I’m guessing that one reason the current standoff on Mauna Kea is so difficult to resolve is that a substantial part of the Mauna movement believe the laws don’t apply to them, at least judging by positions staked out on social media.
I recommend taking a look at this story which appeared in the Garden Island newspaper back on September 3, 2019.
Caleb Loehrer, The Curious trials of Kapana Thronas-Kaho‘onei.
Thronos-Kaho‘onei is described as “a community-college dropout in his mid-twenties, who makes a living doing odd jobs when he’s not crewing on a sailboat….”
What makes him interesting is that Thronos-Kaho‘onei is one of those who refuses to comply with basic laws because “he doesn’t recognize the state of Hawaii and believes he is not a citizen of the United States.”
As a result, he’s been ticketed and taken to court numerous times in his young life for driving without a drivers license, driving an unregistered vehicle or failing to produce the registration, missing a valid safety check and license plate, broken tail light, etc. And those traffic stops have resulted in charges of resisting arrest and, in one case, a drug charge for marijuana possession.
He justifies his continued flouting of simple laws by saying that he is just fighting for “his people,” although it’s hard to figure out how refusing to get a drivers license, or fighting with police, is going to end homelessness or promote the well-being of the Hawaiian community.
Thronos-Kaho‘onei says Hawaii is a “fake state” without legitimate power over him.
“My first defense has always been, no jurisdiction,” he explained outside the courtroom where he waited for the jury to return Thursday afternoon. “I’m not a part of the state of Hawaii.”
What an odd position this self-inflicted statelessness must be. Obviously, he’s living in the State of Hawaii, whatever his assessment of whether it is “fake” or not. That’s a reality he has to accept. There is no Kingdom to retreat to, it doesn’t exist, so he’s stuck. He can, I suppose, give up his U.S. citizenship, which automatically carries with it his ties to the State of Hawaii, but then he would have to find another nation state to accept him. And then he would have to comply with their laws. So it’s obviously an untenuous position to be in.
For the record: The sovereignty defense is a loser. Anyone who tells you that it’s going to get you out of trouble is deluded or a charlatan.
As I’ve said here before:
I’m not sure I should mention this here, but…the whole “Kingdom still exists” defense is definitely a loser. Really. In the end, at least in terms of legal strategy, it would probably be better for these defendants to say nothing than to pursue the “we don’t have to follow your laws because we’re Hawaiians” defense.
See:
“Hawaii Supreme Court rejects sovereignty defense,” iLind.net, February 3, 2014.
Ian Lind: The ‘Kingdom Defense’ Is a Dead End for Mauna Kea Protesters, Civil Beat, July 22, 2015.
“Another example of the cross-over between Hawaiian sovereignty and right-wing antigovernment groups,” iLind.net, July 8, 2015.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m sure you recognize that this is identical to the “sovereign citizens” found on the mainland. They believe the US government is run by jews and mud people and they too can flout the laws.
The same argument has come up about filing income taxes and also fails. We expect tourists to abide by our laws, and we are expected to follow laws in other states as well as other countries when we travel there. How could anyone think that they don’t have to obey laws here?
I love your statement. So simple and so true.
It’s sad that the mainstream media has been so successful in turning this into a science vs anti-science issue and now a moke issue. It has never been about whether telescopes have validity, it has always been about the desecration of the mauna, and mokes are not leading this fight, this is something they are jumping on now. No one is saying not to build a telescope, they’re saying enough already on Mauna Kea. There are already 12 observatories on Mauna Kea, many of them are obsolete and abandoned, the same ones that Senator Inouye waived environmental protection laws, endangered species laws and religious protection laws to build. I wrote a blog about it several years ago for Mana Magazine which is unfortunately now defunct and I can’t find it online, but I was appalled at the history when I started researching it. This has always been about the desecration of the land and the disrespect of Hawaiians, who have protested every single telescope on solid and legal grounds. When the 12 existing facilities were built, not only were laws waived, heiau and ahus were bulldozed into trash heaps. Speaking of trash, there’s tons of it up there because it has never been removed. This new telescope will go down 12 stories into the ground. Space telescopes will see much more than land telescopes will ever see and that this $1.6 B telescope will be obsolete probably before it’s even completed. Sad that people have opinions but no fact other than being told by corporate America – and believing – that Hawaiians are anti-science and uninformed. Try check out social media, don’t rely so heavily on what the people who stand to profit have to say. Oh yeah, and jobs for locals… for the construction workers, for awhile, and for the security guards after that. I highly doubt there will be much more than that in it for anyone here. Thank god the next generation of educated and well-spoken Hawaiians is stepping up to protect what is left of our land and our culture. You should go up there. It?s an awesome sight to see protocol being performed by cultural Hawaiians who are doing it for the gods, not a tourist audience. Nuff racism against Hawaiians already, time to go to the Canary Islands.
Wailana, Like many in the anti-telescope movement you base your argumants on myths. Myths that have been so often shown false, but still persist. What is really odd is that these claims are so easy to show as false, yet they persist.
“Many are obsolete and abandoned” A complete myth, none are abandoned and telescopes can be state of the art for decades as they are constantly updated. Even the one (CSO) currently going through decommissioning is planned to be dismantled and moved to another location where is can be used again.
“this $1.6 B telescope will be obsolete probably before it’s even completed” No, the telescope itself is simply a light collector, using a design that is almost four centuries old. It is the instruments, the cameras or spectrographs, that contain the newest tech, and these get updated constantly.
“waived environmental protection laws, endangered species laws and religious protection laws to build” Also incorrect, only the first two of the thirteen telescopes on the mauna were built without proper permits in place. All of the newest and largest were built with full permits and environmental review. Those first two? Well? DLNR was only a few years old at the time, the admin rules were just being written, it appears that no one really knew what the process was and it got done a few years later. Hard to fault them for not getting permits.
“heiau and ahus were bulldozed into trash heaps” Another myth. There are plenty of photos and descriptions of the summit, none show cultural structures where the telescopes are now located.
” Space telescopes will see much more than land telescopes will ever see” Yeah, that one is a myth too. Keck, Gemini, and Subaru all routinely outperform Hubble. Size matters with a telescope and space telescope are very limited in size.
“Speaking of trash, there’s tons of it up there because it has never been removed.” Yeah? No. Just show me a photo of trash on the mauna. One of the most photographed placed on the planet, should be easy.
This is typical of what we see when looking through anti telescope claims… Myths, gross exaggeration, smears, and outright lies. In comments, official press releases from leading figures in the opposition, and even under oath in legal proceedings.
I like your reasoning. Thanks for writing this comment, Andrew.
Re – sovereignty defense. “Anyone who tells you that it’s going to get you out of trouble is deluded or a charlatan.”
Personally, I don’t think anyone is trying “to get out of trouble.” There is the case that the islands were taken illegally and a lot of land use subsequently has been adjudicated under another system that has not worked out well for the indigenous culture.
“Obeying the law” is more of a whose-got-the-most-marbles-wins scheme that a great many of folks recognizes as working for dollars more than for justice.
The Kingdom, or nation, still exists. It is the government that currently does not exist, this has been internationally recognized many times.
Just because the US Govt. illegally occupies this place, doesn’t mean the country ceases to exist. Take Iraq, or many other international examples: we toppled the government which for a time ceased to exist; the country itself still exists regardless of the state of its governmental body.
So many get in a fit about the protectors not “obeying the law here”. Why the need to act righteous about obeying US law when they US Is the one breaking laws and treaties when it so serves them?
Just have the guts to speak the truth, which is you support the US position even though it is the hypocritical one. Don’t act righteous because you are ashamed of your hypocrisy, just say you are against the Hawaiian position and leave it at that.
You assert: “The Kingdom, or nation, still exists. It is the government that currently does not exist, this has been internationally recognized many times.”
You’re correct on one thing here. The nation is different from its government. The government can change radically, but the nation may stay the same. Nations don’t always stay the same. Sometimes new governments split their former nations, other times are created by adding additional territory. In the case of Hawaii, however, the Kingdom–what had become a constitutional monarchy–was the government.
And I would say that your statement about international recognition is not correct. It does not reflect the state of national or international law. I would welcome hearing what you have to say about any of the “many times” the Kingdom has been recognized to exist.
We may not like what happened in Hawaii. We may mourn the overthrow of that constitutional monarchy. We may assert, as many do, that the Hawaiian Kingdom had already been so drastically altered by the imposed constitutions that it really no longer reflected the interests of Hawaiians. Whatever.
As you correctly say, there’s a difference between the nation and the government.
In Hawaii’s case, the government was overthrown in 1893. Again, we may cheer that or deeply and painfully regret it. It was a revolution. A group seized power. Not fair. But that’s reality.
The previously existing Hawaiian government was replaced, first by a provisional government, and then by the Republic of Hawaii. The new was quickly recognized by most countries of the world as the legitimate government of the nation of Hawaii.
And when the government of the Republic of Hawaii, through its legislature, offered itself for annexation to the United States, and the United States accepted, it meant that the formerly independent nation of Hawaii became part of the United States.
Again, I’m not arguing that this was just, or fair, or pono. But it was. And it is.
I believe in dealing with the hand that we have been dealt, not wasting a lot of time and energy dreaming about what might have been, or joining the ghost dance until we’re exhausted and having visions.
I stood with the sovereignty movement for years but these last years have shown a change so far from what is Hawaiian I completely reject it now. What it was in the past, 20 years ago has morphed into a movement that divides not only Hawaiians but all of our communities. There will never be a “kingdom to retreat to”; and there are many laws written to protect us. It’s not practical and it leaves one little choices to advocate for a kingdom that will never exist. The protesters who blockade the Maunakea Access Road leave us no choices but their own. What about the other Hawaiians who want to be astronomers and work with TMT, have access to the latest technology? All through social media folks are proclaim the blockade as a renaissance, ironic as that is a western word to define an art movement. An art movement that chose critical thinking and science, and it was manifest in the development of perspective on the canvas. The blockade is undoing everything we have done to conserve and preserve the environment of Maunakea, keep in mind conservation, preservation, along with EPA standards are new concepts. The protesters claim they speak for all Hawaiians, but they don’t speak for me and others who support TMT. The protesters offer us no choices, they have made this clear. Therefore the only solution is to end the illegal blockade and let construction proceed.
I have been down this same path. You hit the nail on the head.
Black face pen defense is the best…gets you life in prison!
Thank you, Ian, for your reply to Samuel. From my understanding and research:
The Nation of Hawaii was not overthrown in January of 1893. All that was overthrown was the monarchial government. Per the legal history of Hawaii, from the actions of Kalakaua from 1874 through his sister Liliuokalani being removed on January 17, 1893, the legal formation of the Republic of Hawaii , through the first citizen lead Constitutional Convention presenting the July 4, 1894 Constitution, then the sitting senate from the Liliuokalani reign passing the Treaty of Annexation request from the Republic and the Treaty being accepted by Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress and signed by the U.S. President making the Republic of Hawaii the Territory of Hawaii, the chain of custody between the Kingdom and the State of Hawaii.
One of the latest arguments making the rounds is that the signature of Liliuokalani is not on the offered Treaty accepted by the U.S. by the Newlands Resolution. The main issue with that theory was that the Queen abdicated on January 24, 1895 and the Newlands Resolution was accepted July 7, 1898 when the Queen no longer had any authority so sign any Treaty.
Pingback: Were cultural sites destroyed when building observatories? – A Darker View