Kehaulani critiques the Akaka Bill and the dangers set within it:Aloha kakou-Some of our people are rightly asking about the need for public hearingson the Akaka bill.The Hawaii U.S. Congressional delegation held that ONE 5-day hearing backin 2000!Since then, the legislative proposal has changed in many serious ways--it's a very different bill now, most especially since the earliestversions actually DID provide for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be"on par" with how the U.S. government allows tribal nations to exercisetheir self-determination. But that has since changed. In the latestversions, the bill DOES NOT EVEN ALLOW THAT MUCH.1) UNLIKE WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBAL NATIONS, THENEWEST PROPOSALS FOR THE AKAKA BLL SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT *NOTHING* INTHE STATE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE. This is verydifferent from any other form of federal recognition since tribal nationsare NOT subject to state law! The Akaka bill says the Native Hawaiiangoverning entity WILL be subject to ALL state laws.2) UNLIKE what the U.S. government allows for tribal nations, THE AKAKABILL WILL NOT ALLOW THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING ENTITY TO PUT ANY LANDUNDER U.S. FEDERAL TRUST. The process of having land held in U.S. federaltrust is a CORE CONDITION for tribal nations to assert jurisdiction overtheir reservation lands.To give an example, when legal challenges were made against an AlaskaNative village (1998 Venetie case) that owned their own land as acorporation (much like OHA claims to own lands in its corporateportfolio), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Venetiecould NOT assert ANY jurisdiction over their own lands because they arenot held in U.S. federal trust. IN OTHER WORDS, THE U.S. GOVERNMENTREQUIRES THAT TRIBAL LANDS BE HELD UNDER FEDERAL SUPERVISION BEFOREANY TRIBAL NATION/NATIVE GOVERNING ENTITY CAN ASSERT "SOVEREIGNTY"OVER THEM! This, of course, is a complete contradiction in term (i.e. tobe "sovereign" they are required to be "dependent").NEITHER OF THESE TWO STIPULATIONS WERE IN THE EARLIER BILLS. These twostipulations change the nature of the bill ENTIRELY. That is to say thateven for Kanaka who support "federal recognition" and WANT the status of atribal nation, THIS BILL WON'T EVEN GIVE THEM THAT!This alone should be ENOUGH TO HAMMER THE BILL since it is not what itpurports to be. We can expose that without even getting into the assertionof the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the independence claim. Inother words, OHA is telling average "Kanaka-Joe" (like my own father,Joseph Kauanui III who heard their dog & poney show in California a coupleyears back and was persuaded by them until I undid that pack of lies theytold at the time that federal recognition could be a "first step" toHawaiian indpendence) that this bill will give our people the right to"reorganized" as a Native Hawaiian governing entity and assert ourselveslike a tribal nation. THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE.Mahalo, Kehaulani
Comments