'The sovereign citizen superconspiracy: Contemporary issues in native title anthropology' by Pascale Taplin, Claire Holland and Lorelei Billing in (2023) The Australian Journal of Anthropology comments
The Australian Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) provides for the recognition of rights and interests which arise from the traditional laws and customs of Australian First Nation peoples. Processing applications for a determination of native title can take many years and involves numerous stakeholders, presentation of evidence of ongoing connection with the land and sea within a claim area, negotiations with other parties including from industry and government, as well as negotiations between Indigenous groups. The process can be long, arduous, and often outcomes fail to satisfy the expectations of native title claimants. In this paper we investigate how individuals who either disagree with the premise underlying native title, or who have suffered negative impacts through the course of native title claims, may be either targeted by, or swept up in, Australian sovereign citizen rhetoric. We aim to contextualise presentations of sovereign citizen ideas in native title claim processes by providing an overview of the history of sovereign citizen thought, and examples of its contemporary expression in some Australian online forums. In doing this we aim to provide a broad foundation for future research into the issue. The dialogue in sovereign citizen online communities exposes people to extremism and superconspiracies. This article will provide a theoretical framework and historical context to the Australian sovereign citizen phenomena and describe online amplification of disinformation in Australia that has the potential to cause harm. We illustrate how stakeholders who are drawn to relatively moderate online content (such as opposing native title) may be radicalised through gradual exposure to extremist anti-government sentiment and hate speech. This article highlights the need for further research into sovereign citizenry in Australia, and strategies for native title practitioners to engage claimants who subscribe to and disseminate sovereign citizen disinformation in native title processes.
In Australia native title rights can be established by claimants making an application to the Federal Court for recognition of their rights to land and seas under their traditional laws and customs (National Native Title Tribunal, 2010). Native title anthropologists provide research and evidence in relation to native title legal proceedings. The evidence of independent ‘expert’ anthropologists can be relied upon by parties to a native title proceeding (Palmer, 2011). ‘In-house’ anthropologists work from within Native Title Representative Bodies (commonly known as Land Councils) and work with claimants and their legal representatives through the course of the claim process, including in the facilitation of claim group information and decision-making meetings (Martin, 2004; Pilbrow, 2020). To achieve a successful determination of native title, the claim group must provide evidence that they continue to hold connection to the claimed area, which arises from laws and customs that have been acknowledged and observed in a manner substantially uninterrupted since the British claimed sovereignty in 1788 (Palmer, 2018). As a result of the complexity in pursuing legal recognition of traditional rights, some claimants choose to disengage from the legal process and reject the legality of the system as a whole and the legitimacy of the practitioners who work within the system (Taplin, 2023). In 2022, a group called the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF) posted disinformation on social media accounts about native title, and promoted a variety of conspiracy theories, including anti-government sentiment and hate speech (OSTF, 2022). Active members of this group disseminate disinformation such as stating that individuals can lawfully disregard Australian law. The origins of these pseudo-legal arguments trace back to the sovereign citizen superconspiracy and terrorist groups in the United States (Netolitzky, 2018a). The sovereign citizen superconspiracy is now well established in Australia (Baldino & Lucas, 2019; Campion et al., 2021; Kent, 2015). Incorporating what many people would consider to be extremist worldviews, the popularisation of sovereign citizen theories, including amongst Indigenous communities, is affecting the work of practitioners in native title processes (Taplin, 2023).
In the conspiracist milieu, there is no uniformity of specific beliefs amongst clearly defined ‘groups’ or communities; rather, diverse and loosely defined communities include individuals who adopt unconventional beliefs and incorporate elements of sovereign citizen theory (potentially along with elements of various other theories) into their belief system (Toseland, 2019). Individuals may adopt some sovereign citizen theories but may not self-identify as a sovereign citizen or as a member of any named or clearly demarcated group (Harambam & Aupers, 2017). For the purpose of clarity in the ensuing discussion, we will refer to those people or groups who ascribe to the shared set of beliefs described below as sovereign citizens.
The sovereign citizen conspiracy theory holds that government and legal institutions are illegitimate, and that an individual can declare themself sovereign (Berger, 2016). A sovereign person is believed to exist outside of the law and of the jurisdiction of government and the courts. Sovereign citizens often believe that the existing government is a corporation. Some people who subscribe to the sovereign citizen ‘government is a corporation’ theory incorporate Pizzagate, QAnon and #SaveTheChildren theories, which assert that a secret sect is driving global governance (Badham, 2021). Conspiracy theories are adopted and adapted, or ‘localised’ for best fit. Basit (2021, p. 3) observes that the ‘localization of conspiracy narratives allows them [conspiracy theories] to gain more currency and traction’. Elements of conspiracy theories are often adopted into the worldviews of individuals who feel persecuted or harmed by governments or legal systems, as they may provide ‘victimhood narratives’ to explain perceived persecution or harm (Armaly et al., 2022; Pantazi et al., 2022). This paper analyses equivalent responses observed amongst members of native title claimant groups by native title practitioners in Australia. In order to understand how sovereign citizen pseudo-legal arguments are impacting native title processes in Australia, it is important to first understand the origins and evolution of the sovereign citizen conspiracy theory, as well as the consistent themes and beliefs which underlie the disparate set of arguments advocated by sovereign citizens.
