A petition to the Federal Australian Government

This post contains a letter which I recently wrote to the new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, during the weeks of his preparing for the first opening of the Australian Parliamentary sessions under his new Labor government.  His party had always intended that this opening session will make a statement of sincere apology to every Aboriginal Australian whose life has been caused any distress by the wrongful removal of Aboriginal children from their mothers.  My petition is about a different matter, but which is related to that statement of “Sorry”.

The content of this post is the letter I posted this week, then there is the transcript of two e-mails I have sent about it, and then there is a copy of the first draft of the same letter, which contains substantially more information, and has also been made available to the politicians, but via the an e-mail.  The letter is with my local member and the Minister for Indigenous affairs also.

 Even though I am just an ordinary Australian citizen with all the civil and human rights of any other, because the police have me under surveillance, the matter of my petitioning the government will probably come under an additional layer of scrutiny.  That is, not because I am a criminal, which I am not, but because of the combination of political and religious beliefs which I am publicly known by, and which engage the surveillance of police, it is somewhat difficult to know if the politicians will regard my petition within the same degree of objectivity as they might normally be able to in the case of a citizen whom is not undergoing police surveillance.

(That sentence contains the self-defeating logic which is represented in formulaic language thus: if ever, then ever, ever was; however, the addition of another assumed component of belief, prevents the logic from manifesting too abusurdly; thus understand my assumption within the sequence of: if ever, then ever, ever was, life defined by God.)

I might here also add, before you read these letter(s), that if there are security and safety concerns worldwide, as seems to be the case, in respect of certain combinations of Religious, cultural and political belief, as though what is real safety and sanctity of mind for some of us, is the security threat to others, then surely those whom feel that their own inner sanctum of character security is under threat from persons like me, able as I am to prove to others what character strength really is, then perhaps it has already been proven that certain specific combinations of belief, in which those combinations manifest as though unable to be policed by legislature, are only occuring because of the levels of policing surveillance which many of us are experiencing, in which we are bearing witness to police work occuring outside of legislature, or by abuse of legislature designated for use only to protect the population from the threat of a terrorist.  I don’t know if many readers will get that last sentence first time, but not to worry about it if you can’t, since you might better be worrying about your own immediate personal security than about what I write.  Not because I am a threat to your security, but because you might have been displacing real threats to your immediate security onto myself, as I notice that police (whose work is by its nature lacking the security which most of the rest of the law abiding community can afford to anticipate daily) may also have been.  Try reading this paragraph again to ascertain what logical sequence is present, since long sentences usually require a longer memory for logical sequencing.

The petition letter will be of specific interest mainly to those whom have ever had any need to consider Indigenous specific legislation generally, or the Australian Family Law Act.  Please bear in mind when reading any of my commentary about policing, that I bear no grudges against the police.

 The paragraphs are not yet all re-edited in after pasting the original into wordpress.

                                                                                           30th January 2008,  

To the Right Honourable Kevin Rudd Prime MinisterAnd Bernie Ripoll, Member of Federal Parliament in the seat of Oxley,cc. National Indigenous Times, and Adult Survivors of Child Abuse,  This letter is for making a petition to government about a minor aspect of the Family Law Act.  It is in reference to Indigenous affairs, and I am convinced that the small addition I would like to present for your party to contemplate making, will prove to be in the best interests of all Australian children, and also highly compatible with all the current negotiations about the legal connotations of the government saying “sorry” to indigenous Australians whom have been removed from their mothers, and prevented from normal processes of acculturation. The part of the family law I am referring to, is at point 60CC of the Family Law (Judges) Regulations. Last week on 25th January 2008, I have been instructed by Justice Barry in the Brisbane family law court, to undertake examination of that point of law.  This is because I am self representing, being the respondent mother, and without legal aid funding, or means to pay legal expenses, in a family law case.  In my own situation there is an immediate relevance of this point of law in the Judges considerations, because the actual dispute is around whether or not my child raising pattern had been engaged already within an indigenous pattern. While I comprehend in full that I can not, and so will not, ask yourselves to consider the legal matter in which the point of law was drawn to my attention, I mention my own case briefly, so as to enable yourselves to contextualize how it is that I happen to have a very finely attuned perspective in the matter. The allegation against me is that I have been potentially abusive towards my children because of the severe mental illness of schizophrenia.  However, I have at all times been opposed to that diagnosis and have never experienced the set of symptoms defined as schizophrenia within the standards accepted in most legal processes of the Diagnositic and Statistical Manual for differential diagnosis of mental disorders, (DSM IV).  My position is that what is being regarded as an affliction, is no more than the natural semblance of eccentricity, in having made a movement in cultural affiliation out of the mainstream of Australian Christian oriented culture, and into the affiliation with Indigenous forms of Christianity, which are also within the influence of an earlier form of Islamic culture.  That process has been ongoing since my teenage years when it happened that I was present at the significant Corroboree on the eve and dawn of 26th January 1988.  However, because I am a white Australian whom had been raised in the mainstream of Australian social life, my present day affiliations with indigenous culture, and also belief in possible, and probable, (though unable to be traced in any paper records), indigenous ancestry, might often appear to be of an unstable mind.  However the traditional cultural sanctions of Indigenous belief, within the sanctions also of the Abrahamic traditions, impose a very stringent internal self discipline. The point of law I would like to petition in respect of reads as follows: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 – SECT 60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests Determining child‘s best interests              (1)  Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child‘s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3). Primary considerations              (2)  The primary considerations are:                      (a)  the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child‘s parents; and                      (b)  the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. Note:          Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b). Additional considerations              (3)  Additional considerations are:                      (a)  any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child‘s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child‘s views;                      (b)  the nature of the relationship of the child with:                               (i)  each of the child‘s parents; and                              (ii)  other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);                      (c)  the willingness and ability of each of the child‘s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;                      (d)  the likely effect of any changes in the child‘s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:                               (i)  either of his or her parents; or                              (ii)  any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;                      (e)  the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child‘s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;                       (f)  the capacity of:                               (i)  each of the child‘s parents; and                              (ii)  any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);                             to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;                      (g)  the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child‘s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;                      (h)  if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:                               (i)  the child‘s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and                              (ii)  the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;                       (i)  the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child‘s parents;                       (j)  any family violence involving the child or a member of the child‘s family;                      (k)  any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child‘s family, if:                               (i)  the order is a final order; or                              (ii)  the making of the order was contested by a person;                       (l)  whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;                     (m)  any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.              (4)  Without limiting paragraphs (3)(c) and (i), the court must consider the extent to which each of the child‘s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent and, in particular, the extent to which each of the child‘s parents:                      (a)  has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:                               (i)  to participate in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and                              (ii)  to spend time with the child; and                             (iii)  to communicate with the child; and                      (b)  has facilitated, or failed to facilitate, the other parent:                               (i)  participating in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and                              (ii)  spending time with the child; and                             (iii)  communicating with the child; and                      (c)  has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent‘s obligation to maintain the child.           (4A)  If the child‘s parents have separated, the court must, in applying subsection (4), have regard, in particular, to events that have happened, and circumstances that have existed, since the separation occurred. Consent orders              (5)  If the court is considering whether to make an order with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings, the court may, but is not required to, have regard to all or any of the matters set out in subsection (2) or (3). Right to enjoy Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture              (6)  For the purposes of paragraph (3)(h), an Aboriginal child‘s or a Torres Strait Islander child‘s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:                      (a)  to maintain a connection with that culture; and                      (b)  to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:                               (i)  to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child‘s age and developmental level and the child‘s views; and                              (ii)  to develop a positive appreciation of that culture. I notice that the law makes explicit reference to family violence potentially precluding a Judges capacity to adhere to the need to enable an Aboriginal child to enjoy their culture. Can I present the argument that since there is already mention of the crime of violence in the home, distinctly in respect of the Aboriginal population, that within the present political climate in respect of the Howard government’s intervention legislation, it might prove auspicious to also include, for the benefit of Judges, a sub-clause relating to the prevention of the abuse of children sexually. I believe that because of the current political climate also around the government giving a “sorry” to the stolen generations, that perhaps many more Australians might be accepting of that process if this minor addition is made to the family law within a similar time frame. Part of the reasoning for making such an addition, must be inclusive of the fact of the form of psychological abuse which portions of the indigenous population have been subject to.  In recent years, it has happened to me that I was made conscious, without wanting to be, of the forms of abuse which have been happening within the prison system.  Remembering that there is a high rate of incarceration of the male Aboriginal population, the fact of the abuse occurring in prisons, needs to be considered in respect of how it could happen that indigenous children have been put at risk. Why the abuse in the prisons is important in respect of the addition I am asking your party to consider, is because of the particular psychology of that abuse.  There are significant forces among organised crime, (and which police are not immune to although since they should be, I will not discuss that matter here), in which there has been an attitude of misinterpretation of Kabbalah, and also of Shari’ah, in which Aboriginal adherence to Animist belief, has been portrayed as unable to align with belief in Jesus.  Even worse, because Aboriginal Australian Animist identification patterns are applied to the entire indigenous population, while in other Animist identification patterns there is application only to certain member of the adult population whom are regarded to have committed the sin of lust, it had been assumed by many involved in religious dogma, that Aboriginal Australian culture enables even children to embody the sin of lust.  While that sort of false idea is blatantly a corruption of the original thought within both Kabbalah and Shari’ah, it has been used often within religious contexts to psychologically abuse the indigenous Australian population.  It is extremely instructive, that the only persons whom are open proponents of that falsehood, are involved in organised crime within the contexts of committing ritualised abuse to force victims into drug dependence and prostitution.   The crimes I am mentioning are conducted against every prison inmate by other inmates to the best of my knowledge, and in the wider population, individual vulnerable mothers (and fathers) with indigenous affiliations, have been isolated and victimised as though responsible for the lust being sold in the child pornography and brothel industries.  Although this aspect of my argument in favour of an addition to the Family Law Act, is almost intangible to persons whom have not experienced the abuse, it is a very real situation for many indigenous Australians. What I would like to commend to the ALP, is that only a small addition is made, but that the addition is made very forward in defence of the real Aboriginal tradition. I am in favour of the addition of a point which reads words to the effect: Every act of the violation of a child’s normal healthy and age appropriate sexual development, is to be considered in itself a violation of a child’s right to enjoy Aboriginal culture, and the minimum standards which Aboriginal cultural tradition will uphold are that same set of standards upheld by every lawful culture in Australia in respect of children being protected from adult sexual behaviour. I am of the belief that for the government to add this small passage, or one to the same effect, to the Family Law Act, will also prove to be able to change the balance of power in the negotiations around providing a “Sorry”; and that the balance is likely to shift in favour of unionisation, and away from demands for financial reparations. The reason I am of this belief is because there is clear evidence within the internal politics in the Aboriginal community nationally, that those sections of the Aboriginal population whom have experienced being actively favoured by the Liberal-National coalition, are the same individuals whom had been falling into a psychological entrapment which is common place in the prison system.  That entrapment engages the false idea, or delusion, that: ‘since we have all been presumed to be sex abusers; therefore we are owed monetary compensation on that basis as well as on the basis of children having been removed and abused (often sexually) by those representing the work of the state and the churches; and that since that might be a means to obtain money, it could be that we will be owed more money if that falsehood is furthered, in which we can pretend that it is real so as to obtain a larger compensation pay out eventually’.  Clearly it is not to be tolerated, and indeed is a manifestation abhorrent to many in the indigenous community. The reason I know about such illusory factors in indigenous politics, is because when I first began to open to the Aboriginal community, about the small amount of oral evidence in my own family of possible indigenous ancestry, it was assumed by a faction of the Aboriginal community, that the only reason I might really want to be known to be indigenous, would be to become owed of from future financial compensation to the stolen generations.  Thereby a significant number of Aboriginal persons have assumed to be doing me a favour by instituting false evidence against me in respect of my family and my children’s father.  I might add that most of such Aboriginal persons are involved in criminal acts of buying and using illicit drugs, and are themselves all victims of anal rape to the extent that they are seldom fully conscious of what they are causing. What is not always obvious is that when a group of persons counts their worth upon how badly they have been oppressed, rather than upon the real basis of their behavioural codes and belief, and particularly if they seek monetary compensation for their oppression, then their reliance upon sympathy for having been oppressed tends to inevitably further the facts of the oppression, by attracting perpetrators.  I believe that this is why there are such terrible facts around the “Little Children are Sacred” report. I believe that there is a strong current in most contemporary Aboriginal communities of adherence to the position I am strongly expressing in this petition.  I would welcome the government undertaking your own enquiry among significant Aboriginal leaders in respect of this letter, and might ask for you to be certain that you are inclusive of those whom are equitably respected as leaders within traditionally oriented indigenous cultural contexts. When I read the Family Law Act Judges Regulations at 60CC, I decided that it would not be in my children’s best interests, or the interests of my children forming their own allegiances with the real Aboriginal tradition, if our family were to become lawfully regarded as within the definition of being Aboriginal.  This is saddening for me, because I have been working to aid the indigenous community by trying to redefine what an indigenous identity is, by the inclusion of those of us white Australians whom have more means of access to the mainstream, and other European based, cultural paradigms.  Being indigenous in Australia today means many things, including for many of us being of mixed race and culture, but it must never be let to be assumed to mean enabling of sexual abuse against children. If there are any further enquiries about the parameters of an indigenous identification, could I recommend the recent historical reference book by Bruce Pascoe, a Victorian indigenous author, named “Convincing Ground”.  My own small contribution to that public debate can be viewed in the internet at http://doyouknowaboutasca.blogspot.com/2008/01/older-debate-that-we-might-like-to-know.html   I am including that url also because my sending of letters to any government person usually attracts some ASIO attention, since I have a background from youth of being a left wing and anti-racist political activist.  If there are any policing enquiries about myself, there is ample material in that weblog to analyse my personality and character with, as I am sure ASIO are already in knowledge of.  However ought to be considered by all parties to be a distinct matter from the potentially politically contentious matter of defining the stolen generations, which I hope this petition might directly prevent conflict around.  I must also add that my own family law matter ought always be regarded as distinct from the political issues, and distinct from the ASIO surveillance.  Therefore no further mention need be made of it, so long as that distinction is held. Thankyou for reading my petition in this letter,Faithfully,                                                              Rebecca Copas (formerly Rebecca Marker)

 Note to National Indigenous Times placed in their internet site comments field after 9pm 30th January 2008: 
Hi, in the morning I will be posting a letter from myself, as a petition to the Rudd government in respect of the “Sorry” deliberations. The politicians considerations of what to include in a sorry statement, are coinciding with my own legal case for custody of my own children, and the Judge, (Justice Barry at the Family Law Court in Brisbane), had directed me to read the Family Law Judges Regulations at point 60CC.  It is that part in which every Family Law Judge is obligated to enable Aboriginal children to enjoy their culture. I noted that the legislation makes specific mention of the Judge needing to deliberate around issues of domestic violence which may overrule considerations of the child’s placement with a parent.  However, the same portion of the legislation makes no specific reference to sexual abuse against children precluding the child’s enjoyment of Aboriginal culture. So I have written a long letter to the Prime Minister and also my local member in Oxley, asking if that section of the Family Law Act can have added to it, words to the effect: Every act of the violation of a child’s normal healthy and age appropriate sexual development, is to be considered in itself a violation of a child’s right to enjoy Aboriginal culture, and the minimum standards which Aboriginal cultural tradition will uphold are that same set of standards upheld by every lawful culture in Australia in respect of children being protected from adult sexual behaviour. While this seems to single out Aboriginal culture for special attention, the case as it stands already in legislation is that indigenous culture is being singled out in respect of domestic violence, but without also mention that indigenous culture precludes sexual violations against children. My letter is long and exposes the politicians to the worst of the internal Aboriginal politics around who might owe who what in respect of a sorry being given. I have come to some what of an impasse in my need to act to protect my own children, and so that exposure is now necessary for my children’s safety.  This is because of my own affiliations with the Aboriginal community having been misconstrued by my children’s father as though I sought to take advantage of my children having been stolen, and he has tried to use that argument against me in court. I will put a copy of my letter to the Prime Minister in the post for NIT, along with a paper copy of this e-mail. Thanks for reading it.

 e-mail sent to the organisation Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse at 9:18pm 30th January 2008:

 Hi, My name is Rebecca Copas Nungarrayi, and I recently sent an e-mail to everybody on the ASCA website list. I was just about to send off an application for membership this morning, but neither the PDF file or the RTF file are downloading in the public library computers.  The Brisbane City Library computer connection is about the fastest one around, so I am not certain what the problem might have been.  However, I am hoping that you will be able to send me an e-mail with the form attached. If anybody would like any further information immediately to the e-mails I sent, (I have been really wanting to get involved with the ASCA website forum ever since I was first referred to your website, and can provide as much information as I have about the use of ritual abuse by organised crime, and how I have protected myself from the worst effects), there is a new weblog I have made which was incited by difficulty I am having with police, whose surveillance I have been under. Their observance of me initially was only in the fact of my having long been associated with left wing political activism, however more recently, since criminals had attempted to ritually abuse me, the police were picking up on the end of the stick in which criminals had been trying to scape goat me:- however, since the election that situation has improved dramatically, and perhaps also because of my exposing much of my information in the weblog.   The url is http://doyouknowaboutasca.blogspot.com   (I put the asca anacronym in the url to prevent me forgetting to join you).  I was hoping to be able to keep use of my name distinct from all my weblog material, however that is manifesting more and more impossible all the time, in which situation, the more persons are informed about me and my situation, the safer I will be.) I will try again to download the membership application today, but since I can neither find the detail in another page of your website, about what the cost is (I am remembering either $30 or $35 concession), I will probably be more likely to send the money in next week now.  Thanks if you can send me an e-mail with the form. Also today I am sending a letter as a petition to my local federal MP, and also Kevin Rudd, about one tiny fraction of the Family Law Act, with respect to the “Sorry” being prepared at this time.  Perhaps your organisation might have a look at my letter, and even organise any support for it which might be possible. My petition is asking that an addition be made the the Judge’s Regulations which defines acts of child sexual assault as inhibiting the already existing legal right of an Aboriginal child to enjoy their culture.  I have attached my letter-petition to this e-mail, and will supply a copy in the post also. Faithfully,                Rebecca Copas Nungarrayi

The first drafted letter, which had been misplaced the morning I posted the paper copy, and so therefore the other was written and sent:
29th January 2008 
To my local Member of Federal ParliamentThe right honourable Bernie Ripoll MP,cc. The right honourable Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and his minister for indigenous affairs. This is a letter with reflection upon some current legislation, in respect of the upcoming “Sorry” being given to the Stolen Generations from the Government elected by the Australian people.  Therefore it is a lawful petition to the federal government.  To expedite your reading of the issue in which I am making this petition, you could look forward into this letter, as far as the last two paragraphs at the bottom of page six.  Most of the earlier parts provide information as to why it has become myself whom is making this petition at this time. Because I have previously written a letter with respect to the work of ASIO, and am known to be under ASIO surveillance, I will preface my reflection with a bit of further commentary about my own immediate situation.  You may or may not know accurately about me from the police, and if there are enquiries into my own perspective about being under ASIO surveillance, can I direct that to a weblog I have recently made in the internet, in the best interests of my own personal safety, which is at http://doyouknowaboutasca.blogspot.com I need to commend the Labor Party in the fact of my having noticed a quite dramatic improvement in the standard of police work I can observe around me, ever since the election. That is despite policing necessarily needing to be a bi-partisan occupation.  My weblog mentioned addresses some of my concerns about why police are so effected by the political arena, with express concerns about how organised crime has been enabled to lead police astray.  You might also note that I am comprehensive of the fact that I have lived an unusual life, of the sort which can be regarded to warrant policing surveillance, despite my clear high valuation of sustaining law abidance; and that I am openly appreciative of the fact that ASIO surveillance has afforded me a considerable degree of protection from organised crime since I have been living here in Queensland, and beyond that protection available to me from the Queensland State Police. The issue about why I am in need of protection from organised crime, has some bearing on my comments in this letter, so I will mention it.  Over new year going into 2003, I was raped at the tent embassy in Canberra, within a pattern which accords to the forms of ritual abuse which are known (through the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre) to have been a part of the efforts of the Rebel Bikie gang, which controls all drug sales in Canberra, in which the Rebels attempt to make every person whom becomes aware of their concerns, complicit with their criminal activity.  It is a form of ritualised abuse which normally causes the victim to be psychologically unable to avoid continuing in drug use and/or prostitution without displaying symptoms which appear as a mental illness.   I was fortunate to have the Spiritual guidance necessary (from traditionally oriented Aboriginal Christians) so that the abuse did not have that effect on me, as well as already being informed about the nature of such abuse, so that I could recognise what I was experiencing, and further fortunate in that perhaps it could have been ASIO’s surveillance of me which inhibited the perpetrators from undertaking the full degree of such abuse against me.  However, I have noticed that not even the police suppose that it is possible to survive those forms of psychological, emotional, and physical abuse, without actually becoming insane or under the control of organised crime.  I believe that my experience has been very unusual in that I managed to avoid the worst of the physical abuse which criminals perpetrate in conjunction with all of the emotional and psychological abuse which was inflicted upon me.  However, subsequently, individuals affiliated with Rebels, have monitored me, and every time I have mentioned in public that their efforts to control me had failed, I am placed again in danger.  Normally in that predicament what has happened was that a threat of rape was made, then an Aboriginal man who is familiar with the patterns of organised crime through imprisonment, had stepped in an offered to spend some time in my company such that it could  seem that they had been successfully manifesting the sort of physically abuse of me as they had been conditioned to in prison. Those Aboriginal men have been extremely courteous and respectful towards me, and have also provided me with explicit information about the conduct of men within the prison system.  It has happened by co-incidence, that the number of occasions in which this sort of thing has happened to me, involving different men, has enabled me to collect a set of facts about the current conditions in prisons, which is quite shocking, and which is unusual to have been able to put together.  Most men whom have been prison inmates tend to be only able to tell one thing, if any, of all the abuse which occurs in prisons.  It can be noted that the perpetrators of the ritualised abuse which I mentioned, have all learned how to in prison, where some have even obtained psychology qualifications to enable that.  In particular among those men, I will mention by name, Eric Smith, and Wayne (name change to Zim) Sully, whom both featured in the “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” television programme.  The original attempt to ritually abuse me was made by Eric, and one of two subsequent attempts by Wayne.  The other subsequent attempt was by a British individual, who is a Rebel and whom sustains a Yakuza body guard while in Australia, but lives as a pauper to hide his identity, and whom gave me the name Chris Spencer, but whom police have listed as Mark Smart.  That attempt, in September 2005, was the worst, and I have reported it to the police.  However, in each of these situations I mention, the clandestine threats are so extreme as to have made me seem to be complicit with what is in effect a rape.  The threat of violence was serious and enough to prevent me from trying to avoid engagement with these men.  These matters I am mentioning bear some relation upon the Government’s approach to providing a “Sorry” because of the current situation in which many Aboriginal women have been subject to the form of abuse I was subject to, and to a far more extreme degree.  The culmination of the abuse seems to be in forcing the female to seem to be unable to care for her children, and then branding her with a reputation of being among a set of women who can be blamed for all crimes against children.  That is why the abuse is normally conducted against woman and girls whom organised crime intends to turn into prostitutes.  I have an acquaintance who was a heroin addict and prostitute, but whom I met when she wanted to get out of the criminal entrapment into those behaviours, and has informed me that the worst of the forms of abuse I am mentioning, is that of imposing by force a pregnancy, so as to make a prostitute more valuable, and then to sell her to clients who are wanting to hide the fact of their own crimes against children.  I have been lead to believe that the brothel industry is hiding many incidents of such, and that those incidents correlate with attempts to cover over that child prostitution and pornography which is existing. The worst of the information I have received from men whom have been prison inmates, includes: that men whom are no danger to children have been placed among “rock spiders” and branded as that themselves, only through asking prison guards for protection from murderers; that many prison inmates fear the existence of undetected child abusers among the prison population, since they are all expected to engage in sodomising each other by those whom use violence as authority within prison; and that the drugs available for sale are all drugs which ameliorate the effects of amphetamines which are being placed into the diet; and that in general men are being judged by other prisoners, (and also prison security though that is less able to be evidenced outside the fact that the whole situation even arises), in terms of their tendency to criminality, depending upon their physiological responses to being raped. I must also say that I would not have been engaging in finding out about these things, if I had not been abused myself and found myself under criminal investigation for things which I have had no part in.  Thereby I have had a high level of motivation to find out why the police might have been misconstruing the situation in respect of my own family law case, and it became obvious that the police were being misinformed through criminal sources.  At the outset however, all that I had witnessed which caused the Rebels to want to silence me, was that drug use was occurring at the tent embassy within Rebel guarantees of providing protection from corrupt police.  I had no inclination to be informing the police, but was regarded as likely to inform the traditionally oriented Warlbiri community whom I was in the company of the day I arrived at the tent embassy. It seems that organised crime have, somewhat to their detriment, become more afraid of my capacity to expose them than they might have needed to be at the outset.  The Warlbiri people who I associated with were those I know through an acquaintance Claire Bruhns, and whom were visiting Canberra for the Baptist Convention.  They are from Nyripi and Yuendumu, and had some years previously, given myself and my children Warlbiri “skin” names. In telling this much, I ought to say that so far the story I have to tell, is mostly accommodated within the weblog at the url I have given.  However, that weblog mainly addresses my concerns around how the police are managing these issues.  Within that framework, of addressing the issue of child protection within the larger issue of law and order and safety, I make ample mention of the fact that the source of the problem is criminal and not policing. I must also state here, as I have there, that the problem is not a specifically indigenous/Aboriginal problem, however a higher percentage of the Aboriginal population are familiar with the issues at stake, because of the higher rate at which Aboriginal men have been incarcerated in prisons.  It will be auspicious for government to attribute the source of any of my information which might be of real political use, to the whole population of indigenous Australians whom have worked to protect children, rather than to my self individually. To my own observation there is one specific part of legislation, in which perhaps a small addition,  might make a massive positive effect for the Aboriginal community in these matters.  That is in family law, the section about procedure and rules for Judges, at 60CC.  I have been recently directed to read that portion of the law by a Justice Barry in the Queensland Family Court, since I am representing myself in a family law matter. The Judge referred me to this section of the law in asking whether or not it is a serious concern for the court that I have asserted indigenous ancestry and that the regard for my assertion is potentially politically contentious.  The point of law is that one in which a Judge must consider the indigenous child’s right to enjoy Aboriginal culture. Before commenting upon how I have read the law, and what improvement I would like to here suggest could be raised in Federal Parliament, in conjunction with the “Sorry”, I will briefly mention the matter of controversy around my own identification.  I can also advise that I have written an essay about such identifications as my own, and that it is within the same weblog as already mentioned (other matter there includes a longer essay started for the express purpose of informing my extended family and other longer term acquaintances about the situation of my being under police surveillance, and a shorter and more general commentary on the issues: not all of which are political). The basic contention in the family law court, is that on one hand, an allegation has been made against me of having put my children at risk, through exposure to the Aboriginal community, and within that had been an un-investigated false allegation, that I could be myself a paedophile, but only made by extrapolation of my involvement with the indigenous community; and on the other hand, the legal case against me has relied upon psychiatric evidence, in which I had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, (but without fulfilment of the legal requirement for that diagnosis), because of asserting a likelihood that our family could have some indigenous ancestry, and that in combination with my own affiliation with traditionally oriented Aboriginal culture.   There are two standing forensic psychiatric report being used against me, but in both of those, the psychiatrists relied upon the unproven  legal case against me for all their collateral evidence about my psychiatric health.  Because of this being the case, I have some need to defend my affiliations with Aboriginal people. The history is unusual.  During the Bicentenary I happened to be present by chance in a situation which enabled me to adjoin, in travelling to Sydney for the Land Rights protests around the 26th January, with the convoy of traditionally oriented Aborigines which had been aided by the Uniting Church to travel from WA, NT, and SA, to perform Corroboree in Sydney at that time.  There after I was well received at La Perouse, and acknowledged in a covert fashion that is still current today within the Aboriginal community, as being of probable indigenous ancestry.  I was invited to attend the Corroboree at Kurnell during the eve and dawn of the actual 200th anniversary of Captain Cook claiming Australian land as British.  Significantly, I was the only white girl there not already aligned within the indigenous Kinship systems, whom was not fearful of the event.  At the time, however, it was all a bit inexplicable to me. Subsequently I had paid a little more attention to small parts of oral history in our family suggesting the possibility of indigenous ancestry.  For example, my Nanna, who is now deceased, mentioned to me that I ought not look too hard at Aboriginal facial features or else I might begin to acquire the same face; and my great aunties in my father’s family, had always stayed out of the sun so as not to become too brown, and while they at first said it was because of Spanish ancestry, they later retracted that when my sister married a Spaniard.  However, my mother has been adamant that the only indigenous relations we have are by marriage.  My mother has traced all the certificate records back to original immigrants, and will not accept that perhaps there might have been illegitimate children born to Aboriginal women, whom were later adopted by the father’s white wife; or any of the many other situations in which many white Australians know of having indigenous ancestors. My mother has been so determined to prove that we have no indigenous ancestry, that she accepted false assertions being made against me, by some of the criminal persons involved at the tent embassy.  Those persons engaged in a set up by giving me one set of opinions about their regard for white people whom sustain affiliations with Aboriginal culture, that being of need to reconcile by making open knowledge of indigenous ancestry, and giving my mother another set of opinions about their regard for white people who sustain affiliations with Aboriginal culture, being that of a need to identify with a privileged position as whites in advantage over blacks.  My parents are the product of many generations of our families, and families like us, making every effort to pass-as-white, and in their having been born before the 1967 referendum, they were raised with every expectation of need to constantly deny that indigenous ancestry is a part of the white Australian mainstream reality.  Many Australians have the same sort of belief about their ancestors, but might not be aware of how the criminal influences in the indigenous population had been working to set us all up to seem to be still wanting to deny Aboriginality as though ashamed of. Instructively, the more traditionally oriented Aborigines, have far less difficulty with white persons being named as also an Aborigine.  Traditional culture sustains a method for detection signs of adherence to aspects of an indigenous ethnicity, which are hereditary, and those signs have been checked in me on a number of occasions, but a number of Aboriginal men.  One of the difficulties in the whole story, is that only the most traditionally oriented men, and often only as elders, are adept at detecting those signs without engaging in sexual intercourse, which tends to be a part of the picture of why there is more sexual intercourse than necessary around the periphery of most indigenous communities.  Basically there is a regard for all newcomers that they need to be found out about, and that sexual intercourse is the most expedient method.  However, when there is also alcohol consumption, and also when many of the community have been prison inmates, the traditional cultural sanctions governing that sort of behaviour are corrupted, which is mostly why any indigenous children are, or seem to be, at risk. In my own case, I have had three significant relationships with Aboriginal men, any of whom would be able to validate that I carry those inherent biological signs, but whom are not willing or wanting for me to be named openly as an Aborigine in a certificate or letter of Aboriginality.  I am also disinclined to use that sort of legal certification as the basis for substantiating my Aboriginality, since I had not myself in the conditions of my childhood, any reason to claim of the government assistance available to Aborigines.  It is for that same reason that the indigenous community have been reluctant to validate my sanity by providing me with that sort of certificate of Aboriginality.  These men whom I have been in marriage type relations with, of the sort named as temporary marriages in traditional Aboriginal culture, (temporary since no baby is born), are: Samuel Saunders, (brother to the actress Jennifer Saunders);  Ivan Dick (an initiated Pitjintjatjara man whose daughter is with the Yothu Yindi group); and Brian Rainbow, (a native title holder at Fraser Island, who was the litigant in an Australian court action againt the Ku Klux Klan).  Samuel is part of the stolen generations, and has been frequently enough a prison inmate, and is suffering from extreme alcoholism; Ivan is a qualified National Park Ranger, but has been suffering severe alcoholism after an incarceration in prison for a minor offence, and because of his initiation he proved himself to be the best informant about prison conditions; and Brian has worked for the NSW and QLD state governments in delivery of services among the population of former prison inmates, including teaching literacy in the prisons, during which he was himself abused physically by the prison security services.  Brian is a recovering alcoholic. All these men are effectively psychologically disabled by the form of ritualised abuse that is conducted between prison inmates under the influence of organised crime, and none are themselves essentially criminal in their outlook.  I am also known to John Nawakie, an initiated Torres Strait Island man whom has served in the Australian Army, but whom is also suffering severe alcoholism.  The sad fact is that too few indigenous men have escaped abuse which includes anal rape, and are therefore able to avoid the pitfalls of alcoholism, and maintain themselves life long as decent fathers and husbands, so my relationships with these men were necessarily brief.  I believe that they are all suffering from a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is unlike that form diagnosed among Vietnam verterans, but more alike to the forms diagnosed among Native Americans, and is made less recoverable by violent imposition of anal rape.  However I am not a qualified clinician to be making that diagnosis. However, my mention of this clearly highlights that there might in future arise a definition of Aboriginality which is unique from a distinct definition of what family background determine eligibility for the government assistance available to Aboriginal persons.  For example, the government assistance might become available to all families whom had been precluded from citizenship prior to 1967, or only to those persons whom, by combination of black skin and poverty, are finding that the education and employment systems still inadvertently place a more stringent set of conditions upon them, or, only to those whom are actually effected, to their educational and social detriment, by the fact of the wrongful removal of children.  Clearly then also there are issues of government support to remote locations, in which traditional Aboriginal communities can receive financial assistance because of remoteness only, and not necessarily based upon what their notion of identification is. Part of the whole issue in this, is about how certain individuals affiliated with the right wing of the political arena, have taken into their regard that Aborigines sustain belief in an Animist culture.  There are a set of assumptions made within religious contexts, about what Animist belief is, and that engage in a false presumption of being able to blame Aboriginal persons for Animist belief.  The presumption is in part that Animist belief is not compatible with belief in One God, however clearly today very many Indigenous communities are disproving that.  Also there is strong evidence, even in the paper records of Indonesia, that the whole tropical and sub-tropical north of Australia was at one time regarded to be part of the Islamic Kingdom of the leader of Sumatra.  There is a general theological argument about Animist faith, in which a strong minority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, are quite enabled to support the Indigenous belief system.  I have made my own contribution to that theological dialogue through a number of essays, including some more recent commentary published in the website owned by the King of Jordan, which provides interpretative analysis of Qur’an. The Aboriginal population in general is very sensitive to the religious assertions about what is and is not true to the religious legal domain.  That is, even among those Aboriginal persons whom are not believers in One God, the matter is one of a high level of sensitivity, and has been made politically contentious within the indigenous community more generally, by those individuals whom are not believers also in the Abrahamic based religions. All this letter so far, is really the providence of aspects of the ideological base from which I would like to suggest that a small addition to the family law act, become open for debate in the federal parliament. The legislation I am referring to is that section of the family law act which applies rules and procedures for the Judiciary, and is the point at 60CC. The law makes clear reference to the rights of indigenous children to enjoy their culture.  Then it goes on to comment upon what infringements of the rights of the child, must inevitably be prevented from occurrence, regardless of the cultural context.  However, there is a failure to mention that every and any act of sexual abuse against children is not only an infringement of the legislative jurisdiction, but is also factually an infringement of the indigenous child’s ability to enjoy indigenous culture. The reason this failure to mention the obvious, is not an especially good reflection upon the legislators, is because there are assertions among those non-indigenous criminals whom are incarcerated with Aboriginal men, that the indigenous Animist belief, exists as an excuse to cover over actual sexual violations of children.  The fact that even one such delusion has ever existed, even if only among the incarcerated prison population, (though there is evidence of such also even among the clergy, and others involved in mainstream Christian Churches, including in many of the modern North American Evangelist Churches), indicates that there is a need to deny that such is true within legislation. I would like to promote the idea that the addition to the law in the point mentioned, of a part to the effect that: Every instance of any sexual violation of a child will be regarded as an act in itself preventing children from enjoying Aboriginal culture. I can comprehend that perhaps the parliament had been lead to believe that the failure to mention specifically that child sexual abuse is not to be tolerated within the reason of a child’s right to enjoy their culture, might be necessary only so as not to further associated the indigenous community with particular mention of such acts existing in indigenous settings.  However, I believe that by stating actively that abuse of children is a factor in preventing the right of the child to enjoy their culture, the legislation will not be contentious to any party. Perhaps also the addition of such a small part of legislation, could correctly temper the intervention into remote communities in the Northern Territory, into a higher likelihood of real success in child protection. I hope that the length of my letter has not been any burden, and is rather only able to contribute to validating my self as a person enabled within Traditionally Oriented culture to be making this petition to government. I believe that it is right for such a change to coincide with the giving of a “Sorry”. However if the government is not able to act upon this, perhaps I am willing to undertake the drafting and dissemination of a much larger petition asking for the change.  However, I expect that the international policing scrutiny that such a public petition might receive, would not be in the best interests of the majority of Australian children. I hope that the changes being enabled with also enable Aboriginal men working in industries like the building industry, to become able to communicate how the organised crime interests in that industry, have been preventing trade union membership and support. Thankyou for reading my petition, in this form of a lengthy letter,


  Rebecca Copas nungarrayi (formerly Rebecca Marker 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s