The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia Day 2017 > Comments

Australia Day 2017 : Comments

By Bob Ryan, published 5/1/2017

It is unfortunate that, when reasonable Australians strive to unite us all as a nation, there still persists an objection to celebrating January the 26th as Australia Day.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
How many people really care that few tossers want to feel 'sorry', feel 'guilty' and moan and groan about a particular date for Australia day? Who was here first? Who cares? Australians have turned into a bunch miserable bed-wetters without minds of their their own. What happened 200 or so years ago is old hat. Soon, 'they' will be putting tranquilizers in the water,so uptight about things we are getting.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 5 January 2017 10:35:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can't unsee what's been seen, can't unsay what's been said, can't go back and change the past! And if we could, why would we want to?

Some of my forbears came here bound down in iron chains! Two thirds of who died during the voyage; or later from the accumulated rigors of the journey and subsequent cruelty!

Others had no other choice than accept indentured servitude in a hostile foreign land! Where friends were few and far between!

That said, there were clash of culture mistakes made, sometimes with the purest of intentions/motives!

Even so, I wasn't there and had no say, as indeed, an outcome applicable to my forbears!

Unwilling migrants to a virtual man! Who now are blamed for outcomes none had any say in! And when the only imperative for one and all, was survival!

We need to set aside a history that can't be changed or paid for by today's Australians, who were never ever participants!

Time to accept inevitable change, get over yourselves/victimhood, move on and make the best of what we have now! We need to set aside patently manufactured, politically motivated division and instead, look at that which we share; and the bigger picture and a still malleable, best possible, truly inclusive, egalitarian future!

Anyway, and in the final analysis, there's just no other still viable alternative choice! End of story!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 5 January 2017 12:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ttbn..
In describing a mental illness with symptoms of neurosis. Which of course is the stage prior to psychosis. You describe the public face of Australia.
It is quite simply mad on every level!
I mean, it's almost a divine projection of saintliness is it not?
Your an Australian? asks the tourist of a local.
Yes, replied the local.
And I'm very sorry if I have upset you in any way, may I apoligise for any future hurt on your visit to this, the most outstanding of all countries in the whole world, bar none.
And if you are a homosexual, may I humbly throw myself at your feet and beg you to kick my head in, as recommence for not having presented to you in this country, the right to marry your beautiful and loving boy friend...very sorry for that! (....).
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 12:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's all about an Black Armband History .

This history suits many in First Australians Politics.

Also , I cannot understand this "Invasion' Line.... if was an 'Invasion' then , surely , they lost ?
Posted by Aspley, Thursday, 5 January 2017 12:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article could seem like thinly veiled racism. The trouble is it is not just Aboriginal people who have a problem with the date.
It is after all the date that the colony of NSW's was started.

Australia day should be the 1st of January and called federation day.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 5 January 2017 2:52:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most people don't really care about the actual date.
They just want a day off work, have a few drinks,
a barbeque, et cetera. None of those things can only be
done on the 26th January.

I looked up this subject on the web and discovered that
the tradition of having Australia Day as a national
holiday on 26 January is a recent one. Not until 1935
did all the Australian states and territories use that name
to mark that date. Not until 1994 did they begin to celebrate
Australia Day consistently as a public holiday on that date.

Seeing as Australia has only had a little over two decades
of holding Australia Day on the 26th January then
surely that is not too many years to acknowledge that perhaps
it was a poor choice and move it to a better day?

I suppose when all is said and done it all depends on
our outlook. If we want to see Australia as a colonial
outpost for the British then perhaps that day makes sense
but if we regard Australia as a "vibrant multicultural
society" and if we want to regard indigenous people as
a core part of the modern Australian ideology then it
makes no sense to have Australia Day on that date.

Personally, I would suggest that the best change of date
would be the day that we become a republic. Now that
would be a cause for celebration - and one that hopefully
would bring all Australians together.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 5 January 2017 5:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Who cares about the past?" Anzacs did each year and now great- grandkids do .
" This would indicate that England sought no new worlds to conquer; Cook claimed possession but England did not occupy". Excuse me , CAPTAIN Philip brought a 10gun ship and 500 military. Anzacs claimed possession of Anzac Cove but did not occupy...?
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 5 January 2017 6:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The recent fire works over Sydney Harbour News Eve 2017, marked Australia's 116th Birthday as a nation.

January 26th merely celebrates the founding of a Penal Colony by England, whose population in 1788 was less than the population of NSW today.

Most Australians see the 1st of January as the correct alternative date for Australia Day, but are deterred by it being New Years Day.

But, as stated on the Samuel Griffith Society's web site:

"The Commonwealth of Australia, by contrast, did not evolve over the centuries. At the stroke of midnight on 31 December 1900 it sprang into existence in an instant, its Constitution with it, fully- armed like the goddess Pallas Athena. The same is essentially true of the United States of America."
http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume%201/chap2.htm

Most obviously, the day before the 1st of January, or 31 December is the most appropriate date for Australia Day. It was also the last day of Colonialism in Australia.
Posted by roderick, Friday, 6 January 2017 9:28:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because Cook and Philip gave it all to George III , then today your house-block belongs to Mrs Duke of Edinburgh, then to Charles and Camilla. If UK goes broke our colonial landlords could sell us to Beijing Property Inc.

The past can be ignored but should history be falsified to assist ignoring it?

"As to those who did arrive in 1788, none among them liked being at Sydney Cove; for the government officials and military, it was their duty; . Trees gave no shade; meat was infested with maggots within minutes;"
Anzac Cove was the same so they didn't invade Anzac Cove.?

"Governor Phillip’s commission enjoined him to treat the natives kindly and fairly...The fact is, taken in the context of its time, the landing of foreigners in any part of the world could not have been more civil than that of the First Fleet; there was no overt aggression,"

North Korea's constitution promises freedom of the Press . In the context of 1788, shooting rabbits running on the heath and shooting heathens on the run was illegal.

29 April 1770: ".. warriors of Botany Bay, oppose the landing of Lieutenant James Cook who fires three times and, though wounded by small shot, the men.."
22 January 1788: While the English are eating, Phillip draws a circle around them in the sand. This ‘line in the sand’, secured by marines armed with muskets,..
9 February: The French ‘fire on the natives at Botany Bay to keep them quiet’
30 May. the killing of an Eora man in a canoe near (, Balmain),.
".. this Native having been murdered occasioned their seeking revenge.., but that did not happen until they had been ill treated by us in the lower part of the Harbour & fired upon by the French."
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 6 January 2017 11:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" Suppose, however, that Phillip had wanted to ask permission to land and set up a camp: Who would he have asked? "
31 May: Phillip .. near Boora (Long Bay) has a friendly meeting with 200 armed men..
14 September: Maugoran, a Burramattagal elder,( Parramatta) expresses his ‘great dissatisfaction’ at the number of Europeans who had settled ‘in their former territories’ at Rose Hill . Phillip writes:"If this man’s information can be depended on, the natives were very angry at so many people being sent to Rose-hill, certain it is that wherever our colonists fix themselves, the natives are obliged to leave that part of the country."
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 6 January 2017 11:01:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes our non reflective cousins have much to be thankful for. Thankful that the Spaniards, or indeed the Japanese more recently, did not occupy/invade/conquer Terra Australis/Oceania. I have no doubt from reading the accounts of Southern American natives, that the small, scattered tribes of our indigenous peoples would likewise have suffered the plagues, poxes and swords of the Conquistadors. Quite likely to the point of extinction.

The xenophobic and racially (in their minds) pure Japanese would have wholesale wiped everyone out who was deemed useless for their purposes during their march southwards to the capital cities and industrial centres of Australia, had the outcome of WW2 been different.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 6 January 2017 5:48:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All of Australasia .. to accommodate up to two million Japanese settlers. However, there are indications that the Japanese were also looking for a separate peace with Australia, and a satellite rather than colony status similar to that of Burma and the Philippines."

Like Britain , Japan offered improved , peaceful conditions and caused similar casualties ( without using poisoned flour). Spanish-type epidemics of small-pox were just as deadly:

Sydney, 14 July 1788:" They ‘appeared to be starving …
These people, and the sick seen on 24 June, might be the first to suffer from the introduced smallpox virus, which was to sweep through the Eora population one year later."
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 6 January 2017 6:41:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Victoria Museum:
".. the Dandenongs, James Dredge as Assistant to the Port Phillip Protectorate for Aborigines for the Goulburn District, reported in 1839 of Daung wurrung people being poisoned with flour laced with arsenic..
" such was the prejudice and ill will existing amongst many settlers towards the blacks... many of the aborigines had been destroyed by them with 'sweet damper' (James Dredge Diary, 1 June 1839, p.52).
... The depredations wrought by displacement from their land and high death rates from disease and massacre saw the population diminished rapidly. Census figures for the Kulin were 1225 people in 1839-42 and only 181 people in 1863."
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 6 January 2017 6:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Solution: Abolish Australia Day and don't replace it with anything else, no holiday, no nuthin'.

Result: Another productive work day.

Private celebration by those so inclined to be allowed.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 7 January 2017 8:39:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely, everybody celebrates their birthday.

Because the Commonwealth of Australia was born at midnight 31 December, it must be December 31. It cannot be any arbitrary date.
Posted by roderick, Saturday, 7 January 2017 11:18:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The colonies were united in the UK Foreign Office which was formed in March 1782 by combining the Departments of the Secretary of State. In 1901 the Oz state governments were headed by Royal Governors as in the 1800s.

Australia Day is particularly memorable to inmates of jails and detainees on Manus Island who revere the distinguished heritage.
Posted by nicknamenick, Saturday, 7 January 2017 11:42:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Convict Day, surely a day of national pride...
Posted by roderick, Saturday, 7 January 2017 5:23:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all need the strength of our convictions.
Posted by nicknamenick, Saturday, 7 January 2017 5:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, even on Convict Day - January 26th.
Posted by roderick, Saturday, 7 January 2017 5:48:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No if they had 7 or 14 year sentences begun in 1787 or so then convict's day was around 1795 or 1802.
Posted by nicknamenick, Saturday, 7 January 2017 6:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apart from political considerations and sensitivities, the early part of the year has too many holidays. The later part of the year has few holidays.

It would be infinitely more sensible to move the date to the later part of the year and just make it a general holiday for all Australians to celebrate being a nation, without all the imperial and genocide baggage attached to 26 January.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 8 January 2017 5:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, you would opt for the 17th of September then - I would be happy with that. But, would the weather be too cold? Not sure.

DECLARATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Queen Victoria, Proclamation, 17 September 1900.

We do hereby declare that on and after the first Day of January one thousand nine hundred and one, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia.
http://exhibitions.senate.gov.au/pogg/origins/declaration.htm
Posted by roderick, Sunday, 8 January 2017 6:32:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The one thing certain about the date is, that like the anchor thrown overboard from HMS Sirius in Sydney Cove on that morning, truth likewise resides on the bottom of Sydney Harbour and has remained there ever since.

Anyone thinking that we became an independent nation when Federation visited us in 1901 is also sadly deluded. We are nothing more than a British Colony and will stay so until someone has the testicular fortitude and heart to cut the apron strings to HM QEII, her heirs and successors.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Sunday, 8 January 2017 1:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//We are nothing more than a British Colony and will stay so until someone has the testicular fortitude and heart to cut the apron strings to HM QEII, her heirs and successors.//

They already have. They did it in 1986, with the Australia Act. You should look it up.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 8 January 2017 3:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Albie,

Yes we weren't fully independent in 1901.

But, if Federation had failed, the Premiers of NSW, QLD, VIC, TAS, WA & SA would have each renamed or retitled themselves Prime Minister in 1901 just as the New Zealand Premier Seddon had, a single unified nation today simply would not exist.

Prior to 1901 we had Colonial navies and Colonial armies. The Australian Army and Australian Navy were created in March 1901. Not to mention the PMG or Aust. Post and the Telstra equivalent. Australia is 116 years ahead of either Canada or Britain when it comes to an Elected Upper House or Senate. We've had a Federal Supreme Court for 116 years, the UK only recently (2005) established their own.

All this the work of some truly great men who are totally forgotten today - it is truly a NATIONAL DISGRACE of biblical proportions to forget them and their great work year after year.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iA0jBpSej5IC&pg=PA2&dq=informally+changed+by+Richard+Seddon+to+%22Prime+Minister%22+in+1901+during+his+tenure+in+office&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPy8f4_7HRAhUDm5QKHe3zCZ0Q6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=informally%20changed%20by%20Richard%20Seddon%20to%20%22Prime%20Minister%22%20in%201901%20during%20his%20tenure%20in%20office&f=false
Posted by roderick, Sunday, 8 January 2017 5:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
roderick

19 September sounds good. We don't really have a formal date in the Australian calendar to focus on the significance of Federation or the history of how it came into being. January 1 is overshadowed for obvious reasons.

As for being too cold, on the contrary, September is the loveliest month of the year weather wise.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 8 January 2017 8:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

I'm sold - I just found this wonderful picture of Sydney Harbour on the 17th of September last year.
https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8311/29700560216_db655dc215_b.jpg

Also, the beauty of the 17th of September is that it is already AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP DAY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Citizenship_Day

What do we do on Australia Day? We hold citizenship ceremonies. It seems to be a date ready-made to move to.

Thank you very much -- hopefully this blog may change history.
Posted by roderick, Monday, 9 January 2017 7:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That has to be one of the worst pieces I've ever read in OLO. A great display of nothingness and historical ignorance.

'The fact is, taken in the context of its time, the landing of foreigners in any part of the world could not have been more civil than that of the First Fleet; there was no overt aggression, no destruction of native habitations, no interference with native women and children...'. What a load of rubbish. No aggression? What about the kidnappings? Or the revenge party that Phillip sent out (thankfully circumvented by incompetence and a sympathetic leading officer)?

No destruction of native habitations? Really, so the First Fleeter's simply arrived and did nothing to make a settlement did they? No trees cut down, no land ruined by foreign farming practices and introduction of cattle/sheep. And no hunting/fishing out of local stocks...yeah tell that to all those who couldn't get a roo or any fish due to over-hunting/fishing.

No interference with native women and children. Absolute rubbish. The convicts were well known for interfering with the women and also stealing from the Aborigines. It is well argued that the first white person killed, convict Peter Burn, was speared as pay-back for interfering with Aboriginal women.

There was also the possible deliberate use of smallpox against the Aboriginal people of Port Jackson that had fatality rates of up to 90%. Non-interference? What a joke of a claim.

It is clear Bob Ryan has no idea what he is talking about and hope he's not a PhD Australian history student as he would be on the way to failing.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 9 January 2017 9:12:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe not the best time to celebrate Canberra's pollies what with Kevin/ Julia , Slipper /Bishop / Ley rorts , Clive Palmer and friends. What would we do on September Proclamation Day , it doesn't quite have the mojo of US Constitution.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 9 January 2017 9:23:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Queen stills rules OK and the Constitution still has Privy Council power.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 74

Appeal to Queen in Council
.. the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council... and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.
.. this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure."

aye ma'am.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 9 January 2017 9:37:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi nicknamenick, you are incorrect there about appeals to the Privy Council (the Queen). In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament and the Parliament of Australia (with the request and consent of the Australian States), appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 9 January 2017 9:56:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nah , Laws have to be constitutional and s74 still stands. A mob of Centrelink debt victims , Aboriginal elders and gay unmarried could demand that Her Majesty call up a Privy Council . She'd do it , no worries.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 9 January 2017 10:14:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Section 74 of the Australian Constitution exists but on paper only. Section 11 of the Australia Act 1986 has made it redundant. And the Australian Constitution has no authority in England so it is worthless.

Of course, nicknamenick, you are most welcome to try and have an appeal taken to the Privy Council. Lawyers around the country will welcome the comic relief.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 9 January 2017 12:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Britain , not Australia , made the Constitution which removes Britain's Commons powers over Oz. In 1990 UK had to pass an act to send the original British document to the colonials in Canberra.

" Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... the Constitution was originally given legal force by an Act of the United Kingdom parliament, ..and the Constitution can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed referendum procedures in Section 128."

Legislation must comply with the constitution or be illegal. Poms know that and they have the Queen , checkmate.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 9 January 2017 12:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You need to look more closely at the Constitution nicknamesnick. In particular Section 51, sub-section xxxvi that states the Parliament has to power to make laws for 'matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides;'

In essence, under the Australia Act 1986 (of which a similar piece of legislation also passed the UK Parliament), which is the Parliament 'otherwise providing', there is no legal avenue for Australians to access the Privy Council for appeals.

You can try but you will soon find out who is checked, mate.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 9 January 2017 2:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
roderick

Well, we've got a movement of two! History has been changed starting with less. I also didn't know about Citizenship Day, although I should have.

One of these days, when I've got time, I might just start a Change.org petition. If you are so inclined, start without me.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 6:37:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
..only 4 posts a day...growl..

minotaur,

"A matter which is provided" is logically not a removed, non-existent matter . Removing the Privy Council needs s 128 to make it un-provided, otherwise what does 128 apply to?

"Before the Bill was passed, however, one final change was made by the imperial government, upon lobbying by the Chief Justices of the colonies, so that the right to appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council on constitutional matters concerning the limits of the powers of the Commonwealth or States could not be curtailed by parliament."

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 128

"Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament,. the proposed law shall be submitted in each State .. to the electors. And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

Abolishing the Privy Council by an Act changes the Constitution illegally. That is why s 74 still stands contrary to the 1986 Acts.

For example "The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate." Electoral divisions for senators can be adjusted by provisions , but are you saying the Senate House can be abolished by Pauline Hansen bargaining with the Libs to enact its removal? Can Turnbull then vote out the House of Reps and become a Putin with Hansen as Director-General of Religions and Flogging? Is the Australian Parliament just 2 Acts away from disappearing?
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 9:58:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamesstupid...I've explained how it works and if you can't comprehend that and wasting your posts then that's not my problem.
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 10:48:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's good when they get abusive and have no answer.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:16:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No answer? Given heaps of them and if people can't understand them then too bad. Let's try one last time...there are no legal avenues to make appeals to the Privy Council. None, nada and it doesn't matter what Section 74 of the Australian Constitution says. It has been made irrelevant. As it is irrelevant and unenforceable it doesn't need to be changed.

You want to make a legal challenge nicknamesfuckingstupid the go right ahead and make a laughing stock of yourself and waste your money on advice you already got for free. And if you want to keep wasting posts about an issue you have no case over then go right ahead. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on your or your undeveloped comprehension skills.
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:37:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
minotaur

"..Section 74 of the Australian Constitution says. It has been made irrelevant."
That's how Putin talks. And Duterte with his unconstitutional kill-squads and they're not stupid.

"In 1920 a unanimous High Court held that ‘[w]here a thing is declared illegal, whatever may be the object of the prohibition, the thing declared illegal is of no force or validity, and everything dependent on that thing…shares the fate of the thing prohibited’. That holding invoked the ‘void ab initio’ doctrine in relation to unconstitutional legislation .. [a] pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. "

The Law is an ass.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 12:55:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
minotaur (the bull-headed one?) is entitled to hold the view that my piece (Australia Day 2017) “has to be one of the worst pieces . . . ever read in OLO.” Furthermore, it is: ”A great display of nothingness and historical ignorance.”

In which part of the short essay is this historical ignorance displayed? Happily, minotaur appears to find nothing wrong with the pre-landing bulk of the work (or, at least makes no reference to it), which lets me out of everything but the “consequences” of English settlement, which was not an “invasion” as it is more generally understood. Nevertheless minotaur takes my point of the non-aggressive landing as “a load of rubbish”.

And so the criticism goes on but in sum, minotaur does not address the “humanity” reason for setting up a penal colony, and I might have expected a connection between military and invasion from so erudite a critic as minotaur but no.

Anyway, the forum has drifted into other matters, which is often the case when one starts off with an insubstantial rebuttal of the point at issue.

Good argument is the stuff of learning but offensive personal remarks are not helpful, thus minotaur’s last paragraph is ignored. For Australian history I rely on research undertaken for my B.A. Honours thesis, while my research into general history includes Greek mythology, especially Theseus’ heroic deeds
Posted by Robert99, Thursday, 12 January 2017 5:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well if nothing else Bob has demonstrated he is an accomplished academic writer. However, that should not be confused with being an academic intellect. What Bob has done is engage that academic ‘convention’ of using verbosity as a means of trying to convey an image of intellectual engagement with a topic but in reality is simply covering up for a paucity of knowledge and/or argument.

Notably Bob makes no reference to the refuted aspects of his original article that I presented. That is telling as it means there was no counter argument that could be logically presented. Instead, Bob refers to aspects that were not addressed. There are two reasons they were not addressed; OLO has a word limit and in essence distractions are rarely worth addressing.

The issue at hand is Australia Day, so let’s revisit the opening statement: ‘It is unfortunate that, when reasonable Australians strive to unite us all as a nation, there still persists an objection to celebrating January the 26th as Australia Day.’ The inference is clear; those objecting to Australia Day being held on the 26th of January are ‘unreasonable’. What is arguably more unreasonable is to celebrate a day that symbolises murder, massacres, rapes, land theft, cultural genocide and more. See Bob, it matters not that none of that happened on the actual day but that the day was the arrival of what was to become the end of life and cultures over two centuries of subjugation and repression.

Anyone who has studied the true Australian history, which means recognising and seeing past the master narrative and its partner in crime the Great Australian Silence, knows what the truth is. Something I have been doing as a PhD student and lecturer/tutor in Australian Aboriginal histories, cultures and contemporary issues for the best part of a decade now.
Posted by minotaur, Saturday, 14 January 2017 10:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since you raise the point, minotaur, I append these observations (for which I claim no credit) regarding intellect .

1.Analytical (solving academic problems) intellect, evaluated by intellect tests with
concretely defined tasks, having one correct answer. (NB. One correct answer.)

2.Creative intellect, revealed upon successful reaction in new situations and development of new ideas.

3.Practical intellect that is often needed in everyday life and that is difficult to define.

According to those who specialise in this sort of stuff, traditional intellect tests assess academic intellect; they define the learning success, but not the professional success.

I've tested very well in all three and am professionally successful too.

You'll be delighted to know, I'm sure, that I failed my Ph.D. and was awarded an M.Phil. But not bad for an octogenarian businessman, eh?
Posted by Robert99, Sunday, 15 January 2017 5:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Bob, I do not take any delight in knowing that you were unsuccessful with your PhD. In my profession I strive to help people be successful at university study and take delight in seeing people do just that. Indeed, I am pleased that you were able to overcome that lack of success in the PhD and complete a Master's. That shows great fortitude!

You also appear to take great pride in having that success and being an 'all rounder' in many areas of 'intellect'. I believe that too is a great thing and is certainly something that many who take on an academic career in post-graduate study and beyond lack. In my experience there are many 'one dimensional' academics around. They lack people skills, among others, and would never survive outside the cocooned world of academia. You do not appear to be such a person.

I note that you also take pride in being an octogenarian of sharp intellect...again I find that to be laudable. However, you have a way to go yet ;) I attended a mid year graduation ceremony last year and the oldest recipient of a PhD was 92! Seems there is still hope for both of us (I withdrew from my PhD due to having too much paid work as a tutor and lecturer and unable to devote the time necessary for a PhD).

Anyways, as you may have some time on your hands and obviously an experienced and competent researcher (you wouldn't have completed what you have otherwise) maybe you can do some research into early Australian history, specifically the effects of colonisation on Aboriginal people. I suggest you may want to start at the beginning and read the works of Watkin Tench and David Collins...both of whom were First Fleeter's. Fascinating stuff indeed!

On a final note my PhD research was looking into the influence of African-American organised political movements/organisations on the early Aboriginal political activist
groups in Australia...specifically the Australian Aborigines Progressive Association (established around 1924) and those that followed. As far as I know that research still hasn't been done.
Posted by minotaur, Sunday, 15 January 2017 3:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that Linda Burney raised the matter of Survival Day. This could also be an appropriate "name day" for the many non native-born Australians who survived the horrors and terrors of their war-ravaged countries. This might be an even better reason for making an Australia Day (as opposed to the connection with England's settlement day.

I, thus, return to my short essay and acknowledge the horrors and terrors suffered by the indigenous peoples, while accepting that the past cannot be undone. Ms Burney doesn't think a change of "name day" will occur "any time soon"; she's being realistic, yet retaining her ideal.

Let's leave the date as it stands, for in the hard truth, there's not much that can be done "any time soon" to mollify those who maintain an unrequited rage. As each year passes Australia Day becomes less a token of English settlement and more a salute to all who make Australia a home where they are free to rail against authority and to speak out forcibly in favour of their ideals.

Donald Horne was wrong in following his first book with a second; the lucky country is far from dead. Australia is alive and thriving, for which condition those who are natives of more than 100 countries and collectively speak some 200 different languages must be given a great deal of credit.

So, on Australia Day, while acknowledging that much more needs to be done in favour of the country's rightful owners, let us continue to work towards assimilation and set aside division.
Posted by Robert99, Monday, 16 January 2017 9:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Minotaur writes for my enlightenment: “I suggest you may want to start at the beginning and read the works of Watkin Tench and David Collins...both of whom were First Fleeter's.”

A number of comments on my piece have been personal; many others have little to do with the argument for celebrating Australia Day. There are two strands of argument: (1) England did not “invade” Australia. (2) The consequences of English settlement have been disastrous for the indigenous peoples. Those who want to argue the case for (2) have no argument from me. There might have been a third strand, which Alan Frost called a “naval question” (Convicts and Empire etc. Oxford 1980). Some might argue that sending marines with the First Fleet is proof that Australia was invaded. My critics might have done better to take that line.

However, the personal remarks compel me to defend my state of knowledge (read: knowing where to look). Besides Frosts’ I have a number of other relevant books, among them the 33-volume set of Historical Records of Australia and the seven-book set of Historical Records of New South Wales. Re the First Fleet, starting “at the beginning” I have Tench and Collins, besides Bradley, Easty, Hunter, Phillip, White and Worgan. Furthermore, I have the journals of King, Clark and Bowes-Smyth, all three of which I assisted in editing and publishing. I also assisted in putting together and publishing a list of First Fleeters. Finally, when Associate-Professor Grace Karskens discovered with whom she was corresponding she wrote: “you must be the R J Ryan whose Land Grants 1788-1809 sits on my desk permanently within arm’s reach. May I thank you sincerely for that book? It’s been an absolute wonder to have.”

This information illustrates that non-academics can make useful contributions to the study of Australian history. If the uninitiated can learn how Australia became what it is they could have a better-informed opinion of how best we can Advance Australia. In that respect, those who do not yet know otherwise might find the significance of January the 26th a good place to start.
Posted by Robert99, Tuesday, 17 January 2017 6:52:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great for all Android devices and the whole procedure http://vsharedownloadpro.com/vshare-for-android-download-free-pro-version Tap Mount switch to begin vShare setup Fine.
Posted by Dana0912, Friday, 3 February 2017 4:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy