”

Firstly, Constable Evans could not have known that Kwementyaye had been drinking earlier in the day, nor that he was intoxicated. Why has the Coroner granted these facts as reason and justification for what happened next? Secondly, yes there were liquor bottles on the ground when the group dispersed. Thirdly – and most surprisingly – why has the Coroner apparently taken it upon himself to assume that it was a member of Kwementyaye’s group who had been involved in the fight that prompted the initial phone call to police? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this was the case.

 

The first “fall.”

The Coroner notes that he only had one account to rely on as to “how [Constable Evans] finally caught up with Kwementyaye, and how he was taken to the ground.” That account was given by Constable Evans himself, and is recorded, in part, thus:

“Perhaps in response to the arrival of another police Unit, some members of the group doubled back and started running in the direction they had just come from. Constable Evans jumped a fence and began to jog after a smaller breakaway group of five or six. At the back of that group was Kwementyaye and when he got close to a large iron gate beside the school, he slipped on the bitumen or dirt and fell.

According to Constable Evans, when Kwementyaye got up after this first fall, he had a small cut above his left eye, described as a “laceration above his eyes that had . . . burst. There was fresh blood around the cut but it wasn’t gushing or dripping down his face” (Transcript, 18.6.12, at p 230).

 

The second “fall.”

Constable Evans gave evidence that after falling the first time, Kwementyaye got himself to his feet and started swearing. Constable Evans allegedly gave Kwementyaye a direction to “take a step back,” which Kwementyaye allegedly ignored. According to Constable Evans, Kwementyaye stepped forward, which prompted Constable Evans to “push” him over:

“He ignored a direction to take a step back and when he stepped forward again, Constable Evans pushed him in the chest with an open left hand, causing him to stumble and fall into the gate, before falling forward.”

Following this second fall, Kwementyaye was “secured on the ground” using a “three point hold position,” which involves placing one knee on the side of his shoulder and securing his right hand behind his back. At that point, other officers who had been called as back up, arrived on the scene. Kwementyaye was assisted to his feet by Constable Evans and Constable Ralph, and “he cooperated in walking to the police van and climbing up inside, without further incident.”

 

The ride to the Watch House.

Kwementyaye was detained along with three other men: Oscar White, Lance Dixon, and Caleeb Nipper, who were placed into “protective custody” alongside him in the van. I note that Caleeb Nipper had been “chased down by police and forcibly restrained, before being handcuffed and placed in the back of the van.” (Keeping in mind that these men were not even suspected of having committed any crime.)

Unbeknown to police, Oscar White had a 700 ml bottle of Rum in his pants. It was Constable Ralph’s responsibility to search all prisoners before they got into the van. He admits that he either neglected to search Oscar White, “or was not careful enough when he did so.” This is one of many apologies that the Coroner makes for the actions of the police involved that night:

“It is easy in hindsight to be critical of the failure to adequately search detainees . . . but I can well understand how it was neglected in that environment.”

The men shared the 700ml bottle of rum in the van on the way to the Watch House. Caleeb Nipper was handcuffed and could only drink small amounts at a time. According to the Coroner’s report, it was Kwementyaye who “drank a substantial amount.” The Coroner heard in oral evidence that Caleeb Nipper, Oscar White and Lance Dixon were sick and vomited in the back of the van on the way to the Watch House.

Circumscribed pieces of writing that I may or may not have penned: appearing on a screen or piece of paper near you!

 

 

 

A little excited and ‘umbled to have had my writing appear in two equally prestigious publications in the same week (a fortnight or so ago).

A comment of reply entitled, ‘Yolŋu kinship and the case for extensionism: A reply to Warren Shapiro,’ appears in the latest issue of the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2012, 18: 681-683. The JRAI website can be found via this online link, though I’m not sure if it is available to non-subscribers, which is a little less sub- than ideal.

A slightly different version of a short piece that appears hereon, now also appears in the latest issue of Black Light, which is a newly esteemed anarchist zine published out of Melbourne.

 

 

(Marshall Sahlins is perennially great, by the by.)

 

 

Carrying wäwa home: A personal footnote in memory of Don Burarrwaŋa.

 

Something of a personal footnote from wäwa’s (three week long) funeral ceremony.