On Monday, August 31 I found myself in the most unlikely
spot on earth: the Western Australia courthouse at Kalgoorlie. I was invited to observe the commencement of
proceedings against Michael David Tucker - an aboriginal man who was accused of
harvesting sandalwood for sale without the proper permits. Welcomed into the courthouse on the main
thoroughfare in this gold rush mining town by contracted security guards native
to New Zealand, I joined a small group of people waiting to be admitted into
the courtroom. Among the observers were
members of Michael's family, several aboriginal legal advocates, and a few
vocal advocates for the entire eradication of national and federal structures
and their judicial agencies. As the
published time for the commencement of proceedings past, a small security
detail assembled in front of the courtroom door barring all from entering save
the ebb and flow of police and security personnel. The assembly was given no information as to
the nature of the closure of the proceedings though word spread that the
Defendant was facing the judge without counsel infuriating several of the
waiting advocates. After several days of
contentious proceedings, a jury found Mr. Tucker guilty.
Now the facts appear to suggest that Mr. Tucker did, in
fact, harvest sandalwood with the intent to sell the same. And the control of harvesting sandalwood in
Western Australia is subject to the Sandalwood
Act of 1929. In this Act, the
penalty for "pulling or removing" sandalwood from Crown land or
"alienated land" is a fine of $200.
The Western Australia Department of Parks and Wildlife have a 7 page
licensing information sheet that sets forth the guidelines for obtaining a
permit for harvesting sandalwood and Mr. Tucker apparently failed to seek or
obtain such a permit. So, under the prima facie argument, there appears to
be some rationale for what transpired.
But that's before you review the facts that are relevant in this case.
Western Australia was formally claimed by the Crown in 1829 as
an expansion of the Swan River Colony overlooking the contract between King
Gustav III of Sweden and William Bolts for the establishment of a Swedish
colony in 1786. While the whole of
Australia was claimed by the Crown on 21 January 1827, regional annexations
were precisely defined over the next several years with Western Australia being
formally subject to Crown land grants two years later. And Western Australia, the unique agricultural
and pastoral home of the Noongar community, was known to be an ideal
agricultural anomaly in the early days of the Commonwealth. In other words, the Crown, at the time of
colonization, knew that Western Australia was inhabited by foresters and
pastoral lands people. As such, the Sandalwood Act of 1929 is, in fact,
incompatible with Crown law.
Allow me to explain.
Under the never-overturned or amended by reference Charter of the Forest,
the baron's companion law to the Magna Carta (declared invalid by
King John and Pope Innocent III), any forests claimed by the King must be
disafforested to the "good and worthy men" to whom the forests
belonged (Section 1). Further, under
Section 14, the Crown's own charter prohibits the extraction of fees from those
who collect wood from the forest particularly in the event that in so doing,
someone is gainfully earning a livelihood.
In other words, if British subject by force Mr. Tucker were fully
informed of the laws governing British subjects (clearly a reasonable
expectation since the 1967 Constitution
Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 law), he could have reasonably pointed out to
the Court that he was claiming his lawful rights under the Charter of the Forest and had an entirely different trial.
So why is that, when I queried the assembled masses in
Kalgoorlie, when I spoke to the Aboriginal Legal Services, and when I
encountered the several aboriginal people fined and imprisoned for failure to
comport to laws themselves incompatible with Crown law, no one seemed to know
about the Charter of the Forest - one
of England's oldest laws? Why did I
encounter dozens of people who have done jail time for hunting on Crown land
despite the exceptionally clear prohibition of such restrictions set forth in
Section 10 of the Charter? Mr. Tucker, it seemed, was the unwitting prey
caught between the hounds of repressive faux justice in the goldfields of
Western Australia on one hand and Constitutional activists seeking to sever
ties with the Crown on the other. All
the while, he was kept in the dark about his actual rights to live as he wished
afforded to him by an 800 year old law.
Is it possible that this is yet another example of how our
current system of tyrannical abuse of willful ignorance is an inextricable
component to how the corruption of capitalism (not free
market capitalism in its ideal) has brought ruin to our moral fiber? When Karl Marx critiqued the Swan River
Colony of Western Australia as the evidence of capitalism's failure in Das
Kapital, did anyone realize that even his socialism failed to address
the real cancer of colonial callousness?
Mr. Tucker is guilty of one thing. He's guilty of being as ignorant of the law
as were his judge, jury, and advocates.
His penalty, which will include a criminal rap sheet for crimes defined
by a law that itself fails to comport with the law, will add further
despondency to a people tired of being treated as criminals in their own
land. And, in the end, neither he nor
the citizens of Australia will have received justice. In the final analysis, these abuses of power
do not serve any of their stated purposes.
They do not build a free and fair society. They do not support a robust capitalist
system. They merely show that reckless
inhumanity flourishes only when willful ignorance is the currency of the
day. And this condition can be changed
if the citizens of Australia and the rest of the world chose to change
them. Until then, thousands of Mr.
Tuckers will be the casualties of our collective negligence. And this, my dear friends, is not a free
market. It's organized crime operated by
those incumbencies who enforce their corrupt views of their selective rules.
x