Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Posts: 4,312
Reply with quote  #1

“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.

Posts: 4,312
Reply with quote  #2 
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.

Posts: 4,312
Reply with quote  #3


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.


Posts: 4,312
Reply with quote  #4

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.


Posts: 4,312
Reply with quote  #5 
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.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation: