Community forum #11: With attorney and author Francis A. Boyle

cover image for Restoring the Kingdom of Hawai’I, The Kanaka Maoli Route to Independence

Broadcast dates:
  • Friday November 21 8:30 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Channel 53
  • Saturday December 22 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Channel 53
  • Saturday November 28 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Channel 53
  • Saturday December 6 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Channel 53
  • Saturday December 13 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Channel 53

Program content:

Our November program is an interview with Francis A. Boyle, the lawyer that OHA brought from the Midwest for the last meeting of Ka Mau A Ea. Professor Boyle has written a new book titled, Restoring the Kingdom of Hawai’I, The Kanaka Maoli Route to Independence. Hosts Poka Laenui and Kioni Dudley, and guest Dr. Kuhio Vogeler expand on the author’s concepts to include non-Hawaiian nationals and possibilities for a nation other than a kingdom. It’s a lively discussion.

Comments (2)

  1. Christopher Sorrell

    Aloha kakou,
    I watched the conversation on channel 53, and was heartened by the scope and understanding of the panel; and not that I am a great scholar by any means to trump anyone, it was engaging even as they did not agree on many important aspects in the kama’ilio ‘ana. Yes, at first I was impressed with Professor Boyles’ call to 135,000 Kanaka Maoli (the Professor’s understanding of “people” who can decide their “self-determination”), these to attend the Convention and vote to restore the Kingdom of Hawai’i and establish a provisional (perhaps an ugly irony as to words) government of peace. However, I was truly amazed and pleased that Poka, Kuhio, and Kioni agreed the “American” sponsored Convention, after all, is flawed. This Convention not truly representing the Hawaiian Kingdom extant (a point all including Prof. Boyle agreed is true) to include the all the ethnicities that comprise Her past and present. I do apologise, a Baron Ching, I believe is used for an example as to a non-Kanaka Maoli or non-native Hawaiian (purposefully use the small “n”) Hawaiian Kingdom Subject. So, this salient point is the fly in the ointment of Professor Boyle’s call to the Kanaka Maoli. Is it not??? I’ve always wondered why don’t the Hawaiian Nationals hold a Convention, no OHA or Fake State Hawai’i anything, and declare the Kingdom extant/restored/resurrected how would that fare internationally and at home here?
    Too, I believe Professor Boyle wanted there to be a starting place that could be recognized internationally and then later getting the Nations up to speed as to the real history and make-up of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Is this a fare assessment?? Mahalo nui for the opportunity to comment. Aloha no kakou!

  2. Poka Laenui

    Mahalo Mr. Sorrell for your comments and inquiry. As to your question, why don’t the Hawaiian Nationals hold a convention without OHA, the fake State, et al, and declare the Kingdom extant/restored/resurrected? There are some barriers, but such barriers are not insurmountable. 1st – what is the agreement of the Hawaiian nationals? Race determined, ancestry of Hawaiian nationals determined, birth in Hawaii determined, years in Hawaii determined, loyalty/allegiance to Hawaii determined, or a combination of these “tests”? Would we permit dual citizenship, denizenship? Would there be disqualifications such as for those whose ancestors actually participated in the overthrow?

    2nd – Are we really wedded to a “Kingdom” that will tie us back to a ‘constitutional monarchy’ of 100+ years ago, or are we advocating for the right to continue our self-determination to be able to develop our form of government according to our own determination? There are certain laws or rules during our former Kingdom which may not be acceptable today, including the prohibition of women voting, the property requirements to vote for legislative representatives, appointment to the House of Nobles, and the selection of a monarch by the legislative body.

    3rd – the selection of the “Executive” or “head of State” would be contested, much less the form of government.

    While the declaration of the existence of a Kingdom may seem like a simple and quick solution, it may actually pose more problems than solutions. Quick and dirty is not necessarily the best approach.

    There has been a process begun back in 1993 to “put the pieces together” in a more methodical way, that included the formation of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Council which went out and consulted with the Native Hawaiian community throughout Hawaii and in America, reported back that from this consultation, the people choose to elect their representatives to sit together in a council or convention, hash out the various approaches to be taken and to present their conclusion to the Native Hawaiians. Before moving forward, this approach was put to a vote of the Native Hawaiian, called the Native Hawaiian Vote. The vote was affirmative by about 73% of the people who voted. We next moved to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Commission from which we held a nomination process from the Native Hawaiian Community and of those nominated, we identified the “moku” or community from which they would seek their election as delegates to the convention. The election was held and 79 delegates from throughout Hawaii and America were elected. The Convention convened, developed its internal rules, its leadership structure, and began meeting to look at various alternatives to express its self-determination. It determined that it would make two recommendations to the Native Hawaiian people – one was for an integrated approach, i.e., a “nation within a nation” or “Federal Recognition” involving exclusively the Native Hawaiian people and the second was as an independent nation which would include the Hawaiian nationals as defined within its constitutional structure. In the independence proposal, the general idea was that there would be two “rooms” in the Hawaiian Sovereign house, one which was to be the exclusive province of the Native Hawaiian people called the Kumu Hawaii in which certain exclusive powers were reserved to this Kumu Hawaii, and the second would be for all of the Hawaiian nationals.
    Before the Native Hawaiian Convention could complete its work, both OHA and the State legislature refused to fund the convention. The convention continues to exist, refusing to adjourn sine die. While in abeyance, the legislature and OHA has passed this Act calling for a Kana`iolowalu process which essentially cuts into the process previously created in the Native Hawaiian Convention process just described. (See for further elaboration of the convention)
    When this convention process was proposed by myself to Francis Boyle, he, rather flippantly remarked that the convention was “defunct”, a somewhat interesting judgment when at the same time, he was advocating the continuing validity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, notwithstanding the passage of time.
    I believe that the Kana`iolowalu process faces many defects and that the Native Hawaiian Convention should be supported to completion, giving the Native Hawaiian people a choice of how to express their self-determination. I also believe that when the options of integration and independence are posed, it should be posed not in opposition to one another, but with the possibility of choosing both integration and independence as an option, in this way, bringing the Native Hawaiians into a position of unity. ‘ll leave that for further discussion.
    Secondly, if the independence model is selected, the further step must be taken for yet another convention, this time, opening up participation to those who represent the Hawaiian nationals of all racial extraction as well as the Native Hawaiians, thus reconstituting that united political body to reinstate the Hawaiian government as an expression of the Hawaiian nation.
    I hope I have responded to your inquiry sufficiently. Aloha a hui hou.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *