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 > Turning the Page of Labor appeasement > Comments

Turning the Page of Labor appeasement : Comments

By Alexander Downer, published 23/5/2005

Alexander Downer says that the Labor Party has a history of appeasement in foreign affairs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The ever charming Alexander Downer uses a memorial speech to bag the Labor party and prop the governments' invasion of Iraq.

An interesting snippet or two about Page goes as follows:

"The Bruce-Page coalition adopted the 'Men, Money, Markets' policy for economic development within an Imperial framework, that is, obtaining labour and capital from the UK for expanding Australian industry to provide products to the British Empire, while protected by preferential tariffs."

Page was not so much anti-isolationist as he was pro Britain. Hence his support for Aussie troops to go to Europe.

"When the UAP elected R.G. Menzies as leader and thus Prime Minister on 26 April 1939, Page refused to serve with him and proceeded to criticise Menzies in one of the most scathing of personal attacks ever made in federal parliament. He proceeded to accuse Menzies of cowardice for not enlisting in World War I, and of hastening Lyons' death through disloyalty to the former Prime Minister. Menzies won widespread respect through the dignity of his response to Page's attack. Page then resigned as Prime Minister and withdrew the CP from the coalition."

I love how Alexander has claimed Page as one of his own bretheren when in fact Page was CP through and through.
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 23 May 2005 4:53:41 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
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
The Commonwealth of Australia is neither a Republic, Monarchy or a Dominion. Yet, purportedly we have a “Queen of Australia” even so the Commonwealth of Australia is neither a country! Australia is a continent, but the Commonwealth of Australia is more then the continent Australia.

Every person in the Commonwealth of Australia is all alike a “subject of the British Crown”. Yet, both the British parliament and the Australian pretend it not to be so.

We have a Prime Minister who purportedly authorized an armed invasion into a sovereign nation Iraq, just that only the Governor-General can declare war or peace (on behalf of the Monarch) and the Minister of Defense can only act upon it if the Declaration of War has first been published in the Gazette.
As such, the murderous invasion into the sovereign Iraq was unconstitutional/illegal.

We have people like Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon and others kept in unconstitutional concentration camps called Commonwealth Detention Center and yet John Howard pretend we have a “DEMOCRACY”.
We have “natural born Australians” deported as Stateless because the Government unconstitutionally claims they have no right to be Australians. Yet, where is the constitutional powers to do so?

In a democracy, you must have first that you can identify those entitled to vote in elections as to be able to choose ones representatives. Even this we cannot manage in the Commonwealth of Australia, as not a single State had legislated for State citizenship, which is the one and only criteria to obtain Australian citizenship!
We have the illusion that “Australian citizenship” is “Australian nationality”, while the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other!
At time of federation, for example, Chinese nationals who had paid the Poll Tax became State citizens and so Australian citizens and were voting in Federal elections, even so they had no Australian nationality!

If the reader didn’t even know this, then you are conned to believe to live in a “DEMOCRACY”.

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com (takes some time to load, due to the volume on the website.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 23 May 2005 9:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alexander Downer"s comment that the outcome Vietnam War was decided on the campuses of universities in Australia or the United States ignores the political cost of casualties on the American side, and the fact that the US could not afford to commit the number of troops required to maintain village security at the local level, a problem that is re-occurring in Iraq now. The Australian Army had developed a doctrine of dealing with insurgency in Malaya and Vietnam, based on close patrolling, and winning the heatrs and minds, but this was rejected by the US as being too expensive in terms of the numbers of ground troops required, ditto in Iraq now. The fact that 30% of the Australian Defence Force are dissatisfied, announced in the press of 23/5/05, indicates that Downer's government is deficient in devoting sufficient resources to our current military pay and platform budget, as a percentage of Gross National Product, as indicated repeatedly by the Australian Defence Association. Military preparedness may require eternal vigilance, but in particular it requires less posturing and more funding, from our politicians of both side of the house.
Posted by David Mason, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 1:54:07 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
Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka says that "Every person in the Commonwealth of Australia is all alike a 'subject of the British Crown'."

It would make just as much sense to say that the people of Britain are subject to the Australian Crown, or indeed that we are all subject to the Crown of Papua New Guinea. It is, in other words, a load of bollocks.

The Queen of Papua New Guinea is the same person as the Queen of Australia, the Queen of New Zealand, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Queen of Jamaica, and so on, but these are distinct roles. She is, in fact, no more the Queen of the UK than she is of any one of the other realms.

The fact that we have a head of state in common is, of course, no coincidence. The foundations of our society (institutions, values, culture) are very closely linked to those of New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, countries that we should be drawing closer to in a world where trans-national groupings are becoming ever more important. These countries are our family.

Canada + Australia + New Zealand + the United Kingdom = CANZUK

Ian Alexander
Federal Commonwealth Society
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 2:40:13 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
I don’t believe it! Here’s Downer banging on about freedom and how important it is, and yet at the very minor threat of terrorism we face here in Australia, his government goes to water and denies us basic freedoms with anti-terrorist laws.

Downer pontificates (on and on) and says that "freedom binds nations together with shared values and priorities". It is my opinion that his government created a rift between Australians by lying, demonising, locking up and abusing innocent people (including children and Australian citizens); denying freedom to people who’s only crime was to want to be like us.

All these crimes to protect 'freedom'? How can that be?

So much for the idea that free people are willing to die to protect their freedom and that it is a good thing to die protecting freedom (as our grandfathers did).

Does he really believe this sanctimonious hypocrisy
Posted by Mollydukes, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 8:13:58 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
The only "democracy" the Left will tolerant is the sort we would have if Australia became a Communist Utopia like Cuba where demonstrators are machinegunned. Keith
Posted by kthrex, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 4:49:03 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
Part 1

Re Posted by Ian, Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:40:13 AM
Ian Alexander
Federal Commonwealth Society

Don’t criticise a person because you don’t know what you are on about!

Hansard 2-3-1898 (Constitutional Convention Debates);

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.

Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.

And

Mr. SYMON.-
It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.

END QUOTE

See also my book, published on 30 September 2003:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN0-9580569-6-X
This book sets out extensively what “citizenship” is, and this include any person who, regardless of being an alien, resides in a State legal jurisdiction.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 9:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

The argument that some federal authority can take over and denies a person his liberty and property is just utter and sheer nonsense!

Hansard 2-3-1898

Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
And
Mr. BARTON.-

I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
And;
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

Dang, Ex parte - Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002) High Court of Australia I noticed some of the following comments;

KIRBY J: There is no mention of citizenship in the powers of the Federal Parliament.

Federal citizenship was rejected to be determined by the Commonwealth of Australia, as the Framers held it was too dangerous to allow the Commonwealth of Australia to have such powers!

There is no “QUEEN of Australia” as we are and remain under the British Monarch the Queen of the UK and Northern Ireland!

Again, check my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com to get a more informed understanding what our Constitution is really about!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 9:09:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. All

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