The lands of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, has left lingerings question on many minds. That question directly involves British Legality or Sovereinty ever having existed over the lands of Rhodesia and founded by Cecil John Rhodes!
Even British authority themselves questioned legal jurisdiction during a specific BBC Televison documentary series on the lands. So in effect, all that did and also has transpired in those the lands and to the peoples then remains open to question to cover many facets!! See below for explanations and yes even outstanding issue!! A QUESTION OF LEGALITY – RHODESIA! EXCERPT FROM BOOK ‘WHITE CHIEF OF AFRICA’
http://www.lulu.com.author/item.php?fcid=104280
written and compiled by Robert Winston-Burnett
IMPORTANCE OF ‘MY FLAG’
"If you take my flag, you take everything... I should be a fool to give up my flag
and my traditions, and I should be a knave because I should be
Despised by my own countrymen and distrusted by yours."
Remark by Cecil John Rhodes during an interview by the German editor of the "Free State Express" quoted in Le Sueur's ‘Cecil Rhodes’
RISING LANDS OF RHODESIA
FORWARD IN UNITY
These rising lands and stretching for mile upon barren mile soon will produce for all to see. Rising lands from out of nothing but carved out of the blood, sweat, tears and toil of aching and breaking backs. Many succumb under its blazing glare to where some men even fear to tread and dare. Here are lands rising from which men and women across the seas turn into ‘God’s own Land.’ Give rise then to these lands of Rhodesia fair.
CHORUS
Rising lands, rising lands bless those who but will dare. Oh rising lands, rising lands lift our souls towards your glorious sunshine. There to bless all who live in her and so give rise to lands of Rhodesia set so fair.
RHODESIAN NATIONAL
ANTHEM Rise O voices of Rhodesia. God may we thy bounty share. Give us strength to face all danger and, Where challenge is, to dare. Guide us, Lord, to wise decision, ever of thy grace aware. Oh, let our hearts beat bravely always, for this land within thy care. Rise, O voices of Rhodesia, bringing her your proud acclaim, Grandly echoing through the mountains, rolling over far-flung plain. Roaring in the mighty rivers, joining in one grand Refrain. Ascending to the sunlit heavens, telling of her honored name.
BRUTISH BETRAYAL
RHODESIA - A QUESTION OF ON-GOING LEGAL JURISDICTION
“Oh what a tangled web we inherit, when at first we practice to deceive.”
All references to British sovereignty over the lands known as the Rhodesia's, now (Zimbabwe and Zambia) remain highly questionable. And more specifically in relation to the South, while also includes the North, and possibly also lands then known as Nyasaland, now (Malawi). Indeed, certainly appears after certain relevant protestations, these lands never retained legal British jurisdiction.
The British Broadcasting Corporations program titled ‘Rhodes’ certainly brought into question British intrinsic legality, backing and support of these lands, generally. According to the program, the two Rhodesia's or North and South, was established by their British founder Cecil John Rhodes. So in effect were actually privately formed. They were founded by financial support through private and institutional means. In effect, directly contradicting and further implying no jurisdiction pertained.
Successive British Government’s, had not extended official sanction on these defined geographic lands of Africa. This was expanded on further during another BBC program titled ‘Rebellion.' Here it was openly stated the Rhodesian Government was in default for declaring Unilateral Declaration of Independence in the year 1965. In effect, British Authority once more, insisted on having its cake and eating it.
If drawn down further to actual legalities, clearly demonstrates through its own denunciations; Britain retained no legality. Britain on one hand clearly distanced itself from that termed official occupation during the late 1800's. Yet also retained rights to reclaim that which its leaders conceded it never officially designated or proclaimed as a colony. The British in effect, actually conceded points of default by not honouring pensions due to Southern Rhodesian's employed in the service of His/Her Majesty's Government.
Simply then denied those able to prove conclusively employment and direct British linkage or a lineage. They remained perfectly happy to en-act laws on one hand. But in general legal terms simply covered themselves from legal and outstanding obligations. Yes, merely turned their backs on those as officially employed by His/Her Majesty's Government under legal, binding contracts. In effect, they totally negated official sanction, by leaving actual jurisdictions in the air.
So which side of the coin was being offered, honoured or indeed played? A point I would go on to query with the Broadcasting Standards Commission of Britain. Those and who purport to represent mere subjects on the streets. I set out to quantify and qualify total accuracy of their accounts involving both programs of 'Rhodes' and a so called 'Rebellion.' The British totally negated accountability and responsibility, by openly stating they held no jurisdiction and or obligations.
The Collins English Dictionary clearly outlines 'Rebellion,' as meaning; organised opposition to a Government or other legal authority and rejection of an accepted moral code or convention of behaviour. Rhodesian authority and according to British interpretation, retained official jurisdiction over lands through definition. Events therefore, could not be termed or construed as ‘Rebellion.’ Indeed, Rhodesia was already independent as that clearly outlined and defined. Therefore Rhodesian's in fact, stuck to the letter through definitions and rules of engagement.
They were endeavouring to maintain moral code's of conduct, while entrenching conventions of civil behaviour and order. Therefore, it is highly questionable whether actions could be defined as REBELLION while actually DEFENDING a legal defined entity or operative. Interpretations of the law indicate we were legally in possession through 'De facto Independence and recognition.' That in fact, it was the British themselves who had defaulted as those claiming jurisdiction over non-existent rights of tenure.
Questions, questions and more questions have been left unanswered to this very day. Did Britain then and as defined and enshrined in law, ever gain and or accede to official and legal jurisdiction over the Rhodesia's? Highly unlikely and therefore all counter productive actions against the lands and peoples remains outstanding in international law. Rhodes, along with those following in one form or the other, legally secured jurisdiction through definition and rules ‘Governing Legal Tender.’
Yes to retain legal rights as those bequeathed to an offspring born and raised to lands and known as ‘Legal Entities as Rhodesian's.’ If International Courts of rights were not so encumbered by Western influences and by their own admission; then Rhodesians have a clear cut case on human rights having been totally infringed. That’s even before allowance is made for sanctions which followed and supported by forces designed to overthrow a so called illegal regime.
We retain original accession to this day, and therefore are still the heirs apparent! So did Britain ever retain even minimal jurisdiction as those clearly outlined and disclaimed by its own admissions? Indeed, through recorded pronunciations, it claimed it did not. Most clearly, they indicate those actually born to the lands, along with indigenous tribes have legal title to this very day. Yes, we remain heirs apparent to our lands legally in international law.
Many questions simply remain ignored and most conveniently. History clearly demonstrates a 'Brutal Betrayal' lingers on to this very day and is therefore still outstanding. Yes, deserves and decrees due recognition, along with final rectification of severe factors to be addressed by a wider world. It should not have been us Rhodesians in the dock, but those who stole all our legal birthrights. The wrong party in effect was jailed as innocent bystanders. Indeed, imprisoned by those once again simply bullying the life out of others.
Indeed, far more balanced representations should be delivered in free, fair, democratic and civilised lands. A re-run of the program titled ‘Rebellion,’ should be shown, but this time under title as ‘Principles of Rebellion.’ An unbiased program and which hopefully also delivers far more accurate and balanced versions to represent equations of all the facts. This before allowance is even made of written agreements as those signed and sealed with successive British Governments during the years 1961 and 1964. A world of course, should fully realise justice has not be delivered!
Well no of course not as is simply not standard norms of parity and always leans towards a total bias. Therefore a wider world, cannot advertise itself as described as genuinely democratic and or transparent entities. In effect, Cecil John Rhodes secured principles of expanding a business, but through unsecured loan arrangements. Lenders and or institutions had not retained rights to foreclose on loans as and when so choosing.
HERE THEN WAS THE GREAT BETRAYAL IN THE FIRST AND FINAL INSTANCE. Britain operated highly questionable rights over lands, more specifically in relation to Southern Rhodesia. It should not have according to some protestations, even discussed, let alone interfered in the lands. Yet to this very day, it withholds compensations and rights to thousands of former colonial pensioners. It continually claimed jurisdiction, but not when clearly and legally bound to recompense individuals and whole lands for subsequent events and outcomes.
Legal and outstanding claims as based on legal, binding contracts. Surely any right minded person has to concede there remain a moral right and duty to due justice on outstanding obligations? One would think so, but do recall 'Whitehall' or the prized ‘Civil Servants,’ have proven virtual dictators in their own right. Yes, always recall it is entrenched and inherited British authority we are talking of here.
Those who agree to partake under a games set rules, then when on the pitch of play, tend to amend rules to suit given circumstances. In other words, any agreed off-sides rule, only applies to one side. The whiter than white play games in grey zones which then leaves millions totally bereft, and generally. We were most certainly gazumped, as foundations of our legal lands and principles were ruthlessly destroyed. Rhodesia and all belonging to it, still belongs to its rightful off-spring, both black and white.
SOME QUOTES OF MANY TO MAKE ONE THINK!
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens." ...Carl Jung
************************
Faith can move mountains. Faith is free cannot be purchased or manufactured. Since faith is free, the value of faith is based on how deeply a person believes. In addition, the fact that faith is free makes faith available to everyone. Faith is a commitment that does not come from a price tag or prestigious award, but rather from a free will decision. Yes, faith can move mountains, if a person's faith is deep. Faith can also move people; it can move people in a very special way that creates a sense of unity and harmony. Free will has unlimited capacity through ‘THE POWER OF FAITH.’
************************
They say remaining genuine is an art and which should be taught so can be etched to all conscious minds by Robert Winston-Burnett and received through automatic writing of the divine light on the 24th January 2005.
************************
A land will not be allowed to flourish so long as strife as a weakness remains the strength of others by Robert Winston-Burnett as recorded in these accounts.
************************
If, as Winston Churchill believed, "We shape our dwellings, and, afterwards, our dwellings shape us," then as Earth remains our main residence we have ensured it also delivers ‘TRUTHS’ as a cause and effect.
TRUE FREEDOMS ARE NOT MANUFACTURED BY MAN ALONE, BUT AS THAT ORDAINED THROUGH CONFORMITY TO UNIVERSAL LAWS.
|