Chek Ling – whatever your opinion of “Australia” at the time of Federation may or may not be, it matters not one iota. We live in the present.

As for dismantling European Colonialism, I would suggest
1 A lot of Africans would welcome back the sort of colonialism which a least protected them from the excesses and genocide of tribal politics.
2 A lot of Tibetans would observe, their experience of “Chinese colonialism” has little merit.

Mollydukes – you are wrong.
We might be measured on a "world best practice" standard - in which case we are "head and shoulders" above the rest.
But measuring Australians against some "mythical perfect standard" is ambiguous, impossible, pointless and the sort of woolly-headed thinking and mumbo-jumbo which naive and self-indulgent socialists of the Early 20th century thought would be achieved if they surrendered sovereignty to the horror of communism.
Now Aboriginals – one day they might realise that “human dignity” comes from self determination and exertion, not the hand outs of a nanny state.


As for Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “Those of British Blood … AUTOMATICALLY obtain State citizenship and so Australian citizenship!”

Being of British blood – let me assure you – I did not receive my citizenship “Automatically” – I had to apply for it.
I guess the rest of your rant is as accurate as this – and thus I will ignore it and your self-serving advertisement for your CD.

Oh and I look forward to following your challenge to the authority of the Commonwealth Government through the courts – is it listed yet?

Col I do not have a ‘mythical perfect standard’. To dismiss my argument in that way is woolly-headed thinking and the sort of mumbo-jumbo rationalisation that people who imagine themselves to be 'hard-headed realists' use to respond to suggestions that social problems can be improved.

Surely even supremely intelligent and clear-headed free-market capitalists (after all they are not all greedy grasping fraudsters) aim to improve on what exists. Perhaps you might recognise this trait if I refer to it as 'having aspirations’?

I would like Australia to aspire to provide Indigenous people with adequate health services and housing and to acknowledment that the problems that they have arose from white settlement and white racism.

White racism still exists and it is difficult for an Indigenous person to do well in this society. Of course some do it.

The hand-out system were instituted by whiteys. Rather than pay wages to Indigenous workers they provided them with rations. This was also the official way of dealing with the ‘Aboriginal problem’ while we waited for them to decently die out and leave the country to us.

The problems that this attitude created are still extant and it is stupid to think that we can suddenly say, okay you mob, now we want you to be like us, so get off your arses and do something for yourselves.

This very good idea needs to be supported by more than a belief that ‘they’ should be able to see the advantages of individualism and simply need to work hard. It is quite difficult to know how to go about being a 'decent member of this society'.

Why do you think that some Indigenous people choose to remain in their 'hand-out lifestyle", living in squalor, dying so many years earlier than we whiteys, and having so many of their babies die?

Col Rouge, I have no opinions on the Tibet question. I know so little about the history of Tibet, even though I am of Chinese descent - born though as the subject of the White Rajah of Sarawak.

As for Africa, I know even less. But is it possible that the "divide and rule" trick of the European invaders and exploiters - picking out the obsequious few amongst the conquered to keep the rest in perpetual subjugation and ignorance - might have a part, a big part even, in the chaos that followed the largely unplanned departure of the colonisers. Oh dear...this reminds me of the "black birding days" of Australia. In one infamous case, members of two warring blacks from some island were 'captured' and locked up in the hold of the boat overnight. In the morning most of them were dead.

The White Australia policy, 1901 to say 1972, has a profound effect on the soul of Australia. Even in 1966, Robert Menzies still hoped that it would never be changed. In 1984 Geoffrey Blainey fought a yearlong campaign against Asian immigration. In 1988 John Howard publicly followed Blainey's advice. In 2001 Howard played the race card deftly.

The White Australia policy still colours our outlook towards Asians. They are inferior! Howard told the previous President of Indonesia what she ought to do, through "megaphone diplomacy"; not so long ago our consular officials in one Asian city urged an Australian paedophile awaiting sentence in that country to escape the country, and issued him with a new passport to replace the one confiscated by that country. And did you notice our fellow countrymen bursting out in applause in the courtroom in Indonesia when the judge handed down a death sentence for one of the Bali bombers?

We may live in the present, Col, but we cannot escape the past. More to the point, we may learn from the past so that we can leave something worthwile for the inheritors of our genes. Racism like terra nullius should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Chek Ling

Part 1
Re;Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:26:22 PM

If you were a British born subject of the Queen, then I would suggest you log into the Federal parliament website, then check for the Hansard 2 and 3 March 1898 and read those pages!

That you were forced to apply for “Australian citizens” purporting to be “Australian nationality” is not my doing!

Due to the limited space allowed I will provide some quotation, albeit it would be sheer impossible to set everything out. Still, enough to indicate that you and many others are fooled constitutional legislation!
Only States have legislative powers to define/declare “citizenship” and the commonwealth has only power to “naturalize” “aliens”. British blood are not “aliens” and the constitution does not permit them to be regarded to be “aliens”!

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.

Part 2
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.

GLEESON CJ: What is the source of the Parliament's power to make laws about citizenship?

GLEESON CJ: How does the power to make laws with respect to naturalisation sustain section 10 of the Citizenship Act, which says that:

KIRBY J: My recollection is that the powers of the Congress do extend to citizenship.
The US Congress has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Australian citizenship, this as the US constitution has “citizenship” and “Naturalization” together, while the Framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1989 (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act) held that the powers to define/declare citizenship rested with the States and was and remained their sovereign powers, while the powers of naturalization was provided to the Commonwealth, upon federation.

As Barton stated on 2-3-1898;

“I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects pf the British Crown.”

Therefore, your purported “naturalization from being a British subject born in the UK to a British subject under the British Crown does not seem to make sense to me!

Again;
“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.”

Your attack upon my credibility clearly was without bothering to get the facts to prove me wrong!

Also, where does it fit in to have a “Queen of Australia” considering we are all alike “subjects of the British Crown!

The fact that you were fooled to naturalized, purportedly being deemed an alien does not mean that this was constitutionally valid!
No Act of Parliament can possibly override constitutional provisions and limitations!

Oh all upright and uptight.

Good to see what happens when we stir up the mud and the bottom feeders drift to the surface.

Now
Mollydukes - using my own words back at me shows a lack of imagination on your part - I guess notions of "World Best Practice" fall on dead ears.

Same applies to you Chek Ling - we are shaped by our history and must learn from it - hence we are where we are - not where we were, get over it. Suggesting my view is racist is silly - I demand only one thing - all people to be treated as equals, not setting up aboriginals above the status of ordinary Australians.

Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka - same applies to you - you can blow and bluster as much as you want - whatever Mr Barton said to Mr Gleeson over a hundred years ago does not bind us inexorably to what we can or cannot do today - any more than we are bound for the rest of eternity to the historic authority of our original Colonial Monarch.
And if your credibility is so precious - I suggest you don't other to post where it might become so challenged.