Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #1 
https://abetz.com.au/news/republic-is-only-the-beginning

Quote:
“Our system of government, our flag, our national anthem and even Australia Day are on the chopping block under Labor in favour of a political correctness crusade of which extreme Green Senator Lee Rhiannon would be proud.”


In this country, our history, foundation and existence is viewed as an Original Sin by the chattering classes. This is the product of Marxist, postcolonial theory and "White Guilt" which is also de facto orthodoxy among many of Britain's elites. The "diversity" agenda being pushed as evident here, is testament to what is already happening in our institutions.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #2 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt
LABOR leader Bill Shorten picked the wrong time to call for rebellion against the Queen. Australia is fragmenting and the watchword now is loyalty.
 
Proof: Labor has an MP like Khalil Eideh, who has pledged his “absolute loyalty” to the bloody dictator of Syria.
 
So it was a mistake for Shorten on Saturday to promise a national vote on becoming a republic, breaking the oath he swore last year at the opening of the 45th Parliament to “bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors”.
 
It was an even bigger mistake for this oath-breaker to call for a republic while standing in front of a single flag — not the Australian one but the Aboriginal, the flag of apartheid.
 
Shorten couldn’t be clearer: the Left will divide us into tribes, without a common law or allegiance. He already supports changing the Constitution so Aboriginal Australians get different rights, including an Aboriginal parliament. Breaking the old bonds will just hasten this descent into tribalism.
 
You see, I do not trust Labor to invent new loyalties that bind us as well as have the old. And Eideh is a warning.
 
Eideh is the Lebanese-born transport tycoon Labor recruited to win Muslim votes, having headed Victoria’s Alawi Islamic Association.
 
Yes, this is the tribalisation Labor encourages and exploits. Its branches now also promise to recognise Palestine as a nation to please Muslim voters — even though one half of Palestine is run by Hamas terrorists and the other by Fatah extremists.
 
Most Victorians know of Eideh because the US has just banned him from visiting. But look closer.
 
His parents were Syrian, and he has cultivated relationships with Syria’s dictator, Bashar al Assad, accused of war crimes.
 
In 2001, Eideh wrote to Syrian officials introducing himself as an “Arab Syrian citizen” and boasting that “I have built excellent relations with the highest-ranking Australian officials”. Labor ones.
 
In 2002, Eideh sent a letter to the Syrian President declaring the “threat from the Imperialist and Zionist is increasing on our Arabic world”, and in such times “we owe our complete loyalty to and are working to protect Syria”.
 
To Assad, he pledged “loyalty, absolute loyalty to your courageous and wise leadership”.
 
Eideh has since claimed “my first loyalty is to Australia”.
 
I wish I could trust him. But I know I can’t trust Labor.
 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #3 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/shortens-republic-ploy-another-good-reason-to-vote-against-labor/news-story/fc53fe5422fff3ed29fe068f9bd1f3c1

Quote:

Bill Shorten must be getting cocky and taking his opinion poll lead for granted because he’s giving people more and more reasons to vote against him. The latest is his commitment to hold a plebiscite on a republic in the first term of a Labor government.

This would cost about $150 million — the same amount he refuses to spend on giving the public a say on same-sex marriage. And a yes vote wouldn’t settle the big question: whether a president should be directly elected by the people or chosen by the government and rubber-stamped by parliament.

This attack on the monarchy is just the latest instalment in the green-left’s war on our way of life that Shorten Labor has largely made its own: there’s same-sex marriage, which, after this term of parliament, every Labor MP will be bound to support; there’s the assault on Christianity (such as strictures against scripture classes) that’s most noticeable in Labor states; there’s the attack on the traditional family epitomised by the social engineering, gender fluidity Safe Schools program that Victorian Labor is making compulsory; and there’s the envy-exploiting campaign against “inequality” by planning to impose even higher taxes on our most productive people. Each of these is a cynical attempt to exploit grievances for votes in ways that will divide and diminish our country.

Then there’s the revival of the fatuous notion that we can’t truly be Australian without a “resident for president”. This idea that the Anzacs were culturally compromised or that our Olympic athletes have been confused about which country they were representing because of the crown doesn’t stand up to scrutiny but it’s implicit in the republican argument. In fact, we have faced the challenges of the past two centuries as what John Howard describes as a “crowned republic”: with the republican virtues of representative democracy and legal freedoms plus the monarchical benefit of national continuity and a focus of loyalty that’s above politics.

Sure, the Queen is the monarch of other countries as well as Australia. Yes, she spends most of her time in London and is represented here by an Australian governor-general who is appointed like a judge rather than elected like a politician. Of course, Australians are a down-to-earth people eager to scorn anyone with airs and graces. But we haven’t kept the crown from some urge to tug the forelock. We’ve kept it because our history has given us a better system of government than anything cooked up by the wisdom (or arrogance) of just one generation.

It’s much easier to sneer at a system of government than it is to come up with a better one. And if we were questioning how ours might practically be improved there’s much to change with far more impact on people’s lives — like the Senate, which has become a house of rejection rather than review; and the federation, which has become a dog’s breakfast of divided responsibilities.

To win plaudits at the Australian Republican Movement’s annual dinner, the Opposition Leader has promised a plebiscite that could undermine the legitimacy of our system of government without putting anything in its place. If his proposed plebiscite were to pass because the people had been persuaded to support the republican principle but no particular republican practice, our Constitution would be discredited even though the means of choosing a president remained far from settled.

No one with our country’s best interests at heart could answer the question “Should we become a republic?” without knowing what sort of a republic it would be. When a republic was last put to a vote, in 1999, some republicans rejected the proposed model because it didn’t give the people a vote. Shorten is hoping to maximise support without making the hard choices that becoming a republic would involve. It’s dishonest because, apart from absolutists on both sides, the most common response to Shorten’s question would be: “It depends.”

A republic with the head of state elected by the people could give us a celebrity president who would soon be competing with the prime minister. Having a head of state with the legitimacy of direct election would change the nature of the office. Why would a president elected by all voters be confined to official events while the prime minister, elected only by MPs, makes all the big decisions?

Even a president ratified by 75 per cent of all MPs would have a cross-party mandate bigger than that of the most resoundingly elected prime minister. As well, the type of people prepared to run the gauntlet of popular election or even parliamentary selection are likely to be quite different from those prepared to be appointed by the Queen on the prime minister’s recommendation. Why would an exemplary Australian of proven standing submit to the indignities of a political contest, other than to have a significant say in running the country?

The argument that “the government should be re-elected because the alternative is worse” is not normally compelling but, thanks to Shorten’s latest ploy, it has become a lot more powerful.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #4 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/rita-panahi-miserable-activists-trashing-australia-day/news-story/1d86a4c39d784c2a2648b53c70b1fbce

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Panahi
THE attack on Australia Day from a tiny but loud minority of miserable activists is as tiresome as it is misguided.

The fallacious decision by the City of Yarra to stop acknowledging Australia Day has managed to unite the great majority of the country.

Australians overwhelmingly embrace our national day and do not want it shifted from January 26, despite what you hear from whiny activists in the media, academia and other publicly funded institutions.

There is no appetite for the distorted black armband view that seeks to paint this country as a racist nation built on genocide.

Struggling Leftist publication The Guardian commissioned a national poll earlier this year to determine people’s attitude to Australia Day.

The findings couldn’t be clearer; 85 per cent wanted to keep Australia Day on January 26 with a similar number against any efforts to rename the day.

For migrants the number was even higher with 87 per cent in favour of the status quo.

Even among indigenous Australians, only 31 per cent felt negative about Australia Day, while 53 per cent supported changing the date.

Given the biased media coverage, you could be forgiven for thinking that every indigenous Australian was vehemently against the national day and in favour of changing the name and date of the celebration.

It’s interesting that migrants are even more protective of Australia Day and all it represents than those born here.

Meanwhile, we have clownish councillors dropping all references to Australia Day based on an online survey of ‘88 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ plus another 281 people polled in a street survey, the majority of whom were against the council’s divisive actions.

Yet Labor councillor Mi-Li Chen Yi Mei, thinks many will come to support Yarra Council’s decision.

“I think branding January 26 is an important move because it’s not inclusive,” she said.

“Sometimes I think it’s important to realise that it takes a little courage to change and make reform.”

It’s also important not to mistake weapon grade idiocy with “courage”.

Councillors with delusions of grandeur who insist on grandstanding on national and international issues are neglecting their core responsibilities.

Local government has no business delving into contentious issues from indigenous affairs to same-sex marriage to border protection policies.

If councillors want to push agendas outside the purview of local government then they should run for state or federal parliament.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is right to repudiate the councillors for attacking Australian values.

“Yarra council is using a day that should unite Australians to divide Australians,” he said.

“I recognise Australia Day, and its history, is complex for many indigenous Australians but the overwhelming majority of Australians believe the 26th of January is the day and should remain our national day.”

Australia like every other country in the world has shameful episodes in its past but that is no reason not to celebrate all that we are today; a successful, tolerant and free society.

For most of us Australia Day is one spent with family reflecting on how fortunate we are to be living in this corner of the world.

We should not allow a small but loud group of self-loathing Australians to trash our national day.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #5 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt
YARRA council has showed how easy it is to ban Australia Day and create exactly the racial division our mad Left claims to be fighting. This Greens-led council voted unanimously on Tuesday to scrap January 26 as Australia Day and replace the usual citizenship celebrations with an Aboriginal smoking ceremony.
 
So an important cultural ceremony for all Australians was replaced with a ceremony honouring the culture of just one “race” — a culture that is sadly dysfunctional.
 
Here’s how the council did it.
 
First, being of the bullying Left, it brazenly trampled over the wishes of the vast majority of Australians.
 
Even a McNair poll commissioned by the Left-leaning Guardian Australia last January found only 15 per cent of Australians wanted Australia Day shifted from January 26, the date the First Fleet arrived in 1788. Even 46 per cent per cent of Aboriginal Australians didn’t want it moved or didn’t care, despite years of nagging by activists and the ABC that January 26 marked “invasion day”.
 
So how did Yarra council’s hipster revolutionaries get around that embarrassment?
 
Easy done! It tricked up its own data. First, it stacked a survey of Aborigines. It held an online poll of members of activist organisations or “individual community members with whom council officers have existing relationships”.
 
Since the council is run by four Greens, two Labor members, two independents and a Socialist Alliance extremist, you can guess which Aboriginal “community members” the council has “relationships” with. Many, it turned out, did not even live in Yarra. Yet despite this shameless manipulation, the council still got only 88 responses from Aborigines around the state and only 72 wanted Australia Day moved.
 
Second, the council held a street survey, but this, too, was dodgy.
 
Which street did its pollsters go to? Who did they choose to approach? How were people badgered? And why did it poll only 281 of its 80,000 residents?
 
Despite all that, fewer than half — 45.9 per cent — said they’d back a campaign to have the date of Australia Day changed.
 
And on those rubbish polls, the council has now scrapped our national day? Here’s more proof the Left really is the home of bullies and authoritarians.
 
No wonder many residents are furious, which is a warning that the council is creating the divisions it claims it’s healing. The rhetoric it’s inspiring is becoming nasty. The co-chair of its indigenous advisory group, Annette Xiberras, yesterday absurdly claimed that having Aborigines celebrate Australia Day was like making “Jewish people celebrate Hitler’s birthday”.
 
Even as I type this the Leftist ABC is playing a song with a singer snarling: “The white man took everything.” Except, of course, for his guitar, microphone and royalties for his album.
 
Such extremist rhetoric is inevitable when our authorities promote and reward a culture of victimhood, with most power and money given to those who complain most. No concession will ever be enough, not even shifting Australia Day. Worse, this race-mongering will provoke an ugly reaction, just as dangerously race-based.
 
Let’s head this off. Let’s start by stating some blunt but healthy truths.
 
Many members of the Aboriginal community of Yarra are likely to have some connection to European ancestors. For them to reject Australia Day for its connection to the arrival of Europeans must surely be to reject part of their own ancestry and culture.
 
What’s more, it rejects that part of their culture — and ours — that allows them to live lives infinitely richer, freer and less painful thanks to British settlement.
 
While many Aborigines did suffer from colonisation, most descendants now have everything from secure food supplies and sturdy homes to dentistry and pain relief; from democracy to literacy. As Jack Medcraft, a councillor on Melbourne’s Hume city council, told me yesterday: “I am very proud of my Aboriginal history (but) if it hadn’t been for colonisation of Tasmania, I and many others would not be here today.”
 
Is this Australia not worth celebrating? Is this really to be replaced by an orgy of hatred, resentment and bullying as the Left destroy a part of our culture?
 
Sure, I’m not surprised that Yarra council is joining the Aboriginal grievance industry to attack Australia Day and privilege Aboriginal culture instead.
 
After all, the Greens and the Socialist Alliance are also in a revolt against the West and its freedoms.
 
So don’t believe them when they say they just want another date to celebrate Australia Day.
 
They don’t want to celebrate Australia at all.
 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #6 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-rip-up-our-proud-history-says-john-howard/news-story/4fd1189c540b7cf77bf8c302547626f5?nk=71c46b018ce913512dcac7f2077fb3ed-1503609102

Quote:
John Howard has rebuffed calls to “rewrite history” by downgrading and even eliminating key British symbols in Australian cultural life, saying they should remain and be accepted as representing the time when they were created.

Dismissing calls to change the date of Australia Day or start correcting inscriptions on statues from the colonial era, the former Liberal prime minister said British settlement had been “undeniably very good for Australia”.

While emphasising he did not mean to be offensive or convey a sense of triumphalism, Mr Howard said colonisation of Australia’s land mass was inevitable, and British settlement was a far better outcome than other possibilities.

He told The Australian that colonisation had transferred the best of British things such as the English language, rule of law, a free press and Western civilisation with a certain sense of humour.

“Their settlement policies, their colonial policies, were not without fault, but they were infinitely better than the alternatives from around the time,” Mr Howard said. Other “bad” parts of British life, notably class divisions and the aristocracy, were explicitly rejected, and Australia could have turned out very differently under a different colonial power, he said.

Mr Howard weighed into debate over how to reconcile colonial and indigenous history yesterday as the Greens escalated a campaign to move Australia Day from January 26. He dismissed the behaviour of some local councils voting to stop celebrations and citizenship ceremonies on the day as “a Green-inspired, left-wing ­exercise in gesture politics”.

Known in office for rejecting a “black-armband” view of the ­nation’s history, Mr Howard also disagreed with calls by ABC indigenous editor Stan Grant to amend an inscription on the base of a Captain Cook statue in Sydney’s Hyde Park that says Cook “discovered this territory”.

Declaring “context is everything”, Mr Howard said he ­concurred with Aboriginal leader Warren Mundine that “if you start mucking around with statues then you might as well start tearing down the pyramids”.

“I thought that was a good way of putting it because if you look at all the figures of history, if you go back sufficiently in time, you will find people on both sides of politics advocating what would now be seen as racial immigration policies,” Mr Howard said.

He said one argument he had used as prime minister against apologising to the Aboriginal people was that attitudes and standards of today could not be applied to earlier generations. “In some circumstances the behaviour is undeniably evil and unacceptable. But you can’t do that, you have to think of the context of the time.”

When it came to teaching history, Mr Howard said his longstanding view was that school curriculums had tended to see the British contribution “written out”.

“I don’t know how to advance the position of the First Australians by diminishing the benefits of our British heritage,” he said.

Emeritus Professor Ken Wiltshire, who helped conduct the 2014 curriculum review, said Canberra needed to “lock down” the content of history classes. While the content of various curriculum units was sound, too many choices for teachers and students had often left big knowledge gaps, later seen among university students.

“That gets pretty serious when you start to think about people who do not know about the Anzacs, and you still get a lot of kids who think the Holocaust didn’t happen,” Professor Wiltshire said.

Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 42
Reply with quote  #7 
Even the "White Australia" policy was fraught with dangers to your history and culture by allowing non-British European immigration, allowing non-European immigration will ultimately destroy Australia. You will lose more than the monarchy but your entire way of life. The Aboriginals will lose, too.

Don't worry, the "White Australia" policy will never come back. Most people of European decent would rather feed their children to crocodiles (or perhaps dingoes in your case) than be called racist.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #8 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/leftist-activists-have-become-obsessed-with-what-divides/news-story/0eb88af158b24c33cc372e099c8debba

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet Albrechtsen
Janet Albrechtsen:
 
Daily now we are witnessing the fracturing of the great liberal mission where all individuals are treated equally regardless of colour, creed and gender. Whereas there have always been episodic challenges to this core idea of the West, the frequency of assaults raises the question of whether we have reached the point of no ­return.
 
This past week another Victorian council decided its core business included ditching Australia Day as a commemoration of our history. Melbourne’s City of Darebin council joined the neighbouring City of Yarra in deciding that it wouldn’t hold citizenship ceremonies on January 26. More councils are considering the same.
 
Other Australian symbols are under attack, too. Activists are demanding that the federal electorates of Batman and McMillan be renamed. This week, indigenous broadcaster Stan Grant suggested that inscriptions on Captain James Cook’s statue in Sydney’s Hyde Park be reworded. Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore is rubbing her hands in glee, having sent that idea off to the city’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory board.
 
Grant must know his intervention risks bolstering activists in their demands that statues here be dismantled because his call was carefully timed to exploit the divisions in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Following the violent protests, US President Donald Trump asked: “What’s next? Dismantling statues of George Washington?’’
 
While CNN mocked Trump, within days James Dukes, a bishop in Chicago, demanded that local statues of Washington and Andrew Jackson be removed. This week, ESPN broadcaster Robert Lee, due to call matches in Virginia’s college football opener, was reassigned to a Pittsburgh game. The network said he was moved because of the “coincidence of his name” to events in Charlottesville. Lee speaks Mandarin and is of Asian heritage.
 
Where does this end? The truth is no one knows, but a few things are clear. First, too many people have turned away from liberal ideas that sought to unite us regardless of colour, religion, gender and other markers that divide people. And second, multiculturalism hasn’t worked out as planned. The word used as a feel-good descriptor of a happy and cohesive Australia hasn’t been the unifying policy that politicians, activists and bureaucrats promised more than 40 years ago. Instead, it’s clear multiculturalism is the misguided parent policy of the new politics of division.
 
That’s no great surprise because multiculturalism was never a mainstream unifying policy. It was pushed upon us by a small group of activists on the fringe of politics in the 1970s.
 
As sociologist Katharine Betts has written, multiculturalism was the hobby horse of a group of Anglo-Australian lobbyists and “most of them could and did meet in one room”. Recruited to the cause, Malcolm Fraser included multiculturalism in the ­Coali­tion’s 1974 platform and it became official government policy the following year.
 
Two decades later, multiculturalism remained an elite project: polls showed that the rank-and-file supporters of multiculturalism weren’t migrants but the well-educated elites living far away from migrant enclaves. Understand that history of multiculturalism and it’s easy to understand the ensuing mess.
 
Speaking in Potsdam in 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that multiculturalism had “failed, utterly failed”. That’s why integration was so important, she said.
 
Yet Merkel’s assessment was mistaken in one critical respect. Multiculturalism didn’t fail on the integration front. It was never real­ly about integration. A deliberately slippery word, it meant different things to different people. Some took it to mean no more than respecting different cultures but uniting around a core set of liberal democratic principles. Others, especially its loudest proponents, saw it as licence to practise cultural relativism under which new cultures could not be criticised but carping about our own culture became part of the multi-culti mindset.
 
Worse was to come when this ill-conceived policy spawned more virulently divisive fads and movements premised on separating people.
 
Multiculturalism was the perfect precursor to the left’s abandonment of the classical liber­tarian foundation of human rights. Victimhood feelings and the right not to be offended by words became the new measure of a recalibrated set of so-called human rights. Sure enough, bureaucracies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission became pedlars of censorship rather than ­defenders of free speech.
 
The nadir of this move away from core liberal values, at least so far, rests with the AHRC’s former boss, Gillian Triggs. When asked a few years ago what the commission had done to defend freedom of speech, Triggs made no bones about her agenda: “We have had an emphasis on the proper limitations of free speech,” she said. This year she told us that “sadly, you can say what you like around the kitchen table at home”.
 
There is a bittersweet irony in Triggs attacking the government this week for being too post-truthy. The censorious touting for business to shut down ideas that offend under her watch is a comfy fit with postmodernism’s rejection of reason and logic in favour of political agendas.
 
The postmodern world has become so censorious of free speech that academics who veer from some orthodoxy about race or gender politics are hounded off university campuses. It’s another strike against the liberal project.
 
Brick by brick, these illiberal movements — from the bastardisation of human rights to victimhood politics and postmodernism — have been built on foundations laid by multiculturalism.
 
Now add the latest layer to these ideological walls that separate us. By fuelling a marketplace of outrage where groups vie for pride of place as victims, multiculturalism and the laws and ­bureaucracies that buttress it made the rise of identity politics inexorable. Unlike multiculturalism with its different meanings, identity politics has no qualms about its agenda to group people according to skin colour, religion, gender, sexuality and any other markers that splinter people into smaller and smaller groups. The straight line from the multiculturalism of the 1970s to identity politics today has led to a perverted body politic where extremes compete for the loudest, most extreme voice, making political orphans of those who simply want political leadership that combines a genuine defence of liberal democratic values with sensible economic management.
 
Consider what the politics of division has delivered in the past few weeks. On the right, Pauline Hanson chose a silly stunt, wearing a burka in the Senate. Discussion about female oppression and national security beats Hanson’s look at moi act hands down. On the left, ABC central refused to pick up its own story from the regions about of the Australian Federation of Islamic Council’s former president, Haset Sali, who told ABC Sunshine Coast that “the sooner Muslim women get rid of this hideous garb, the better”. Our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster is not inter­ested in reporting to the nation that a Muslim believes the burka is an article of oppression.
 
Look, too, at the illiberalism, not to mention moral hypocrisy, running rife in the same-sex marriage debate. Social change takes time. Even Penny Wong once defended the traditional definition of marriage and while she has changed her mind, Wong doesn’t want input from Australians in case they haven’t reached the same conclusion in her chosen timeframe. Equally damaging to a liberal democracy is the assertion from yes campaigners this past week that religious freedoms have nothing to do with legalising same-sex marriage. Given past efforts to stifle church teachings on marriage, that claim is either daft or duplicitous.
 
This week, too, Australia Post said employees would have the right not to deliver material sent as part of the yes or no cases if they decided it was offensive. This Triggs-style censorship at the letterbox is another strike against liberal values that underpin a thriving modern democracy.
 
From auditing gendered play in a playground (another demented agenda from Melbourne’s Darebin council) to LGBTI role-playing in the classroom as a way to empathise with LGBTI people, this is propagandist policing of political agendas. Encouraging kids, and indeed adults, to respect each other regardless of colour, religion, gender or sexuality is far better than political movements that divide us. It’s hardly a mark of progress that instead of coalescing around the values of the liberal project, we have spent more than four decades obsessing about differences of race, religion, sexuality and gender. And with new movements spawned by multiculturalism, there is no end in sight to this regression.
 
A few years ago, a former boss of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, said the West was “sleepwalking to segregation”. In his final book, Who Are We?, Samuel Huntingdon wrote that multiculturalism was “basically an anti-Western ideology”.
 
Blind to the warnings, we continue to move away from a social contract that once bound people together by expecting majority tolerance, min­ority loyalty and vigilance in both directions. A decade of weak political leadership in this country has only emboldened the cultural dietitians, as former prime minister John Howard once called them.
 
Howard emerged on Thursday to denounce changing inscriptions on statues that date from the colonial era as markers of their time. On Friday, Malcolm Turnbull followed, describing the move as a “Stalinist exercise”. More consistent cultural leadership will help stop the blows to the liberal project coming with even greater frequency.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #9 
Meanwhile in Sydney, this happens:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/vandals-attack-historic-hyde-park-statues-in-australia-day-protest/news-story/85fe173a58965f122793acf5924f40a5
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #10 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/australia-day-debate-reclaim-history-instead-of-distorting-it/news-story/ba2bd6c850c8d95b9bfef14306f8e516?nk=71c46b018ce913512dcac7f2077fb3ed-1503795743

Quote:
The move to disown Australia Day has become a minor stampede. Curiously, it comes not from Canberra or Darwin but from gentrified suburbs in the southern cities of Fremantle, Hobart and Melbourne.
 
Many Aboriginal activists view the national day as a reminder of a painful event, but many others don’t. At the big Garma festival in Arnhem Land earlier this month, the main message sent south was not about Australia Day.
 
Aboriginal leaders hope for a significant change to the Constitution, and ABC journalist and author Stan Grant is becoming a central spokesman. Some critics wonder about his blunt observations, not realising that he is enlarging on dubious statements in textbooks and some university lectures.
 
This week he soared into fantasy. He lamented that indigenous people are “a postscript to Australian history”. In fact, an enormous amount of money and talent has gone into researching and teaching Aboriginal history in the past half century, thus increasing Aborigines’ knowledge and self-respect. He laments that Aborigines, “excluded” from the Constitution, were not even worth counting, but in fact a determined effort went into doing so, census after census.
 
Grant deplores the “belief in the superiority of white Christendom that devastated indigenous people everywhere”. Maybe he forgets that polygamy blighted the lives of countless Aboriginal families, and Christians did more than any group to curtail that practice. Of course, in the past two years Grant has also made valid points, expressing them powerfully.
 
Until we realise that the initial confrontations between Aborigines and the British were perhaps the most difficult and puzzling in the recorded history of the world, we will minimise the problems faced by those who arrived and those who had long lived here. Some obstacles are still here, 229 years later. Both sides deserve blame and praise.
 
One of the advantages of Australia Day is that it often throws these important topics into the debating ring. However, the latest move against Australia Day, often led by suburban Greens, is unexpected. At a time when there is a widespread fear that the nation could be weakened by the hidden circles of Muslim terrorists, more social cohesion is essential. And yet the Australian people are now selected as a major cause of disunity. Apparently their failure, visible every Australia Day, is to be ignorant of their nation’s history.
 
The city council in Yarra, which contains about 90,000 people in Melbourne, hopes to convert January 26 into a day of “community education” about Aborigines. It will run an “education workshop” for young Aborigines (will they attend?). It will abolish citizenship ceremonies for that day and translate a correct “information sheet” into the six main foreign community languages spoken in the Collingwood-Richmond-North Fitzroy area. It hopes to organise a smoking ceremony followed by a “culturally sensitive event”.
 
There is a hint that, if successful, it will try to smoke out the word Australia from the national day. It claims that January 26 is for many a day of mourning “and the beginning of generations of trauma and suffering”.
 
Without doubt, most Australians favour the present type of Australia Day. In contrast, the Yarra City Council, after a local poll, insists its residents think differently. But its poll contacted fewer than 300 people, many of whom did not reply. A nearby municipality, Darebin, conducted an even smaller poll.
 
The fact remains that many Aboriginal people do have a deep sense of grievance. They describe the planting of the British flag in Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788 as “invasion day”. I myself have used the phrase to cover the first Aboriginal settling of the land 60,000 years ago and then the later European inflow. For a whole continent to be embraced by two such distinct inflows — perhaps without parallel in the world’s history — deserves a powerful descriptive word.
 
Today the word “invasion” is often imagined as denoting a long-term British military conquest of Australia. In fact, the event was usually accomplished by a few civilians and only occasionally by British regiments. It was sometimes supported or carried out by Aboriginal people. In Queensland, the native mounted police killed other Aborigines on a large scale.
 
In the first decades after 1788, it was not envisaged that the inflow or invasion would cover most of the continent. But in the end it did. Devastating and dislocating, it caused far more deaths through new diseases than through firearms. Alcohol — which was new to Aborigines — strongly increased the death toll.
 
This sequence of events has sometimes been magnified by the rewriting of indigenous history in recent years. The rewriting, often by television producers and Aboriginal expositors, depicts a peaceful paradise that flourished in the millennia before Europeans arrived.
 
Aborigines are now depicted as living in peace and harmony, with each other and with nature. In truth, they were human beings: they fought one another. From time to time they invaded neighbouring territory, killing and maiming children and women as well as men. But the words “invasion” and “massacre” are rarely used to describe these Aboriginal attacks. The evidence of their frequency has multiplied in the past quarter century.
 
Some Aboriginal leaders promote this new interpretation of old Australia. Impressive politicians, they frequently out-argue federal and state leaders. In time to come, various historians, looking back, may well argue that of the 10 most effective national politicians in the early 21st century, perhaps three were indigenous. These champions have no seat in parliament — probably to their advantage.
 
While they argue, with truth, that many of their kinsfolk are still suffering deeply, it is also true that in many ways Aborigines have gained from events since 1788. Most indigenous people live in cities, large and small: NSW that holds the highest population of Aborigines. They are part of mainstream Australia.
 
Their success is not often reported in the media, but in each Australian state about 35 to 45 per cent of urban Aborigines are paying off their own houses. They increasingly occupy places in more or less all the professions: perhaps 13,000 of the young are now enrolled in universities. These points are briefly set out in my recent book, The Story of Australia’s People.
 
The typical indigenous families — and they live in urban Australia — have gained enormously from advances in medicine. Their life expectancy is higher than mine when I was born. Of more relevance, most Aborigines are now, materially, better off than if they had still been living in their traditional hunter-and-gatherer society, with all its distinctive merits as well as its weaknesses.
 
In contrast, a substantial minority of Aboriginal people today are living in wretched conditions in the outback. Perhaps they constitute one in four or five of all the people who are called indigenous. They love to be close to their own heartland and relatives; they wish for the old freedoms; and they resent the intrusions of officialdom. Some control the use of alcohol on their lands. But the prospects for their children are low — infant health and attendance at school are poor and violence is widespread.
 
These families pay the high penalty for their determination to live in tiny settlements where civic amenities, health and police services, and even running water are usually deficient. Though out of sight, they are widely seen as a grim advertisement for Australia.
 
Nothing does more to cloud a discussion of the state of the nation and the role of Australia Day than the existence of two such contrasting indigenous groups. There is even a third, with a very different history and background.
 
Torres Strait Islanders traditionally do not speak of “invasion day” but rather of the Coming of the Light. Their special day annually commemorates the arrival of the London Missionary Society and its Pacific Islander evangelists in the early 1870s.
 
On the other side of Australia, in the Pilbara, the Torres Strait Islanders were famous for their feats as railway builders.
 
Meanwhile, what could we create in place of Australia Day and its genuine but generally subdued patriotism and overall popularity and acceptance?
 
It would be risky to transfer the day. It is more successful than it has ever been, but real success has come only since the 1990s. When I was a child, Victoria did not even call it Australia Day, preferring the name of the ANA (Australian Natives Association) weekend.
 
In 1988, the bicentenary of the founding of Sydney, the nation’s leaders did not agree on what they should celebrate. Even Jonathan King’s bold venture in organising a replica of the First Fleet — it sailed into Sydney Harbour on Australia Day — aroused strong official opposition in Canberra.
 
Some critics even wondered whether Anzac Day, April 25, should become the real celebration. But the original Australia Day at last began to triumph in its quiet way, and is now widely accepted, though it has legitimate critics.
 
It has been suggested that the day be renamed. I have no objection, so long as the new name has wide public support. After all, it is the Australians’ day.
 
We have a long history of renaming days and places. Three east coast colonies, now called states, each adopted a new name in the 1850s, and the exotic name of Van Diemen’s Land was one that disappeared. Henry Parkes, NSW premier and the father of federation — what a magician he was — believed that New South Wales could change its name to Australia. In living memory, Uluru has replaced Ayers Rock.
 
One fact is certain. Aborigines need to celebrate more effectively their own contribution to early Australian history. While some complain about the statue and status of Captain Cook, they have failed to erect a striking monument or memorial in honour of their distinguished heroes, the unknown discoverers of this continent. They made the discovery before the great rising of the seas separated Australia and New Guinea, but it is still the momentous event in the long story of our nation.
 
A national report in 1975 first suggested a special monument be created. It has been recommended again and again, including by me. The money could easily be found. Nothing has been done. Aborigines must ask themselves: Why?
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #11 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-rule/andrew-bolt-stupid-bullies-running-riot-are-our-new-great-menace/news-story/a53db7689222cd26983493e4e36b2306

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt
AFTER standing for 138 years in Sydney’s Hyde Park, Captain Cook has finally discovered something else.
 
He’s discovered a breed of savages running riot in Australia — people who aren’t just stupid, but bullies.
 
These thick thugs are our great new menace, bullying opponents of same-sex marriage, screaming down critics of Islam and sabotaging coal projects.
 
In Cook’s case, they last week spray-painted his statue with slogans attacking Australia Day.
 
Of course, they’re stupid. These people never thought Cook’s bronze was a problem until ABC host Stan Grant last week announced it offended Aborigines because its inscription said Cook “discovered” the area.
 
Suddenly, the activists decided they were so offended as well that they defaced the statue, demanding the date of Australia Day be shifted from January 26 to spare Aborigines the painful reminder that the First Fleet arrived on that day in 1788.
 
But a statue of a superb and courageous navigator and sailor was always likely to offend activists very aware of their own ignorance.
 
So was any reminder that January 26 marks the arrival here of the first seeds of Western civilisation — science, democracy, literacy, medicine and advanced agriculture.
 
Of course, all this would offend activists who are stupid. But that should not bother us while the stupid stay civil.
 
After all, the stupid are not many. A McNair poll found only 15 per cent of Australians want Australia Day shifted.
 
But here’s the problem: such activists are also so authoritarian that they believe the majority must surrender to their minority.
 
Just this month, Melbourne’s Greens-led Darebin council scrapped Australia Day celebrations on January 26 after asking just 81 of its advisers and Aboriginal activists, but not its 140,000 ratepayers.
 
On the streets, it’s the same story. Leftist protesters stop other Australians from simply hearing speakers the protesters hate, including the elected Pauline Hanson.
 
Or they shut down meetings, from an ABC Q&A debate to a Westpac Christmas party.
 
This is now an urgent issue. Even same-sex marriage can be resolved peacefully by a public vote. But when bullies decide their will must always prevail, there are no solutions but violence.
 
How we line up in that confrontation —— for democracy and reason, or for violence — is the real division now.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #12 
 
 
Quote:
Tony Abbott has warned that a Turnbull government plan to teach more indigenous history in primary schools would be a “capitulation to the Left” unless it was accompanied by lessons on British history and the rise of the West.
 
He has urged caution on a proposal being pushed by Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion for Aboriginal languages, phrases and customs to be taught in schools.
 
The former prime minister said the lessons should not be at the expense of teachings about the rise of Western civilisation.
 
“Sure, let’s teach Australia’s prehistory. It better include British history and the rise of western civilisation as well as indigenous studies,” Mr Abbott tweeted this morning.
 
“Otherwise, it’s just another capitulation to the left.”
 
Mr Abbott’s statement this morning indicates that Senator Scullion’s proposal, which was yesterday backed by Labor, could face opposition by conservatives within the Coalition.
 
A spokesman for the Turnbull government responded to Mr Abbott today and said there would be no changes to the school curriculum.
 
“No one is proposing to change the Australian curriculum, which was last reviewed just in 2014 and already covers a number of aspects of Australian history, including the teaching of indigenous culture,” the spokesman said.
 
“Anything that practically assists teachers to effectively improve student understanding of our history, including indigenous history, is a good thing.”
 
The Australian revealed on Wednesday that the Northern Territory senator had commissioned Melbourne University to devise teaching resources under the leadership of prominent indigenous academic Marcia Langton.
 
Senator Scullion aims to present a draft version of the new teaching materials to the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority by March for initial feedback, and he would speak with state and territory education ministers ­before the end of this year.
 
“We have been forced to study the civilisations of north Africa, the building of pyramids, the ­desertification of country to ­unsustainable land practices,” he told The Australian this week. “And yet we’ve failed to understand our own amazingly sophisticated civilisation, which had a culture that was sustained by land and sustained the land for tens of thousands of years. If we understood that more, we wouldn’t need second plaques.”
 
Labor education spokes­woman Tanya Plibersek yesterday backed the plan, saying she thought primary school children would enjoy learning about the culture and language of indigenous clans before the arrival of the British.
 
“I think it’s important that all children are taught about the 65,000-year connection to this land of Australia’s first peoples,” she said. “It’s a history of which all Australians should be proud and I imagine most children would be thrilled to learn more about the ­indigenous history of their local area and our nation.”
 
Education Minister Simon Birmingham said yesterday Senator Scullion’s changes were aimed at providing teachers with better resources to instruct children and enhancing rather than overhauling the ­national curriculum.
 
“I think one of the challenges for particularly teachers is, how do you effectively teach indigenous culture and history?” he said.
 
“The work Nigel and I have spoken of, and that is being commissioned, is about providing resources and tools where teachers can pick something up and say, ‘This is a best practice way to ensure school students develop a clear understanding of indigenous culture ... the 40,000 years of Australian history that predates European settlement is effectively communicated in the classroom.”
 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #13 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Newman
According to political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.
 
Divine order or otherwise, you don’t need a tinfoil hat to know the recent co-ordinated assaults on Judeo-Christian culture and history are deliberate.
 
For example, without the resources of fellow travellers, is it plausible that 3700 people who, according to the last census, are neither male nor female could command such attention as to ensure the proliferation of gender-neutral toilets and the teaching of controversial gender theories in schools? Or that just 47,000 couples living in same-sex relationships could monopolise public debate on “marriage equality”?
 
Veteran English family care activist Erin Pizzey teaches: “Family life was and always will be the foundation of any civilisation. Destroy the family and you destroy the country.” Since the 1960s, she has watched neo-Marxists, radical feminists and their sympathisers push for “a new utopia that depended upon destroying family life”. Women and their children were idealised and typical gender roles rejected. “Fathers were considered dispensable.”
 
Then came the pill, the normalisation of promiscuity and easy divorce and, unsurprisingly, a decline in traditional marriage. Today one-third of Australian children are born out of wedlock and 16 per cent live in single-parent families, 85 per cent of which are fatherless. Poverty and crime have followed.
 
Same-sex marriage is the latest battleground for defenders of traditional marriage and family. Proponents have turned this into a mainstream debate about discrimination and equality under the law. They employ the Marxist technique of “repressive tolerance”, which often involves violent opposition to contrary views.
 
Weak politicians succumb to this pressure.
 
Take Catholic Ireland, where already religious protections are being eroded. Or Canada, where the wrong use of gender pronouns is illegal. In California, an innocent six-year-old was called to the principal’s office for referring to a classmate by the name she knew him last year. Shortly California will follow Canada in criminalising free speech. It’s this slippery slope that alarms many otherwise same-sex marriage supporters.
 
In today’s culture wars, colour is important, so Stanford University is offering a class called White Identity Politics, where students can “survey the field of whiteness studies” and discuss the “possibilities of … abolishing whiteness”. Their belief is that “if other white people would, like them, stop identifying politically as white, it would help end inequalities”.
 
If colour is a cause for division, so too is our past. But as the chancellor of Oxford University warns: “Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice.” He was referring to a student push to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College following a debate about Britain’s colonial past and whether one of the country’s most revered educational establishments should distance itself from that history.
 
The Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford group aims to “decolonise the space, curriculum and institutional memory” of the university and says Rhodes is celebrated in an uncritical way. One of the campaigners, Ntokozo Qwabe, is a recipient of a Rhodes scholarship, but his supporters claim: “There is no clause that binds us to find ‘the good’ in Rhodes’s character, nor to sanitise the imperialist, colonial agenda he propagated.”
 
American political commentator Pat Buchanan writes about a similar campaign to remove from the US all statues of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Buchanan illustrates how leadership has been captured, citing Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who two years ago called statues of Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson “parts of our heritage”. After the Charlottes­ville riots, claims Buch­anan, “McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scallywag, demanding the statues be pulled down as flashpoints for hatred, division, and violence”.
 
Buchanan sees no end to these flashpoints “until America’s histories and biographies are burned and new texts written to Nazify Lee, Jackson, (Jefferson) Davis and all the rest”.
 
“Only then will a newly indoctrinated generation of Americans accede to this demand to tear down and destroy what their fathers cherished,” he says.
 
“And once all the Confederates are gone, one must begin with the explorers, and then the slave owners like presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who seceded from slave-free Britain. White supremacists all.”
 
Australia’s history also needs revision, lest future generations take pride in their heritage, the ABC’s Stan Grant understands. James Cook was an invader rather than a discoverer. Grant sermonises: “The inscription that Cook ‘Discovered this territory in 1770’ maintains a damaging myth, a belief in the superiority of white Christendom that devastated indigenous peoples everywhere.” Really?
 
The new version of governor Arthur Phillip portrays him as genocidal, notwithstanding his demands that Aborigines be well-treated. He abolished slavery 20 years before Britain. Yet better to see him as a white supremacist than someone doing his best with what he had.
 
Likewise, governor Lachlan Macquarie must be remembered for his tit-for-tat violence towards Aborigines, more than his role in the social, economic and architectural development of the colony.
 
The statues of all three should be removed and their names erased from public places.
 
“We have,” to quote Buchanan, “passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.” Some believe this is progress. Others watch in despair as society’s foundations crumble, supervised by leaders who stand for nothing.
 
Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s dreams of marching through the institutions have all but come true. Even the churches have been captured.
 
Future generations will inhabit a different world where coercion will ensure that only one view survives. By then they should know nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems and everything is connected.
 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #14 
More madness in Australia as Australia Day is being compared to the Holocaust by the Left:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/moreland-city-council-joins-push-to-change-australia-day-date/news-story/813a584ca2cec9404ced3a22948fc2b1?nk=71c46b018ce913512dcac7f2077fb3ed-1505370830
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #15 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Panahi
THE only surprise is that it took Moreland Council so long to formally dump Australia Day.
 
This is a council that sets the pace when it comes to irrational, counterproductive grandstanding.
 
Not surprising given it is populated by far-Left activists including Greens and Socialist Alliance misfits.
 
Last night they followed the foolish footsteps of the City of Yarra and Darebin Council and opted to drop all references to Australia Day.
 
One councillor even made comparisons between our national holiday and the Nazi holocaust, earning a rebuke from Assistant Minister for Immigration Alex Hawke.
 
Never mind that the overwhelming majority of the population support Australia Day with research conducted earlier this year showing that 85% want to keep the national holiday on January 26 with a similar number against any efforts to rename the day.
 
Earlier this year Moreland Council found itself in another self-inflicted conundrum when they ran out of flag poles after backing too many causes.
 
Socialist Alliance councillor Sue Bolton wants to fly the flag of the West Papuan freedom movement over town hall on December 1 but all available flag poles are already occupied.
 
Last year, irresponsible Moreland councillors backed a protest by masked troublemakers who turned Coburg into a battleground on the busiest trading day of the week.
 
On that occasion the councillors ignored the pleas of local traders, Victoria police, the state government and the opposition and pushed ahead with their reckless activism.
 
Councillors should be focused on the core responsibilities of local government; rates, rubbish and roads.
 
But too often militant councillors misuse their positions to push their pet agendas as well as grandstand on national and international issues that have nothing to do with the third tier of government.
 
Long suffering ratepayers deserve so much more.
 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.