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's national identity > Comments

Australia's national identity : Comments

By Jieh-Yung Lo, published 24/6/2008

It is becoming harder to justify the relevance of the British monarchy to an ever-changing multicultural Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
six models to elect an Australian Head of State.[sounds like an adjenda]

What we need a head of state for?

There is sovereign 'authority' right here, currently many 'believe' the queen [via CC] is the sovereign authority [but most would be aware its not the fact]

We are no longer the commonWEALTH of australia [read your money no common wealth on it anymore , you just havnt been told that by your self serving [multinationals serving media.

[The Queen is the head of the commonwealth]the chogm meeting is about the only affective proof of that? As a body that assumes any real common/wealth juristiction,
but its essentially dead as a real govt vehicle body.

The adgenda appears to replace the GG [but we only have the gg because its in the constitution
[so to keep the farce of the constitution alive we have this defacto 'authority' over nothing,
those believing he /she takes our laws for ratification to HRH is dreaming
[our courts are under comerce juristiction[the laws of the sea] maritime law ,
[where judgments are restricted by previous decisions [not the constitution's [see act 70 of 2002 Qld for your evidence ,ask to see the signed into law version]

Better is to have hundreds of smaller GG oversight juristictions [effectivly replacing the lord majors title] ,
where we elect locally the local GG who ratifies and checks on the workings and act of our local councils [who get their sovereign juristiction via the local indigenant tribes [who are figure heads under which the GG/lordMajor provides his oversight service to the local juristiction]

^Then taking the power of the referendum to create many local 'state's''[and disolve the current states serving big buisness elites and investment fund managers [and privatising community asset ]

Eaxch sovereign council state sends their personalrepresentative or spokesperson to federal juristiction that ratify and unify laws and govt servise at a commonwealth level
[we are over governd [too many GG's ] too many juris-restrictions
,something needs to be changed
this 2 party Demon autocracy isnt working
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:10:19 AM
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
A well written article. A little while back my wife and I had a visitor stay with us from Switzerland. She enquired, "Why do you have Elizabeth on your coins". Since 1950s until now migration and Britain engaging the Common Market [1957?]and the EU, the UK has cut links with us. Churchill would have had Australia fall to the Japanese. Moreover, no would convince me that QE II is as much an Australian as she is English.

A majority of the High Court could hold Parliament accountable. A Bill of Rights could hold the Courts and Parliaments accountable.

That said, immigrants should not be expected to forget their mother country, but Australia must come first
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:29:08 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
“…I believe a further commitment by our elected parliamentary representatives is needed to change the identity and face of our nation…”

There is plenty of commitment from politicians, particularly on the ALP side, but it is noticeable that Rudd doesn’t place it high on his Whitlamesque agenda. Neither do the Australian people who, like Rudd, have more urgent matters in mind.

Changing the “identity and face of our nation” sounds like a nasty piece of vandalism – no more than an attack on the history and achievements of the people who forged our identity and nation. It is an insult by the multi-culties who have lobbed here and, having accepted our hospitality and protection, now want to change Australia to something suiting them. What people like this author, and some fifth column Australians, are suggesting is that we give up our history and culture to foreigners let in by wet, immigration-mad governments.

The idea that we are bound to Britain and the Monarchy now in anything but history and culture is stupid and ignorant. The existing link is important to our history, but we are have been our own boss, our own country, for a long time. We have “absolute independence”.

This author, admitting that there is a mere 15.8% “…of Australians coming from more than 200 countries and ancestries and speaking a language other than English at home” has the cheek to suggest that Australia should change for just for that piddling number of people who should not have come here if they wanted the country to change for them – if, indeed, they do want that.

The Queen is a figure head. She has no say whatsoever in what happens in Australia. She ‘approves’ our Government’s choice of GG ceremoniously because she has absolutely no authority in the appointment, which itself is a little bit of historical ceremony having no affect on our identity or who actually runs the country.

Some people thinks it’s OK for latecomers to hang onto their heritage, but not OK for Australian descendants of the original settlers to hang onto theirs.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:40:18 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
BREAKING_NEWS.. TAIL_WAGS_DOG......

In the context of 'national identity' I found an interesting article were the 'national_identity' America is under serious threat from minority groups.

The same applies to Australia, and while we haven't seen anything quite like this story YET... we will in the future.

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

A community, Indian River, Delaware America, has an obvious sense of identity, in fact a very strong Christian identity.

It is clear, abundantly clear, that this community see's itself as 'Christian' and this is on the cultural level as well as the ideological.

WHO... then, has the right to come and tell them.. "No...you must change your social/educational structure so that my child does not feel left out"
(Paraphrase of the intent of the complaint)

Well one family, out of the 700+ who's children attend the school, decided it should re-structure the local educational culture purely for the sake of their child.
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/16479

778 students.. and ONE.. 'feels left out' because of not sharing the religious beliefs of the 777.

So.. call in the big stick/jackboot of "human rights law" and attack the school.

HYPOCRISY? u bet there is. The nature of the complaint was "prayer in Jesus name"....but the complainant would be happy with prayer.. as long as it fitted HER religious beliefs which do not include Jesus.

We will find in Australia, that various grous seek to impose their minority view on the majority, purely for the sake of cultural comfort.....i.e. theirs.

Then, the 'human rights industry' gets on the job.. these people are portrayed as 'poor victims' by the broader Jewish community. The Jewish community portrays their experience as one of 'terror/intimidation/threats/harrassment'

Given that this community knows a lot about persecution, one wonders why the poke the bee hive with such an obvious stick which will stir the anger of the bees.

NOT A THOUGHT for the majority who's human rights to persue their culture and faith in a communal way is trampled into the ground.

Our constitution says NOTHING about 'practicing_religion in a school context' it just says you cannot make a LAW to advance_particular religions. They are 2 different_issues
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 11:59:26 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
What's up today, is it let the religious nuts day out,wheres Flint, if we are going to have the 3 stooges wheres the third one yoo hoo David.
I will be happy to see the back of the English Queen,the sooner the better.
Posted by j5o6hn, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 2:31:07 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
Hi All
The problem is not that Australia wants to become a Republic but what form that Republic will take. We can argue until 'The cows come home' about the relevance of the British Monarchy and Australian Society but until some one come up with a viable alternative to the present system that is acceptable to the majority of Australian voters then the present and proven system of Government will continue.
Brian
Posted by Brian2, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 3:29:01 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 think it is clear beyond argument that the majority of Australians favour a republic. The issue is simply how the head of that republic would be appointed. A majority of the majority that favour the republic want to elect the head. The political class is determined to retain that function for itself. Stand-off.

Had the referendum offered an elected head we'd already be a republic and would be spared the constant whine that we are somehow degraded by having a monarch.

Hopefully the majority of the majority will stand its ground and force the political class to relent. Although I favour a republic, until I'm offered one that allows me to vote for the president (or whatever), I'll continue to vote "No".
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 4:09:43 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'm with MHAZE on this. I voted against the 1999 republic proposal because it was a republic of the rich, controlled by the politicians, and because the proposed revisions to the Constitution retained and codified the reserve powers (ie the anti-democratci powers to sack an elected Government.

If the model had been an elected president we would be a republic now.

But Turnbull couldn't allow more power in the hands of the people. It is anathema to him and most politicians.
Posted by Passy, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 5:17:47 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
mhaze,

On what evidence do you base your assertion that 'it is clear beyond argument that the majority of Australians favour a republic'?

Like it or not, most of the Australian population are of UK-Irish descent and see the queen as representing a significant tie to the home country.

The only evidence you have is the last referendum.

gw
Posted by gw, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 6:33:10 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
Why would anyone who is in favour of democracy want to give up our robust independent system of government to replace it with something based on the EU? The EU is one of the least democratic and least accountable organisations in the western world.

We are already completely independent of Britain - the Queen is known as the "Queen of Australia" here. It's not just the British Monarchy, it's also the Australian Monarchy. The Governor-General fulfills the role of Head of State. Australia is one of the world's longest running democracies, and many of the world's most stable and democratic countries are also monarchies.

Since there are six models for a republic this shows that replublicans still can't make up their minds what sort of republic they would like.

It's not a foregone conclusion that an Australian Republic would be more democratic that the monarchy, or would protect democracy as well as the monarchy does.
Posted by GG, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:32:38 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
For some reason most republicans don't seem to understand why the 1999 referendum failed, and why one would fail again if held today. The best comment on the republic, in my opinion, was made by a broken hill miner (a solid labor voter) I met in 1993, when Keating was PM and Hewson was Opposition leader. His comment was:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

The sums up what most Australians think of politicians. It was also expressed by a chinese shopkeeper who said: "When I arrived ten years ago I was shocked to find that Australians considered the government to be the enemy of the people. I now realise they were right". My reply was: "You've assimilated".

The fact that this struggle is between the elite and the people, (with the people having the final say in a referendum) is another reason that success will be elusive. Why can't it be recognised that most people were delighted when Kerr used the royal perogative to sack Whitlam, and that the Governor-General should be renamed "Prime Ministerial pisser-offer in Chief".

Until the political class rises far above the current standard, epitomised by Belinda Neal, they will be swearing allegiance to Her Majesty for the indefinite future.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:58:35 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
As a mater of logic (Jieh Yung Lo) is possibly right; Australia should become a republic.
- A closer examination of ABS figures and research shows that a significant number of Australians actually trace their origins to other than the UK (40+ % and increasing).
- It could be logically argued that ALL non aboriginals are immigrants.
- However all parts of these cultural practices must comply with Australian laws.
- It is a rationally undeniable fact that sooner than later the WASP(C) culture will become a minority. Given where Australia is located an outwardly more independent, tolerant stance makes more long term sense.
The Constitution reflects the 19th century, Circumstances, thoughts and attitudes most of which don’t serve us well in the 21st century.
- Surely reality and fairness dictate that it makes more LOGICAL sense for Australia to develop a UNIQUE Australian system, culture et sec.
NB That doesn’t mean that anglophiles shouldn’t be proud of the good bits of their culture and neither should other peoples give up their individual heritages either.
- However these cultures should be equal parts of the whole.
- If we were to become a republic it should be a coupled with a rewriting of the Constitution to bring the nation into the 21st century otherwise it would mean upheaval for no practical gain
1. The issue is a matter of timing the nation needs to commit to a need to search for a new model, a referendum “Should to commit to another referendum in (3yr?) of possible models (incl. “no change”) Y or N.
2. This new model should be the product of extensive consultation, not a political manipulation like the Howard farce. At the end of the given time a short list of alternatives should be presented to the public for in the 2nd referendum. It stands to reason that “do nothing” would be an option too. (that’s two bites for the "no change")
This would allow the govt. to pursue relevant changes to update the current Westminster system if it won.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 11:43:44 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 will agree with an Australian Head of State when all Australian citizens hold allegience to Australia and only to Australia: no dual citizenship or dual nationality - which is like marrying into two families and not being able to decide which one you are loyal to.

The greatest recent example can be found in the Canberra Torch Relay:

from

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/343376/1/.html

"More than 10,000 Chinese Australians rallied in Canberra, bringing a sea of red Chinese flags in the biggest pro-Beijing rally of the protest-marred relay."

To whom are these 'Chinese Australians' loyal? Australia, or China? Live under one flag, and choose what flag that will be.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:29:49 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
"Jieh-Yung is a Policy/Project Officer of the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria and Executive Member of Chinese Culture Monthly. He is based in Melbourne."

Get the message?
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 9:55:51 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
Take another look at the last paragraph:

quote:

"Having an Australian as our own head of sate"

:unquote.

Shouldn't we have a Thai or Indonesian head of sate?

By the way, under one god, commonwealth has nothing to do with wealth.

It is derived from the term 'commonweal', or public good or welfare, not some form of 'common-wealth' socialism. The 'weal' referring to prosperity and happiness.

One of the advantages of having a non-elected 'head of state', in terms of a human symbol of the state, is that the person is NOT chosen by the people, in that if elected those who did not vote for the person can feel free to reject that person as a symbol, and in doing so reject the notion of the sovereignty of the state.

Better to not have a head of state at all, than have one whose rejection by a portion of the population would be fractious.("Hey, I didn't vote for 'em, so why should I respect 'em!")
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 11:01:13 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
Hi Examinator....

you might find this story relevant to some of the things you said:

{Examinator}
- However all parts of these cultural practices must comply with Australian laws.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/25/2285395.htm
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 26 June 2008 8:07:42 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
God save the Queen!
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 26 June 2008 7:18:28 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 very well said for someone of Chinese decent.
After Chen Yonglins statements that China has over 1,000 spies out here in "NEW SOUTH CHINA" (as China has referred to us in Chinese classrooms) Im finding it hard to trust what I hear or see that comes from Chinese folk.

Maybe in recent years (post Sept 11, 2001) Ive just become plain downright distrusting of foreign powers and alternative religions that fail to uplift the love of God in their daily living and in their dealing with others.

*It would serve China well.... I should think... if we dumped The Queen and Great Britain and opened the door a la Kevin Rudds dance with red China, for a new communism to take root in our beloved country.

So there, young chappie! Who do you work for?
Posted by Gibo, Sunday, 29 June 2008 2:58:43 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
Mr. Right wrote:

"Changing the “identity and face of our nation” sounds like a nasty piece of vandalism – no more than an attack on the history and achievements of the people who forged our identity and nation. It is an insult by the multi-culties who have lobbed here and, having accepted our hospitality and protection, now want to change Australia to something suiting them. What people like this author, and some fifth column Australians, are suggesting is that we give up our history and culture to foreigners let in by wet, immigration-mad governments."

I agree.

When immigrants move into our country and then demand that Australia's historic national identity be dismantled in order to better suit them, I feel nothing but a deep revulsion and a sense of personal insult - as if we have invited colonisers, rather than immigrants, into our midst.

Imagine if an immigrant in some relatively sane country - say Japan or Germany or pre-1970s Australia - who, shortly after his arrival, announces to the host population: "Oh, by the way, you people must - in order to make me feel more comfortable - surrender everything that has constituted the historic identity of your nation. But don't worry! You shouldn't see this as a loss!"

Like most imperialists, Mr. Lo seems intent on erasing the heritage of the nation he and his fellow immigrants seek to dominate. Mr. Lo would have us believe that the entire history of the Australian nation from colonial times up until the mid 20th Century, during which Australia drew its people and its culture almost exclusively from the British Isles, no longer has any bearing whatsoever on our contemporary national identity.

This is, of course, utterly absurd and highly insulting to many Australians. The truth is that Australia remains a British-based society, even if decades of multiculturalist propaganda has left many younger Australians believing that their nation adds up to nothing more than an amorphous cloud of 'diversity.'

My suggestion? Let's keep the Queen - and the rest of our British heritage - and dump multiculturalism instead.
Posted by Efranke, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:17:11 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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