Proposed regulations for Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands, September 2018: Testimony by Ken Conklin explains 4 fundamental principles of unity and equality, and applies them to criticize and improve the proposed regulations

Proposed regulations for "Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands", September 2018: Testimony by Ken Conklin explains 4 fundamental principles of unity and equality, and applies them to criticize and improve the proposed regulations

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

** NOTE: A SHORT SUMMARY OF THIS TESTIMONY IS POSTED AT
https://tinyurl.com/yccvmtwy

TO:
UH System Government Relations Office
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2442 Campus Road
Administrative Services Building 1, Room 101
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

September 27, 2018

UHHAR@hawaii.edu

Aloha Hawaii administrative rule-makers

This document provides written testimony for hearings held the last week of September 2018 regarding proposed regulations for "Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands" to become proposed chapter 20-26 of Hawaii's Administrative Rules. I am using your statement of your proposed rules found at
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/adminrules/chapter26-proposed.pdf

My testimony identifies and describes four fundamental principles from which are derived my comments on several of the proposed regulations. Each principle is explicated and supported by philosophic and historical references. There are also proposals for a few additional regulations to strengthen and extend the ones you offered.

Mahalo for reviewing this testimony.

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane'ohe, HI 96744-6083
tel (808) 247-7942
e-mail Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION

Proposed regulations for public and commercial activities on Mauna Kea have emerged at this particular time in partial response to protests against construction of a new 30-meter telescope. Protesters calling themselves "protectors" frequently called Mauna Kea a "sacred place" and blocked the access road to prevent delivery of construction materials and equipment. As public controversy heated up during a period of several years, other issues were raised regarding the appropriateness and handling of individual visitors and commercial tour groups. What regulations should be adopted to control who and how many can visit, for what purposes; and to control their activities?

Troubling questions have been raised regarding whether the religious views of some members of a particular racial group should have priority in this "sacred place." For example, should new burials or scattering of ashes be allowed, and should people without native ancestry be allowed to do such things? Should recreational use, for example snowplay, be allowed, or would that be desecration of a sacred place? Should visitors be required to be "educated" by ethnic Hawaiian greeters about the rules and specifically about the religious beliefs before being allowed to enter? Some protesters have challenged the jurisdiction of the United States, and the State of Hawaii, asserting that ethnic Hawaiians alone, or an unextinguished Hawaiian Kingdom, remain sovereign.

This testimony addresses particular regulations in the Board of Regents' proposed rules. But first it is necessary to discuss some fundamental principles whereby such regulations should be judged. These principles seem so obvious that it is astonishing that every one of them comes under vicious attack from some protesters. Accordingly the principles will not only be stated but also defended with argumentation and citations to supporting documents or analyses. Readers in a hurry may skip past the biographical information about testifier Kenneth R. Conklin, and the fundamental principles, to read the specific conclusions concerning particular regulatory issues. But you can expect that opponents will raise arguments that will require you to look back to the principles.

When a dentist sees a tiny brown spot on a tooth, she might gently poke it with a probe which could cause a large hole to open revealing an underlying cavity in need of treatment. Scientists and mathematicians know that details are important, because the whole edifice of long-established theory is at risk if even a single contrary fact or logical flaw is discovered. The proposed rules for public and commercial activities on Mauna Kea are small details, relatively unimportant in view of the huge problems we face in our chaotic and dangerous world. But supporting or opposing any particular rule opens a chain of logical reasoning which ultimately requires adherence to fundamental principles of civil rights, or commitments to beliefs about Hawaii's history.

KOKOKAHI

In 1839 King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III proclaimed a Declaration of the Rights of Man, which then became the preamble of the 1840 Constitution.

Here is the first sentence of the first Constitution of Hawaii. I call it the KOKOKAHI sentence. One blood. It is the rock upon which all the laws of Hawaii are founded, starting in the Kingdom and then flowing through the Republic, Territory, and State. It is my inspiration for the four fundamental principles stated below.

"Ua hana mai ke Akua i na lahuikanaka a pau i ke koko hookahi, e noho like lakou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi, a me ka pomaikai." In English, it can be translated into modern usage as follows: "God has made of one blood all races of people, to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness."

SUMMARY: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCLUSIONS

Here are four fundamental principles helpful for analyzing the proposed rules:
1. We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.
2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.
3. Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here.
4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

Two obvious conclusions for Mauna Kea rule-making can be derived from those fundamental principles. Many proposed rules should be improved to reflect these two conclusions. These conclusions motivate and underlie all the comments I have made about specific proposed rules.
(A) Every rule should apply equally to people of all races; there should be no racial set-asides or special privileges.
(B) If rule-makers believe Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution requires certain rights to be granted to one particular racial group, then the best way to fulfill that requirement is to grant those same rights to all Hawaii's people regardless of race. There is legal precedent that a law requiring benefits for one racial group can be satisfied by granting those benefits to all persons regardless of race. Furthermore, the Aloha Spirit and the need for pono require such inclusiveness rather than racial exclusion.


===========

BACKGROUND OF TESTIFIER KENNETH R. CONKLIN IN RELATION TO MAUNA KEA

I am Kenneth R. Conklin, holding a masters degree in Mathematics and Ph.D. in Philosophy.

I visited Hawaii on three summer vacations from 1982 to 1989, and then moved permanently to Kane'ohe in 1992. I have studied Hawaii's history in depth and have participated in Hawaiian cultural activities; and speak Hawaiian with moderate fluency. I am a civil rights activist working to protect the unity of all Hawaii's people, and equality under the law for all Hawaii's people regardless of race.

I have dozens of publications in scholarly journals, hundreds of newspaper publications and a very large website focusing on Hawaii's history and sovereignty, the Akaka bill, bills in the Legislature, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk
In 2007 I published a book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Over the years I have a long history of concern about race-based interference with proposals to place additional telescopes on Mauna Kea and to regulate activities there. Here are a few items displaying my concerns about Mauna Kea:

Compilation of newspaper articles from 1999 to 2003 describing the importance of astronomical discoveries on Mauna Kea, opposition to Mauna Kea astronomy from Hawaiian sovereignty activists, and OHA's attempts to extort money and political power
https://tinyurl.com/y9t2jcr9

Ken Conklin testimony March 11, 2002 to Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources: How the telescope campus on Mauna Kea serves the spiritual essence of this sacred place in accord with Hawaiian creation legend.
https://tinyurl.com/y7vkmf66

Ken Conklin testimony January 12, 2004 NASA EIS scoping hearing: How the telescope campus on Mauna Kea serves the spiritual essence of this sacred place in accord with Hawaiian creation legend; why testimony from Hawaiian sovereignty activists should be discounted in view of their motives.
https://tinyurl.com/4fhkx

On May 21, 2015 Honolulu Star-Advertiser published a major commentary I authored: "Protesters use claims of sacredness for political agendas" Full text of the commentary, plus greatly expanded analysis, is available on my webpage "Mauna Kea 2015: Sacred Place; Political Pawn; Profane Demagoguery; Recreational Activism" at
http://tinyurl.com/omjuj3p
See item 8 in that webpage for the newspaper commentary.


==============

FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING MY COMMENTS ABOUT MAUNA KEA

1. We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.

I believe we are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race. Or, as some might prefer to say it: All humans are inherently equal under Natural Law. Or as the U.S. Declaration of Independence says: "All men [i.e., people] are created equal ..."

Principle #1 requires lengthy explanations, because most people in Hawaii have not yet realized that Hawaiian sovereignty activists are utterly opposed to this principle; and most people do not yet understand how fundamentally important and non-negotiable it is. So if you get tired of #1, then skip to #2; but you might need to come back later.

The problem is that one racial group in Hawaii asserts special rights and privileges based solely on having at least one drop of Hawaiian blood. They claim they have inherent superiority over all who lack a drop of Hawaiian blood. To justify this fascist concept they cite the Kumulipo, a beautiful Hawaiian creation legend. But they teach a twisted version of it at all levels of the public and private schools in Hawaii in the "Hawaiian Studies" portions of the curriculum. According to Kumulipo, the gods mated and gave birth to these Hawaiian islands as living beings. Then the gods mated again and gave birth to a stillborn deformed baby which they buried, from which grew the first kalo plant. Then they mated again and gave birth to a perfect, beautiful baby boy named Haloa. There's no problem with this legend as described so far, so long as it is interpreted as describing the creation of all humanity. That way Haloa is the primordial ancestor [like Adam of the Bible] from whom all humans are descended. Thus we are all equal to each other as children of the gods, and as younger brothers/sisters to these islands. "He ali'i ka 'aina, he kauwa ke kanaka." Land (the entire environment including sea and air) is Chief, people are its humble servants. [If we take care of the land, then the land will take care of and feed us.]

The racist twisting of that beautiful legend comes when Haloa is regarded as the primordial ancestor only for "Native Hawaiians" -- implying that Native Hawaiians have a god-given right to racial supremacy in Hawaii because they alone are children of the gods and siblings to the 'aina. Everyone lacking a drop of Hawaiian native blood is forever outside that family of gods, lands, and Hawaiians. This is a theological justification for racial fascism (similar to the "blood and soil" concept touted by German leaders in the 1930s) -- I call it Hawaiian religious fascism. For more analysis see "Hawaiian religious fascism: A twisted version of a beautiful creation legend provides the theological basis for a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in the governance and cultural life of the Hawaiian islands." at
https://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj
See also an earlier webpage: "Religion and zealotry in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement -- how religious myths are used to support political claims for racial supremacy in Hawaii" (9 subpages)
https://tinyurl.com/2n4hy

The antidote to Hawaiian religious fascism is to fully acknowledge and embrace the Aloha Spirit, recognize that it is present in all people and things (regardless of race), and is a powerful force capable of uniting us all in love for each other and respect for the 'aina. Those who understand Christian theology might like the analogy that the Aloha Spirit is the Hawaii version of the Holy Spirit -- one of the three Persons of God, infinitely powerful, always present and capable of infusing us with wisdom and goodness if we open ourselves to receive what is offered. See "The Aloha Spirit. How aloha for all, manifested in the twin pillars of unity and equality, can overcome Hawaiian religious fascism which is the theological basis for a claim to racial supremacy" at
https://tinyurl.com/y7jy53eq

One of the most despicable rejections of racial equality in the eyes of God is the attack on "cultural appropriation." There is growing militancy in some minority groups, including ethnic Hawaiians, who demand that the only people who should be allowed to tell the story of or speak on behalf of a culture are people whose genetic heritage includes the racial group most closely identified with that culture. Certainly people born and raised within a cultural tradition will be steeped in it in a way that outsiders would have a hard time emulating. But is it truly impossible to thoroughly master cultural elements if someone is an adult newcomer, or a lovingly nurtured adopted child lacking the genetic heritage? Why can't their expressions of the culture ever acquire such depth that they are authentic? Why must they be deemed imposters, guilty of cultural appropriation? And even if some newcomers or adoptees lack full depth of spirit or performance, why should their contributions to the perpetuation and thriving of the culture be disrespected or angrily rejected?

For example: At this moment (September 2018) there's a controversy because Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson intends to play the role of Kamehameha The Great in a well-financed major film being planned. Mr. Johnson is tall, handsome, physically well-endowed, fierce-looking, dark-skinned, with a history of starring roles in action movies. The problem is that he is 50% Samoan and 50% African-American, born and raised outside Hawaii and having zero Hawaiian native ancestry. Many ethnic Hawaiian leaders in academia, hula, music, etc. are loudly demanding that someone with Hawaiian blood must play this role, and that writers and directors of the screenplay must be ethnic Hawaiian to ensure that history is told "correctly." This controversy is a rerun of the same nastiness that surfaced 16 years ago when the same actor was slated to play the same role in the same bio-pic, and some of the same Hawaiian leaders loudly voiced the same complaints. On July 10, 2002 the "Honolulu Weekly" alternative newspaper published a parody of a Kamehameha movie screenplay, written by ethnic Hawaiian filmmaker Anne Keala Kelly (perhaps disgruntled at not being considered for the film), in an article entitled "Haolewood: The Last Epidemic." Some news reports and commentaries, along with the entire "Haolewood" screenplay from the now-defunct "Honolulu Weekly", are provided in this webpage: "Political claims to collective cultural 'intellectual property' rights (especially regarding spiritual symbols, ways of knowing, and the spiritual/cultural interpretation of political leadership)" at
https://tinyurl.com/3y5t9

Another example -- this one directly pertaining to the telescope issue on Mauna Kea -- was reported by Hawaii News Now TV on October 27/28, 2017 at
https://tinyurl.com/ybj7qovl
Protesters asserted Hawaiian religious fascism to claim that a universally acknowledged expert on Hawaiian culture is an imposter guilty of cultural appropriation, whose views should be ignored and whose cultural performances are desecrations, merely because he lacks a drop of Hawaiian native blood.

"Three Thirty Meter Telescope opponents were arrested at a state Land Board meeting Friday for being disruptive. The three, identified as Samuel Kaeo, Chase Kanuha and Andre Perez, were among a group of about a dozen Native Hawaiians who interrupted the meeting to call for the immediate resignation of board member Sam Ohu Gon. Gon recently voted to approve the telescope's construction permit and serves as the board's official cultural adviser. He has an extensive resume in environmental issues and is also a well-respected practitioner of Hawaiian culture. But because he's not Native Hawaiian, the protesters say he should not be making decisions that affect their people. "We are asking that you should leave the seat because you do not represent the lahui kanaka!," one member shouted. ... "In the midst of that intervention, three individuals engaged in passive resistance causing us to physically remove them from the room and place them under arrest," said Jason Redulla, deputy enforcement chief for the Department of Land and Natural Resources. ... "We understand their right to express themselves and the point they were trying to make this morning. However, whenever those types of expression cross the line into disorderly conduct, we as law enforcement have to act," said Redulla. BLNR Chair Suzanne Case defended Gon's respectability and knowledge of Hawaiian culture. "It is disappointing and frankly offensive that some who disagree with the Land Board's recent decision on the TMT telescope choose to aim personally at Ohu or any board member. This is not peaceful protest. We must simply reject this kind of divisiveness in Hawaii as well as nationally and globally, and practice respect in our public discourse no matter our views," Case said. Group members say the land board's cultural advisor should be Hawaiian and not appointed by the governor. "He (Gon) has cultural expertise for sure, but anybody can gain that. That seat should be occupied by a Native Hawaiian that is vetted through a process by the Native Hawaiian community," said Ilima Long, opponent of TMT. Long say the board's decision to approve a construction permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope was a major blow, but they still plan to block the project any way they can. ..."

Sam Gon, Ph.D., is senior scientist and cultural advisor for the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, and for BLNR. He is also a fluent speaker of Hawaiian. He has great expertise in Hawaiian culture and as a chanter, and has been welcomed as an expert by ethnic Hawaiian leaders at Hawaiian cultural events for decades. He was recently named a "Living Treasure" of Hawaii. See his knowledge and personality on display in a YouTube video interview at
https://tinyurl.com/y9rnq5a7
The protesters behaved with vicious racism when they demanded his removal as cultural advisor regarding Mauna Kea and the proposed 30-meter telescope, merely because of his ancestry.

Sam Gon and Dwayne Johnson are savagely attacked merely because they lack a drop of the magic blood, when they speak as experts about Hawaiian culture (Gon), or portray cultural heroes (Johnson). But others who lack Hawaiian blood are embraced when they do the same things. The difference is that those who are embraced are politically aligned with the views of Hawaiian activists, and actually live among them; so they are useful to the "lahui" and the movement. Here are three such people with no native blood who are welcome to speak or perform as though they are "kanaka maoli": Pat Namaka Bacon (ethnic Japanese adopted child of Mary Kawena Pukui and expert in language and hula); Kepa Maly (Caucasian adopted by a Hawaiian family, raised on O'ahu and Lana'i, who founded the Lana'i Culture and Heritage Center and served as its executive director, and who is extremely skilled at speaking and chanting in Hawaiian with a style that would be authentic to an elderly native man); and Marvin "Puakea" Nogelmeier, a Caucasian from mainland USA who arrived in Hawaii as a teenager, lived and loved (mahu) among ethnic Hawaiians and adopted their culture, and became one of the foremost experts, and professor of, Hawaiian language. Google them for more information. Nogelmeier is especially interesting because he came to Hawaii a year after high school, learned Hawaiian first from living among native speakers and then from academic study, and began establishing himself in the academic community; but felt it necessary to adopt a Hawaiian sovereignty political viewpoint in order to advance his academic career. Although he made very significant contributions to the resurgence of the language, he retired at only an Associate Professor rank, perhaps for the "politically correct" purpose of allowing "real" Hawaiians to stand above with the highest rank of full Professor.

"Native Hawaiians" as a group are perhaps the world's biggest cultural appropriator. Prior to Captain Cook's arrival in 1778 they had no metal, no pottery, no beasts of burden, no written language, constant warfare, a social system where each chief created law at his whim and enforced it with instantaneous death; and they had not yet invented the wheel. Hawaiians eagerly adopted all the important elements of British and American culture offered to them including metal weapons and cooking utensils, Christian religion, monogamous marriage, written language, the concept of rule of law and due process, private property ownership, parliamentary government in a Constitutional monarchy, musical instruments and songs from other cultures, and eventually technology such as motorized vehicles, radio, TV, etc. "Native Hawaiian" actors today play movie roles portraying leaders of other cultures; their musicians and singers compose and perform in European, American, and Asian languages. It's just plain silly when Hawaiians complain about cultural appropriation. Knowledgeable and 'olu'olu (mellow) people with no Hawaiian blood should be fully welcome on Mauna Kea, including the right to speak Hawaiian, demonstrate prayers to the Hawaiian gods, lead tours and explain Hawaiian history and culture.

Further reading:

A Harvard Ph.D. was given to an ethnic Hawaiian for her dissertation developing a description of allegedly unique ways that ethnic Hawaiians acquire knowledge, and then using that description to develop a rationale for why ethnic Hawaiians need racially separate schooling to acquire the culture that is uniquely theirs. Presumably this theory could be used to assert the claim that anyone lacking a drop of Hawaiian blood is inherently incapable of comprehending or representing Hawaiian culture.
See webpage "Hawaiian Epistemology and Education -- A claim that anyone with a drop of Hawaiian native blood has genetically and culturally encoded unique ways of knowing and learning; and therefore ethnic Hawaiian children (and other ethnic minorities to a lesser degree) have special needs for uniquely tailored curriculum and instructional methods" at
https://tinyurl.com/5lu9r

See also "Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights -- The General Theory, and Why It Does Not Apply in Hawaii" at
https://tinyurl.com/2b77k

------------

2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.

Actually, equality under the law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. But here in Hawaii we do not obey that law. As of April 1, 2011 a valuable webpage provided information about 856 government-funded racial entitlement programs for the exclusive benefit of "Native Hawaiians." That webpage was vandalized but has now been partially restored. Hundreds of additional racial entitlement programs have been created since then, and some of them are identified in government publications. See webpage "For Hawaiians Only" at
https://tinyurl.com/zrfuy8k

No part of Mauna Kea should be "for Hawaiians only." Ancient burials, if any, could be fenced off as is sometimes done during real estate development of shopping centers, as seen for example in the parking lot at the Target store in Kailua, O'ahu, and the burial mound constructed near the entrance to the Honolulu Zoo to hold native burials that were uncovered during excavations for road repairs in Waikiki. But no new burials or altars or offertory platforms should be allowed on Mauna Kea in any location near the telescopes, visitor center, or access road, where assertion of a right to not disturb (even) a (new) burial or religious artifact could then be used as political pawns to interfere with current or future use of those facilities. See "Hawaiian Bones -- The 3 Rs -- Rites For the Dead, Rights Of the Living, and Respect for All" at
https://tinyurl.com/j29vy2l

If the courts certify leases and construction permits, and if the legislature chooses to move forward, new telescopes should be built and anyone who blocks the road or sabotages the project should be severely punished, even if they are "Native Hawaiians" claiming Mauna Kea is a "sacred place." The old Hawaiian religion must not be allowed to dictate government policy, because it is contrary to the First Amendment "establishment clause" to have any particular religion adopted and enforced through rule-making as an establishment of religion by the State of Hawaii.

An important extension of Principle #2 requires a detailed analysis. Please read below a special section entitled: "If the Hawaii Constitution requires granting certain rights to 'Native Hawaiians' then a way to do that is to be inclusive rather than exclusive -- grant those rights to all Hawaii's people regardless of race."

----------------

3. Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA., and should remain so.

Very few of Hawaii's people want the 50th star ripped off the flag to make Hawaii once again an independent nation. And yes, contrary to some assertions: there really was an overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy; there really was an establishment of a successor "Republic of Hawaii" government that was internationally recognized as the rightful government of the still-independent nation of Hawaii; there really was a Treaty of Annexation several years later between the Republic and the U.S.; there really was a Statehood vote where 94.3% of Hawaii's voters said YES to joining the U.S.; so the Constitution and laws of the USA do indeed have jurisdiction over Hawaii's people including the First and Fourteenth Amendments referenced above. See some footnotes at the end of this section 3 providing proof or explication of those points.

The government of Hawaii, including rule-making for Mauna Kea by the University of Hawaii, must obey U.S. laws even if a few diehard deadenders of the Hawaiian Kingdom persist in being Overthrow deniers, Annexation deniers, or Statehood deniers.

To the University of Hawaii Board of Regents and to government officials of the State of Hawaii I say: Be brave! Govern fearlessly, and forcefully when necessary to suppress and remove people blocking roads, refusing to obey the laws and regulations, threatening violence and anarchy. Treat all people equally under the law regardless of race. This is your kuleana -- your duty -- which you undertook when you swore an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says government must allow the free exercise of religion on Mauna Kea but must not allow the ancient Hawaiian religion to become the established religion of the State of Hawaii. Therefore regulations for Mauna Kea must not grant exclusive access or preferential treatment for the practice of the ancient Hawaiian religion, nor for proselytizing of that religion in any mandatory indoctrination lectures required for individual or group admission to lands or facilities. Mauna Kea is part of the public lands of the State of Hawaii just as the public schools belong to State of Hawaii. Therefore the Hawaiian religion on Mauna Kea should be managed by following the same procedures mandated by the courts for how the Christian religion is handled in the public schools: It's OK to teach ABOUT the religion and explain the facts about its beliefs and rituals and facts about the role of that religion in the history of the world and of the U.S. and Hawaii; but it is forbidden to indoctrinate the school children (or visitors to Mauna Kea) that the religion is true, or to require anyone to participate in any prayers or rituals, nor to require school children or visitors to Mauna Kea to be present when such prayers or rituals are performed. Children in school, or visitors to Mauna Kea, are free to engage in such performances initiated by themselves; but such performances must not be initiated by officers or employees of the institution. Any children in school, or visitors to Mauna Kea, who initiate such performances must not be allowed to intimidate others into participating and must not (ab)use such performances to obstruct the activities of the institution.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that all people must be treated equally regardless of race. That means that on Mauna Kea there must not be racial requirements, preferences, or race-based exclusions for admission to the lands or facilities, or the fees which might be charged. Activities must be offered and publicized equally to people of all races. If there is a burial site posted or protected by gates or fences, it must be open or closed to visitors of all races equally. The only exception should be if an individual has a permit issued after proof that the individual is a lineal descendant of the person in the burial, not merely a so-called "cultural descendant" of a burial whose individual identity has been long forgotten.

There is a webpage providing a historical narrative stating important facts and providing proof of each one: "Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959."
https://tinyurl.com/nqadwb

Here are some of the main topics in that webpage; where each topic has one or more links to other webpages providing detailed explanations and references:

* The Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was led and carried out entirely by local men without any assistance from 162 U.S. peacekeepers who came ashore to protect American lives and property in the face of credible threats of rioting and arson (just as U.S. peacekeepers have done more recently in Granada, Haiti, Liberia, etc.). See the 808-page Morgan Report of testimony under oath in February 1894 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs; plus a book by a Ph.D. professor of history.

* The revolutionary Provisional Government was given de facto recognition within two days by the local consuls of every nation which maintained a consulate in Honolulu.

* U.S. President Grover Cleveland, a friend of ex-queen Lili'uokalani, had his Secretary of State and his ambassador to Hawaii do everything they could to undermine the Provisional Government, and sent warships to stage combat exercises offshore Honolulu in an effort of gunboat diplomacy to intimidate the Dole government to step down and restore Lili'uokalani to the throne. Failing in that attempt, President Cleveland submitted the issue to Congress in hopes they would authorize the use of force; but as a result of hearings and the Morgan Report in February 1894 a Senate resolution ordered Cleveland to stop interfering in Hawaii's internal affairs.

* A successor government for the permanent Republic of Hawaii was created in July 1894; its Constitution is provided; there were at least 5 native Hawaiians who participated in the Constitutional Convention; a native Hawaiian former royalist was Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic.

* During Fall 1894 the local consuls of foreign governments sent to their respective heads of state copies of the Republic's Constitution with a request to award permanent de jure recognition of the Republic. Emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents personally signed letters in 11 languages addressed to President Dole formally granting full-fledged diplomatic recognition to the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii. Photographs of those letters and accompanying documents, including English translations, are provided.

* An attempted armed counter-revolution was led by native Hawaiian Robert Wilcox in January 1895, with the knowledge and support of Lili'uokalani. Men were killed. Hundreds of men were hunted down, tried by a military tribunal, fined and imprisoned; but by the end of 1895 all had been paroled. The ex-queen was found guilty of conspiracy based on evidence found in the garden and on the inside of her private home; she spent several months under guard in Iolani Palace until she was gradually paroled and finally pardoned by President Dole.

* In 1897, following the end of President Cleveland's term, the legislature of the Republic of Hawaii passed a Treaty of Annexation and offered it to the United States. The U.S. Congress agreed to the Treaty in 1898 by votes of 42-21 in the Senate (exactly 2/3) and 209-91 in the House (more than 2/3). A link is provided to full text of the Treaty, and of the resolutions whereby Hawaii and the U.S. approved it.

* Statehood vote of 1959: There were 132,773 votes "yes" and 7971 votes "no" for an astonishing 94.3% "yes" vote. For those who like to say ethnic Hawaiians were opposed to Statehood: Do the math. If 20% of the voters were ethnic Hawaiians, that would mean there were 28,149 votes cast by ethnic Hawaiians = 20% out of the total 140,744. Supposing ALL the 7971 "no" votes had been cast by ethnic Hawaiians; then there were still 20,178 "yes" votes from ethnic Hawaiians, representing 72% of the 28,149 ethnic Hawaiian votes. The vote count was also broken down by individual representative district. The district with the highest percentage of ethnic Hawaiian residents -- sparsely-populated Moloka'i -- had 1904 "yes" and 75 "no" for a 96.2% "yes" vote -- the highest percentage among all the 17 districts. A 3-page pdf file (unfortunately 5.4 Megabytes!) shows the statistics as certified by Hawaii Chief Elections Officer Dwayne Yoshina in his letter dated January 7, 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/2rbx79

--------------

4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

The Akaka bill (Hawaiian Government Reorganization Bill) to create a Hawaiian tribe failed after 13 years in Congress, 2000-2012. The Department of Interior, in the closing months of Obama's presidency, unilaterally proclaimed a "final rule" by publication in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016, providing a pathway for creation of a Hawaiian tribe and federal recognition of it; however, the process for implementing it would be very lengthy and fraught with legal challenges. Even if a tribe is created, there will then be lengthy negotiations to determine how lands will be allocated between the State of Hawaii and the tribe. So for the foreseeable future it is the State of Hawaii and the UH Board of Regents who have jurisdiction over Mauna Kea; and they should fearlessly and boldly create and enforce regulations.

To the University of Hawaii Board of Regents and to government officials of the State of Hawaii I say: Be brave! Govern fearlessly, and forcefully when necessary to suppress and remove people blocking roads, refusing to obey the laws and regulations, threatening violence and anarchy. Treat all people equally under the law regardless of race.

Following are webpages focusing on proposals for racial separatism in Hawaii, and explaining why that's a very bad idea. MAUNA KEA AS A WHOLE, OR ANY PORTION OF MAUNA KEA, SHOULD NOT BE ENCUMBERED WITH SPECIAL RACIAL-SEPARATIST REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACCESS OR THE ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE CONDUCTED. Do not favor or burden any racial group as though they have separate rights or separate jurisdiction.

Open letter to President Obama regarding the Akaka bill (Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill)
https://tinyurl.com/bl9rvv
Topics discussed that are relevant to demands to divide Hawaii's people and lands along racial lines:
* Appealing to your ideals -- tear down walls that divide us instead of erecting a new wall of apartheid (Berlin speech in July 2008)
* Your personal search for identity in a black community where good people seeking full integration struggled against an ideology of racial separatism and hatred
* Would you support creation of a race-based government for 40 million African-Americans? the Akaka bill's impact on Hawaii would be 50% more devastating than that (because African-Americans comprise only 12-13% of America's people whereas Native Hawaiians comprise 20% of Hawaii's people).

What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder
https://tinyurl.com/n9f5fp

Why all America should oppose the Hawaiian government reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill. [Webpage dormant after 2012 because there was no longer any Akaka bill in Congress]
https://tinyurl.com/ypops

History of efforts to get official government recognition of ethnic Hawaiians as a political entity or Indian tribe -- a narrative summary covering 17 years 2000 through 2016, broken into two-year Congressional periods. Each "Congress" has a link to an index for that two year period, broken into sub-indexes in chronological order, linking to webpages providing full text of news reports, commentary, and lawsuits regarding the Akaka bill in Congress, stealth maneuvers by Senator Inouye, Obama Department of Interior regulatory process, Hawaii legislature bills and resolutions, etc.
https://tinyurl.com/htxzfvp

History of efforts to create a Hawaiian tribe during the 115th Congress (January 2017 through December 2018 [in progress]), including efforts to create a state-recognized tribe and efforts to get federal recognition through administrative rule changes, executive order, or Congressional legislation
https://tinyurl.com/ybumj4z3


=============

IF THE HAWAII CONSTITUTION REQUIRES GRANTING CERTAIN RIGHTS TO "NATIVE HAWAIIANS" THEN A WAY TO DO THAT IS TO BE INCLUSIVE RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVE -- GRANT THOSE RIGHTS TO ALL HAWAII'S PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF RACE.

Some of the proposed chapter 20-26 regulations for Mauna Kea explicitly grant superior race-based rights to Native Hawaiians, which seem to be justified by Article 12, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, which in turn would be philosophically or morally justified in the viewpoint of anyone who believes in Hawaiian religious fascism.

There are two very different ways to overcome the racial supremacy enshrined in Article 12: Either delete Article 12 from the state Constitution; or else interpret Article 12 inclusively to apply equally to all Hawaii's people regardless of race.

One way to delete Article 12 is for the legislature to propose an amendment to the state Constitution which would be approved by a vote in a general election; or by calling a state Constitutional Convention whose delegates would propose the deletion followed by a vote of the people to approve what the con-con did. Once every ten years the question must be placed on the ballot whether there should be a state Constitutional Convention -- that question will be on the ballot in November of 2018. This is a way for the people to take control and get rid of Article 12 whether the legislature likes it or not.

Another way to delete Article 12 is through a lawsuit in the federal courts to rule that Article 12 of the state Constitution violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Using the federal courts and the federal Constitution to fix the state Constitution has already been done in the famous Rice v. Cayetano lawsuit. The Hawaii Constitution as amended in 1978 required that only "Native Hawaiians" were allowed to vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by 7-2 vote in 2000 that Hawaii's racial restriction violated the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged on account of race."

Instead of getting rid of Article 12 through Constitutional amendment or lawsuit, a more peaceful and gentle approach is to expand it so that the rights it grants are interpreted to be for all the people of Hawaii regardless of race. Such an expansion would be especially justified as a kinolau (a manifestation or embodiment) of the Aloha Spirit. See "The Aloha Spirit -- what it is, who possesses it, and why it is important" at
https://tinyurl.com/66w4m2

There are two ways to expand Article 12 to make it racially inclusive. Those who seek inclusiveness could bring a state or federal lawsuit to force inclusiveness. The plaintiffs would bear the financial burden of the lawsuit at least until the plaintiffs win and the courts award them their costs. This was the procedure in many historical civil rights lawsuits to abolish racial supremacy, such as school desegregation. Or else the administrators who create rules could interpret Article 12 to apply inclusively to people of all races; and then anyone who demands racial supremacy or exclusivity would need to bear the costs of a lawsuit to force their views to prevail.

I strongly encourage the rule-makers for Mauna Kea to adopt the inclusive approach voluntarily. This is more practical and less expensive. But most important: it is the right thing to do. It implements the Aloha Spirit. Quite simply but powerfully: it is Pono.

The portion of Article 12 that is specifically relevant to regulations for use of Mauna Kea is section 7, entitled "Traditional and Customary Rights": "The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights."

The fact that such rights were "customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes" merely identifies a group of rights that were practiced before the arrival of Captain Cook -- it does NOT require that those rights are only available to a specific racial group today. Suppose we acknowledge that those pre-contact rights have never been extinguished, and we allow all Hawaii's people, regardless of race, to enjoy those rights. Thereby ethnic Hawaiians ("descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778") would certainly have those rights along with everyone else, and the requirements of Article 12 would be satisfied without any need for racial exclusivity, divisiveness, or lawsuits.

Two court decisions have a bearing on how to interpret Article 12, Section 7 in this expansive way as applicable to all Hawaii's people regardless of race.

Access and gathering rights were affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the PASH decision of 1995 (Public Access Shoreline Hawaii). According to that decision Native Hawaiians have a right to access the shoreline, or to gather certain plants, even if doing so is accomplished by trespassing through undeveloped or partially developed land, subject to regulation by the State. But there's nothing in that decision that restricts shoreline access or gathering rights to the racial group who are descendants of residents from before Captain Cook's arrival. The PASH decision recognizes that that racial group has those rights, but the decision does not prohibit the interpretation that those rights run with the land regardless of the race of the trespasser or land owner; and the PASH decision certainly does not prohibit the State from extending such rights to everyone. The PASH decision is based on the concept that the bundle of rights obtained when purchasing fee-simple land in Hawaii (including the right to exclude trespassers) is limited by the rights possessed by tenants of the ahupua'a before Captain Cook's arrival, or certainly before the Mahele started in 1848. When land is sold or inherited, the land comes infused with the rights granted to tenants in the Mahele; and those special rights make land ownership in Hawaii very different from the other 49 states. The word for "tenant" under the Mahele is "hoa'aina" which has no racial designation. There is no such thing as "NATIVE tenant rights" despite attempts by sovereignty activists to insert the racial designator. We are free to adopt the realization that access and gathering rights under the PASH decision belong to all Hawaii's people equally regardless of race. So far as I am aware there has never been a court decision saying that PASH rights are exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians. The demand to have racial exclusivity has not been the focus of litigation, simply because racial exclusivity has been the automatically presumed default in Hawaii. How sad! For further analysis of the PASH decision see Paul M. Sullivan, "Customary Revolutions -- The Law of Custom and the Conflict of Traditions in Hawaii" published at 20 University of Hawaii Law Review 99 (1998); available at
https://tinyurl.com/23668n

If rights are officially and explicitly granted to only one group of people, does that prohibit those rights from being extended also to all the rest of the people? The ruling in a Hawaii lawsuit (Day v. Apoliona) says there's no problem in extending the rights. Because if the rights are given to everyone, then those rights will thereby be given to the particular group originally designated to have them.

If a law or regulation provides money explicitly for the benefit of native Hawaiians with native blood quantum higher than 50%, is it lawful to provide that money to Native Hawaiians whose blood quantum is below 50%? Hawaii courts have ruled that it's OK to do that. If benefits are designated for a smaller group, then it's perfectly legal to provide those benefits to a more inclusive larger group which includes that smaller group inside it. Presumably the same legal arguments would allow the State to extend the same benefits to all citizens regardless of race, because the set of all citizens includes the subset of all Native Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum, which in turn includes the sub-subset of all native Hawaiians with blood quantum higher than 50%.

The lawsuit Day v. Apoliona arose because Section 5(f) of the Hawaii Statehood Act of 1959 required that ceded land revenues could be spent for any one or more of 5 purposes. One of those purposes was "the betterment of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920" (i.e., at least 50% native blood quantum). When OHA was created in the State Constitutional Convention of 1978, the legislature then funded OHA by giving it 20% of all revenue from the ceded lands. But as time went by OHA was spending that money on projects for all Native Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum -- such projects as creating a racial registry, lobbying for the Akaka bill, loans for small-business, etc. A group of high-quantum native Hawaiians filed a lawsuit saying that spending ceded land money on low-quantum Hawaiians violated the Statehood Act. But the courts ruled it was OK, because the high-quantum beneficiaries were included as a subgroup of all Native Hawaiians. See "Day v. Apoliona" at
https://tinyurl.com/yo2ovk


==============

NOTICE OF HEARINGS AND LIST OF PROPOSED RULES

On September 7, 2018 an email was sent from Maunakea Rules-Information signed by University of Hawaii President David Lassner to a group of 100 people including Ken Conklin, as follows:

Aloha,

The University of Hawai‘i published statewide notice on August 19, 2018, to inform interested persons that it will hold public hearings related to the adoption of Chapter 20-26, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, entitled "Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands."

The notice and draft rules can be found on the Board of Regents' Proposed Administrative Rules Changes web site at
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/adminrules/proposed.html
The notice includes the dates, times, and locations of the four hearings; how you can submit oral and/or written comments; and where you can find a copy of the proposed draft rules. You can also read about the rule-making process at
https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2018/08/19/maunakea-administrative-rules-public-announcement/

Since you have indicated an interest in issues regarding Maunakea in the past, we wanted to provide you with this reminder.

Thank you for your continued participation in the process.

------

The notice and draft rules can be found on the Board of Regents' Proposed Administrative Rules Changes web site at
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/adminrules/proposed.html

The "Notice of Proposed Rule-Making" was posted at
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/adminrules/notices/chapter26_star-advertiser_08-19-18.pdf

The proposed rules themselves were posted in a 43-page pdf document entitled "Adoption of Chapter 20-26 Hawai‘i Administrative Rules" found at
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/adminrules/chapter26-proposed.pdf


==============

ANALYSIS OF PARTICULAR REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ON MAUNA KEA LANDS, IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES

Each comment below pertains to a specific proposed rule, whose proposed rule number is identified along with the page number where it is found in the 43-page document.

§20-26-5 Orientation. As set forth in the comprehensive management plan, all persons accessing the UH management areas shall be required to complete an orientation regarding cultural and natural resources, safety matters, and other relevant information prior to entering the UH management areas.
[page 8]

Comment: See my fundamental principle #2: All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government. See my fundamental principle #3: Unity with America, which includes the following comment specifically relevant to proposed §20-26-5:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says government must allow the free exercise of religion on Mauna Kea but must not allow the ancient Hawaiian religion to become the established religion of the State of Hawaii. Therefore regulations for Mauna Kea must not grant exclusive access or preferential treatment for the practice of the ancient Hawaiian religion, nor for proselytizing of that religion in any mandatory indoctrination lectures required for individual or group admission to lands or facilities.

Mauna Kea is part of the public lands of the State of Hawaii just as the public schools belong to State of Hawaii. Therefore the Hawaiian religion on Mauna Kea should be treated by following the same procedures mandated by the courts for how the Christian religion is handled in the public schools: It's OK to teach ABOUT the religion and explain the facts about its beliefs and rituals and facts about the role of that religion in the history of the world and of the U.S. and Hawaii; but it is forbidden to indoctrinate the school children (or visitors to Mauna Kea) that the religion is true, or to require anyone to participate in any prayers or rituals, nor to require school children or visitors to Mauna Kea to be present when such prayers or rituals are performed. Children in school, or visitors to Mauna Kea, are free to engage in such performances initiated by themselves; but such performances must not be initiated by officers or employees of the institution. Any children or visitors who initiate such performances must not be allowed to intimidate others into participating and must not (ab)use such performances to obstruct the activities of the institution.

-------------

§20-26-6 Fees. Fees, as established by the board, may be charged for permits, parking, entrance, and for the use of facilities and programs related to the UH management areas.
[page 9]

Comment: Your regulations should clearly state that the same fees shall be charged to all visitors regardless of race, and that there shall be no exemptions from fees based on either the asserted race or the asserted religion of the visitor, nor any waiver of fees because of any assertion that the visitor is entering for the purpose of private worship or public religious performance.

See my fundamental principle #3: Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here." The following portion of content explicating that principle bears repeating here because it is specifically relevant to proposed §20-26-6. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that all people must be treated equally regardless of race. That means that on Mauna Kea there must not be racial requirements, preferences, or race-based exclusions for admission to the lands or facilities, or the fees which might be charged. Activities must be offered and publicized equally to people of all races. The First Amendment also applies, which means that the government is not allowed to establish or prefer any religion (such as by waiving entrance fees for worshippers of snow Goddess Poliahu while denying fee waivers to worshippers of Earth Goddess Maia or the Egyptian sun-god Ra.

Does anyone object to my invoking the U.S. Constitution because, they say, there is no Treaty of Annexation, the Statehood vote of 1959 was not valid, the U.S. lacks jurisdiction in Hawaii? Again, see my fundamental principle #3: Unity with America, wherein I provided a number of specific rebuttals to that assertion including citations of proof.

-------------

§20-26-21 Traditional and customary rights.
(a) This chapter is subject to the right of native Hawaiians to exercise protected customary and traditional rights as provided for in Article XII, section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, consistent with the laws of the State of Hawai‘i.
(b) The University recognizes the spiritual, cultural, and historical significance of Maunakea to native Hawaiians and the protected customary and traditional rights referenced under subsection (a) of this section. Where such customary and traditional rights have minimal or no impact on existing cultural, natural, or scientific resources, no permit or approval is required under this chapter. If such activity is found to impact cultural, natural, or scientific resources, OMKM, after consulting with Kahu Kū Mauna and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, may restore the site to its condition prior to such activity.
(c) Where a particular activity has been found to impact existing cultural, natural, or scientific resources, persons proposing to conduct such activities are encouraged to consult with OMKM and Kahu Kū Mauna to obtain a special use permit, under section 20-26-65. OMKM shall assist applicants and allow protected customary and traditional practices to the greatest extent possible. ...
[page 10]

Comment: See my Fundamental Principle #2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government. Proposed §20-26-21, Traditional and customary rights, would explicitly grant superior race-based rights to Native Hawaiians, which seem to be justified by Article 12, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, which in turn would be philosophically or morally justified in the viewpoint of anyone who believes in Hawaiian religious fascism.

Article 12 might be deleted if there is a Constitutional Convention, or else it might be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court if the issues of "standing" and "political question" can be overcome in order to reach the merits of the case.

An alternative to getting rid of Article XII is to expand it so that the rights it grants are interpreted to be for all the people of Hawaii regardless of race. There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says the protected rights are solely or exclusively for Native Hawaiians. It is contrary to the Aloha Spirit to deny those same rights to all Hawaii's people. There is simply no good reason for racial exclusion.

See my lengthy analysis above of an inclusive interpretation of Article 12, entitled: "If the Hawaii constitution requires granting certain rights to "Native Hawaiians" then a way to do that is to be inclusive rather than exclusive -- grant those rights to all Hawaii's people regardless of race.

----------------

§20-26-40 Snow play. (a) Skiing, snowboarding, sledding and other similar winter or snow sports may be restricted to maintain public safety and welfare, to prevent damage to resources, and to minimize conflicts among visitors. The use of devices that are not equipped with braking mechanisms or which do not provide directional control on snow or ice is prohibited. (b) Skiing, snowboarding, sledding or other forms of snow recreation or snow activities may be prohibited in specific designated zones or areas in order to maintain public safety and welfare, and protect resources.
[page 20]

Comment: It's good to see that snowplay, within reasonable limits and conditions, will be allowed. Many people of all ages and races have enjoyed such activities for generations. Please do not allow such activities to be forbidden or unduly restricted because of any claim that the entirety of Mauna Kea is a "sacred place." For at least two decades the assertion of "sacred place" has been used by sovereignty activists to block or delay telescope projects on Mauna Kea. In an article in the Honolulu Advertiser of January 17, 2002 Clayton Hee, OHA chairman, showed astounding hypocrisy by saying that a sufficient bribe would make the "sacred place" claim go away. Hee said a sufficient amount for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to pay would be $20 Million. Note the date the article was published. Some might suggest that Hee's overthrowing of "sacred place" reminds them of the overthrow of the monarchy! Recall the lines in "Kaulana Na Pua": "'A'ole makou a e minamina i ka pu'u kala o ke aupuni. Ua lawa makou i ka pohaku, i ka 'ai kamaha'o o ka 'aina." [We will not regret {losing} the government's pile of money; sufficient for us {to eat} are the rocks, the wondrous food of the land.]

On May 21, 2015 Honolulu Star-Advertiser published a major commentary I authored: "Protesters use claims of sacredness for political agendas." Full text of the commentary is copied as item #8 on a webpage entitled "Mauna Kea 2015: Sacred Place; Political Pawn; Profane Demagoguery; Recreational Activism" at
http://tinyurl.com/omjuj3p

----------------

§20-26-41 Scattering of cremated remains. The scattering of cremated human remains is allowed within the UH management areas, consistent with this chapter and policies and procedures established by the president.
[page 21]

Comment: It's good that scattering of cremated remains will [continue to] be allowed. The regulation should clarify that scattering of cremated remains is permissible in the same locations, and in the same manner, for all people regardless of race. This comment is derived from Fundamental Principle #2: All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.

But there should also be a regulation to prohibit any [new] burials, or erection of any new ahus (altars) or leles (raised platforms for sacrificial offerings of plants or animals) in any location near the telescopes, visitor center, or access road, where assertion of a right to not disturb (even) a (new) burial or religious artifact could then be used as political pawns to interfere with current or future use of those facilities. Ancient burials, if any, could be fenced off as is sometimes done during real estate development of shopping centers, as seen for example in the parking lot at the Target store in Kailua, O'ahu, and the burial mound constructed near the entrance to the Honolulu Zoo to hold native burials that were uncovered during excavations for road repairs in Waikiki. See "Hawaiian Bones -- The 3 Rs -- Rites For the Dead, Rights Of the Living, and Respect for All" at
https://tinyurl.com/j29vy2l

---------------

§20-26-42 Interference with government function. [page 21]

Comment: The list of prohibitions is too short, too vague, and too humble. Surely we all remember how protesters used their bodies, rocks, and other objects to block vehicles from using the access roads; how they "prayed" or chanted to invoke a "free exercise of religion" justification for their obstruction, and how they constructed large stone structures which they called "ahu" (altars) right in the middle of the road. Your regulations must be very clearly worded to prevent such nonsense, and to prevent any way for protesters to twist or ignore the meaning of what you write. Do not allow judges or juries to rule that your regulations are too vague or overly broad or inconsistent with the Constitutional right to free expression of religion.


============

SUGGESTING ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED AMONG THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Proposed rule:
No racial set-asides or preferences are allowed. No portion of Mauna Kea shall be set aside for exclusive or preferred use for any racial group, either temporarily or permanently. If any portion of Mauna Kea is declared off-limits for individual or group visits, either temporarily or permanently, such a designation must apply to people of all races and must be justified on the basis of protecting the natural environment, historical resources, or modern facilities.
Comment: See my Fundmental Principles; especially these:
#2: All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.;
and
#4: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

---------

Proposed rule:
Access for religious or cultural purposes must not be race-based and must be of limited duration and frequency. No portion of Mauna Kea shall be set aside for exclusive or preferred use for any religious or cultural group, festival, or ceremony except for a single event of less than three hours and conducted in accord with terms and conditions of a permit issued by the president's designee or Office of Mauna Kea Management. No additional permit shall be granted to the same group or any of its individuals for any event until at least 8 days after any previous permit they had for any purpose has expired. If a religion/culture or religious/cultural ceremony requires practitioners or performers to have a specific racial component in their ancestry, then that religion or ceremony shall be treated as racially exclusionary and will not be given any exclusive or preferential access to any portion of Mauna Kea.
Comment: See my Fundmental Principles; especially these:
#2: All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.; and
#4: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.
and see especially Principle #1 where I discussed the authenticity of Sam Gon and Kepa Maly as practitioners of Hawaiian culture.

-------------

Proposed rule:
Demographic characteristics of personnel deemed irrelevant. No employee or volunteer, paid or unpaid; and no visitor; may be asked to identify his/her race, religion, nationality, gender or culture. The selection of individuals to serve as lecturers in any facilities on Mauna Kea, or to serve as leaders, docents or monitors, in any tours or orientation activities, or to serve as security guards, shall not have any requirements or preferences for their race, religion, nationality, gender or culture. The criteria for selection shall be expertise in subject matter, adherence to the policies of the Office of Mauna Kea Management, ability to explain things clearly, skill in organizing and leading a group in a friendly and respectful manner.
Comment: See my Fundmental Principles; especially these:
#1: We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.; and
#2: All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.


=================

NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE HEARINGS:

https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2018/09/27/hawaii-news/proposed-rules-for-managing-maunakea-lands-draw-fierce-criticism/
Hawaii Tribune-Herald [Hilo], Thursday, September 27, 2018
and
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2018/09/27/hawaii-news/proposed-rules-for-managing-maunakea-lands-draw-fierce-criticism/
West Hawaii Today [Kona], Thursday, September 27, 2018

Proposed rules for managing Maunakea lands draw fierce criticism

By MICHAEL BRESTOVANSKY Hawaii Tribune-Herald

HILO -- "Institutional racism."

"Colonization."

"Genocide."

Those words and others were used during a heated public hearing Tuesday evening at ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center in Hilo about the draft of University of Hawaii's proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea.

More than 30 people submitted verbal testimony about the proposed rules, which would prohibit certain activities and items on Maunakea land, require permits for certain other activities on the land and would allow an agent of UH -- referred to as "the president's designee" -- to control access to the mountain at his or her discretion.

All of those who submitted verbal testimony Tuesday did so in vehement opposition to the proposed rules. Several pointed out specific complaints with aspects of the rules, with some citing unacceptable vagueness or internal contradictions.

Testimony quickly gave over to passion, however, with most speakers denouncing the rules as unfairly discriminatory toward Hawaiian cultural practitioners -- one testifier, a former tour guide named Tom Peek, called the proposed rules a "draconian" attempt to "take over the mountain."

Sierra Club member Nelson Ho said the various prohibitions that would be imposed by the rules -- including a prohibition on producing sound "in a manner and at times that create a nuisance," including with musical instruments -- amount to institutional racism aimed at cutting off Hawaiians from their traditional worship practices.

Other testifiers, including Hawaiian activist Mililani Trask, protested the rules' requirements that certain cultural practices might require special use permits and that groups of 10 or more require permits while permit requirements for tour groups appear more generous -- for example, while special use permits for practitioners only last for the duration of their event, tour permits have no maximum term.

"These rules are replete with provisions that criminalize our practice," Trask said. "There is not a damn thing we do when we pray that meets your compatibility requirements."

Trask also criticized the rules from the perspective of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, saying the rules are a naked attempt to bait Hawaiians into protesting, giving state and federal authorities further excuse to enforce control over the mountain.

Many testifiers invoked the Hawaiian Kingdom in their testimony, to general applause from the attendees. One testifier, holding a sign reading "No Jurisdiction," deferred the majority of her allotted three minutes of speaking time to stand in silent protest before Randy Moore, the sole member of UH's Board of Regents in attendance.

The absence of the remainder of the board did not go unnoticed.

Testifier Roxane Stewart said the board's apparent declination to attend rendered the hearing a farce and doubted UH's sincerity in seeking public feedback, to murmurs of agreement from the crowd.

"Does this mean the board won't even consider what we say?" Stewart asked. "Could it be this process is for naught?"

While several testifiers voiced support for the university and even for the astronomical platform at the summit of Maunakea, all agreed that respecting Hawaiian culture was more important.

"I am not Hawaiian, but I care about their rights," said Hilo lawyer Peter Kubota. "They've been practicing on the mountain for the last 1,000 years ... It was their mauna before us."

One more public hearing about the proposed rules is slated for Friday at UH Maui. People can submit testimony electronically at hawaii.edu or by emailing uhhar@hawaii.edu until 11:59 p.m. Friday.

Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.

** Photo captions:

Mehana Kihoi holds a sign during a public hearing Tuesday at ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center in Hilo about the University of Hawaii's proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea lands. (HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald)

HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald Mililani Trask testifies during a public hearing Tuesday about the University of Hawaii's proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea lands.

HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald Randy Moore, the sole member of the University of Hawaii Board of Regents in attendance, listens to testimony during a public hearing Tuesday at ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center in Hilo about proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea lands.

HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald The crowd applauds after Mehana Kihoi testified during a public hearing Tuesday at ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center in Hilo about proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea lands.

Mehana Kihoi holds a sign during a public hearing Tuesday at ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center in Hilo about the University of Hawaii's proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea lands. (HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald)

HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald Mililani Trask testifies during a public hearing Tuesday about the University of Hawaii's proposed new administrative rules for managing Maunakea lands.

------

Ken Conklin's online comment:

Here are four fundamental principles for all issues related to Hawaiian sovereignty, which are also helpful for analyzing the proposed rules for Mauna Kea:

1. We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.

2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.

3. Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here.

4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

Two obvious conclusions for Mauna Kea rule-making can be derived from those fundamental principles. Many proposed rules should be improved to reflect these two conclusions. These conclusions motivate and underlie all the comments I have made about specific proposed rules.

(A) Every rule should apply equally to people of all races; there should be no racial set-asides or special privileges.

(B) If rule-makers believe Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution requires certain rights to be granted to one particular racial group, then the best way to fulfill that requirement is to grant those same rights to all Hawaii's people regardless of race. There is legal precedent that a law requiring benefits for one racial group can be satisfied by granting those benefits to all persons regardless of race. Furthermore, the Aloha Spirit and the need for pono require such inclusiveness rather than racial exclusion.

Proposed rules for Mauna Kea analyzed by applying those principles and conclusions include the following topics:

*Mandatory orientation program for visitors;
*Fees charged to visitors;
*Traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians;
*Snowplay;
*Burials and scattering of cremated remains;
*Interference with government function;
*Racial set-asides or preferences;
*Access for religious or cultural purposes;
*Demographic characteristics of employees, volunteers, visitors deemed irrelevant

Conklin's complete testimony (18 pages) is here: (you must assemble the URL because this newspaper does not allow URLs in online comments)

tinyurl dot com slash y8vse4k2

-----------------------
-----------------------

https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/09/big-island-uhs-new-rules-would-bring-big-changes-atop-mauna-kea/
Honolulu Civil Beat, September 28, 2018

Big Island: UH's New Rules Would Bring Big Changes Atop Mauna Kea
The university wants to keep private vehicles off the summit and require permits for big gatherings.

By Jason Armstrong

HILO, Hawaii Island - Mauna Kea's summit could be closed to private vehicles, large religious ceremonies and playing in the snow under rules the University of Hawaii wants to implement on public land it leases atop Hawaii's tallest mountain.

The restrictions would apply to the hundreds of thousands of people Mauna Kea attracts annually.

The proposed rules are needed for safety and to protect natural and cultural resources, according to the university, which started renting the mountaintop in 1968 to develop a world-class astronomy industry. The university-controlled "Astronomy Precinct" contains 12 of the 13 telescopes operating on Mauna Kea, according to the Office of Mauna Kea Management.

* Photo caption
Mauna Kea's summit includes popular hiking trails, like this one leading from 13,000-foot-high Lake Waiau.

UH now leases 11,288 acres that make up the Mauna Kea Science Reserve from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources under a deal expiring in 2033. It's seeking a new agreement.

Traditional Hawaiian practitioners believe Mauna Kea, which means "white mountain" in Hawaiian, is the piko or umbilical cord, of their existence. Human burials, hundreds of sacred sites and the 13,000-foot-high Lake Waiau are located within the reserve that extends about 2.5 miles down from the summit.

Recreation is another big part of the mountain's appeal. Offering the rare chance to experience winter activities that have included snowboarding competitions, Mauna Kea also boasts spectacular sunsets, stargazing and miles of hiking trails.

An estimated 300,000 people stopped at the 9,200-foot visitor's information center in 2014, a big jump from a few years earlier, an agency operating under UH told a local newspaper.

Legal authority to regulate the area and those who enter was given to UH under a 2009 state law. The law's three-paragraph text requires the UH Board of Regents to "ensure that these rules shall not affect any right, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes ..."

But that's exactly what would happen, according to some Native Hawaiians and others who have blasted the proposed administrative rules as ranging from ridiculous to criminal.

Public comments on the rules will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. Friday, and the final of four statewide public hearings will be held Friday night in Kahului, Maui.

The board is allowed to make changes to the draft rules based on testimony it receives, while substantial amendments could trigger a follow-up hearing, UH Regent Randolph Moore told a standing-room-only crowd at a Tuesday hearing in Hilo.

Moore was the only regent who attended the hearing. Regent Douglas Shinsato, the Big Island member whose term ends this year, was among the 14 other no-shows, generating criticism from at least one testifier.

But most of the testifiers' anger focused on broad restrictions that UH proposes for everything from playing musical instruments and using cell phones to shooting video for commercial use. Rule violations could trigger banishment from the area and fines of up to $2,500 for the first infraction.

*Photo caption
Mehana Kihoi addressed a standing-room-only crowd with silence — and a sign — during part of the three minutes she was given to speak about proposed regulations that would affect users of Mauna Kea.

Requiring permits for groups of more than 10 people, including those participating in traditional practices, "demonstrates your bad faith," Mililani Trask, a noted Hawaiian activist, said at the Hilo hearing.

"For nine years we've tried to get you to pass rules that accommodate our rights," Trask said, adding the result are proposals that "criminalize our practice."

She didn't stop there.

"These rules are deliberate efforts to force Hawaiians to come to Mauna Kea so you can use weapons (against them) paid for by my tax dollars," Trask said, referring to the DLNR obtaining approval in 2015 to buy $50,000 worth of assault rifles and shotguns.

The recipients of the firepower were Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement officers, four of whom were gathered by their vehicles in the parking lot prior to the hearing, raising the ire of at least one testifier. The officers wearing uniforms marked with "police" had left - or at least relocated to a less-conspicuous spot - before the hearing ended.

The draft rules will help UH achieve its dream to "finally take over the mountain," said Tom Peek, a former astronomy guide who said he helped run the visitor information center in 1988.

"I think these rules will end up in court, as they should," Peek said.

Calling limits on traditional practices "unconscionable," Catherine Robbins, a former Hawaii Volcanoes National Park ranger and avid hiker, said she opposes the rules because they would be an "inappropriate control on people's actions."

"Mauna Kea is the people's mountain," Robbins said.

Claiming UH lacks "jurisdiction," traditional practitioner Mehana Kihoi vowed never to seek a permit to pursue her religion. Kihoi, who has been arrested while praying on the mountain, is one of the plaintiffs who have appealed the Board of Land and Natural Resources' approval of the proposed $1.4 billion Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea to the state Supreme Court.

*Photo caption
Swiss visitors Nadine and Manuel Rudisuhli said they thought a proposal to require that people use a shuttle to reach the summit was reasonable.

Another of the proposed rules would allow UH to prohibit people from driving to the summit by "utilizing shuttle vehicles in lieu of private vehicles."

That would be fine, even if a fee were charged, Nadine Rudisuhli, a Swiss national who works in tourism, said this week while acclimatizing at the visitor's center before embarking on her first drive to the top.

"I think it would probably be better to protect the landscape if they do a shuttle service," Rudisuhli said, adding the move likely would improve safety.

Farther down the mountain and outside of UH's jurisdiction, Hawaiian homesteader Malani Alameda was manning a "guard shack" built without authorization on state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' property bordering the summit access road. Wearing an official-looking "kanaka ranger" shirt, Alameda said DHHL personnel recently partially dismantled the structure erected to gather attendance figures and other "sensitive data" about mountain users. He said counts taken over a four-month period showed that 1,700 to 1,900 people passed by daily.

* Photo caption
Hawaiian homesteader Malani Alameda talks outside the unauthorized "guard shack" he said the state Department of Hawaii Home Lands has threatened to demolish.

"We're calling their bluff on Friday," Alameda said of a deadline he claimed DHHL imposed to demolish the structure and arrest its builder. That's also the deadline for commenting on the proposed rules.

Alameda, who joined protest efforts against building the TMT telescope in 2014, said he's also a native practitioner who joins with small groups to worship on the mountain.

"As much as they see us (Hawaiians) as nonexistent, none of those rules exist to me 'cause when it comes down to it, I'll put my body in the exact same place I was four years ago, and that is the front line," he said.

Jason Armstrong has reported extensively for both of Hawaii Island's daily newspapers. He was a public information officer/grant writer for the Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation from 2012 to 2016 and has lived in Hilo since 1987. Email Jason at jarmstrong@civilbeat.org

----

** Ken Conklin's online comment

Here are four fundamental principles for all issues related to Hawaiian sovereignty, which are also helpful for analyzing the proposed rules for Mauna Kea:

1. We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.

2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.

3. Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here.

4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

I submitted 18 pages of testimony including detailed explanation of these 4 principles and how they apply to specific proposed rules for Mauna Kea.

Sorry for the delay. Civil Beat says "No links please". So look on my well-known website to find my testimony, top of the list of new items.


================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

SEE MORE WEBPAGES ABOUT HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES IN GENERAL