Dear Banjo Paterson,

On becoming an Australian citizen I was required to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors.

I do miss Her and wish our present good King to live forever.

Democracy was not even mentioned.

It was only years later when they started asking people to "share" and give lip-service to democratic beliefs, all while democracy never even existed in Australia: had Australians in general really believed in democracy, then surely they would have implemented one, so how possibly could one "share" a belief with others who do not believe so?!

And anyway, I did so under duress, plus I was too young then to pay attention to or truly understand any of this nonsense:
So what if some arrogant bullies declared that this whole continent belongs to them and them alone and won't let me stay here unless I agreed with their distorted and violent views?

The real question is, why you consider yourself so superior by virtue of your mother giving you birth here and not elsewhere in some other continent, that you consider it fair for you to not be required to make that or similar silly declaration yourself in order to become an Australian citizen and be allowed to remain in this continent, while I was.

I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs,
I respect only God's laws,
I do not respect silly human-invented "rights",
But I do respect your liberty, and everybody else's liberty, far more than you or your state respect mine and others' or can even imagine.

I have been an asset to Australia and still am, taking care of myself, giving and not asking. One of the ways I still contribute to Australian society is by being here and challenging people to gain sense and shake off such stupid and irrational nationalistic parroting. Go arrest me if you can, for thinking differently...

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « On becoming an Australian citizen, I was required to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors. »
.

For several years my successive passports indicated that I was “a subject of her Majesty the Queen”. They don’t indicate that anymore.

The fact is, the reigning British monarch, Charles III, inherited the position as our head of state on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. There is nothing democratic about that. But, as there is nothing I can do to change it, I accept it.

Nevertheless, quite frankly, I would prefer Australia to become a republic and elect our head of state.
.

2. « The real question is, why you consider yourself so superior by virtue of your mother giving you birth here and not elsewhere in some other continent, that you consider it fair for you to not be required to make that or similar silly declaration yourself in order to become an Australian citizen and be allowed to remain in this continent … I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs. I respect only God's laws.
.

Well, I guess you could step into Australia and say “Hey, guys, move over, I’m coming to live here permanently. I’m the one who decides. I don’t need you to tell me what I can do or not do. I don’t have to obey your laws. I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs. I respect only [what I believe are] God's laws.

That’s what the British did in 1788 when they colonised this country that the Aboriginal peoples had occupied for the previous 65,000 years.

If you could do that today, anybody could do it, including 1.4 billion Chinese. But the international principle of State sovereignty now prohibits colonisation.

Every country in the world, today, protects its sovereignty.

To respect a country’s sovereignty, is to respect its territorial integrity and political independence. This means allowing the country to have exclusive jurisdiction over its internal functions, and to respect that exclusiveness.

.

Dear Banjo,

«For several years my successive passports indicated that I was “a subject of her Majesty the Queen”. They don’t indicate that anymore.»

Sure, that is the present fashion, to claim that Australia is a democracy, but when it comes to myself, what counts are my obligations at the time I acquired my Australian citizenship.

When I immigrated to Australia I knew nothing about the Australian monarchy and had no feelings about it whatsoever, this way or the other, thus this requirement for allegiance to some stranger seemed ridiculous, yet due to my commitment, over the years I grew to love my Queen, and now my King.

Do they really think that they can change migrants' oaths at whim?

Do they believe that I can be swayed by their popular mood swings?

Too late - they should have thought of it in advance!

Their past demands looked ridiculous then and their present demands still look ridiculous now.

«Well, I guess you could step into Australia and say “Hey, guys, move over, I’m coming to live here permanently. I’m the one who decides. I don’t need you to tell me what I can do or not do. I don’t have to obey your laws. I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs. I respect only [what I believe are] God's laws.»

Exactly, except for the "move over" part. This is how it ought to be, and so long as I do not hurt anyone here, that should be none of your business.

«That’s what the British did in 1788 when they colonised this country that the Aboriginal peoples had occupied for the previous 65,000 years.»

Yes, but they DID hurt the Aboriginal peoples, they were not benign!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«If you could do that today, anybody could do it, including 1.4 billion Chinese.»

And why not?

So long as they arrive as individuals and not as spearheads for the Chinese Communist regime attempting to subdue the present inhabitants of Australia, and assuming they do not spread crime, diseases or terrorism, you have no moral right to oppose them. This earth is theirs no less than it is yours.

«Every country in the world, today, protects its sovereignty.»

Yes, but might does not right make.

«To respect a country’s sovereignty, is to respect its territorial integrity and political independence. This means allowing the country to have exclusive jurisdiction over its internal functions, and to respect that exclusiveness.»

That would mean endorsing coercion, which is a form of violence.
I do not support violence.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … they DID hurt the Aboriginal peoples, they were not benign … might does not right make … That would mean endorsing coercion, which is a form of violence. I do not support violence »
.

Settling illegally into a foreign country permanently is a form of violence, Yuyutsu. It’s just as violent as some foreign family walking into your house or apartment and settling there permanently without being invited.

That said, I understand your difficulty separating man-made law and what you refer to as “ God's laws”, the latter being considered superior to the former by all those, like yourself, who believe in a hypothetical God or Gods.

But, that belief does not justify everything you feel authorised to do, irrespective of the local community's social and judicial norms.

In 2021 the most common religions were:

1. Christianity (43.9%)
2. No religion (38.9%)
3. Islam (3.2%)
4. Hinduism (2.7%)
5. Buddhism (2.4%)

Despite all its contradictions in practice, Australia has no official religion and is basically a secular country that respects all religions and, at the same time, the separation of religion and the state – thus reflecting the biblical phrase attributed to Jesus of Nazareth :

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The things that are Caesar’s, i.e., the things of the State, such as the sovereignty of the country, its territorial integrity, and political and judicial independence, are subject to our secular (man-made) law, not to so-called “divine law” that various illuminated individuals claim to have been inspired by their hypothetical God.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We have no way of knowing. As they were reputed to have been illuminated individuals, it may have simply been their extraordinary imagination that surpassed their own human understanding as well as that of their followers.

But, since you say you do not support violence, Yuytsu, I think it would be wise to avoid provoking the violence of others by the misguided and unadapted social norms you express here.

.

Dear Banjo,

«It’s just as violent as some foreign family walking into your house or apartment and settling there permanently without being invited.»

I assume that the house/apartment in question was built by your own effort (or was freely given to you by the one who built it, etc.).

You cannot say the same about this earth or any of its continents,
which is why the cases are not similar.

When Caesar coins coins, these coins are his and he may ask for them back.
But Caesar did not create the earth, nor did the English, nor the Aboriginal peoples.

You do not believe that God created the earth? fair enough, but you are not claiming that it was you instead or any other people, that created it, are you?

- Once you create your own planet, then you will be welcome to set its rules in motion.

Now, you seem to have missed my earlier point when I wrote, "I respect only God's laws":
If you think that there are no such "God's laws", then fine, let that be a discussion for another day, because the stress in my above sentence and in the present context is on the word "only", meaning in other words that I do not respect the laws of states: imposing them is violence and claiming sovereignty over a region of land is robbery, thus not worthy of respect. This is all that is relevant to this specific discussion, so let us not digress into theology here.

«But, since you say you do not support violence, Yuytsu, I think it would be wise to avoid provoking the violence of others by the misguided and unadapted social norms you express here.»

Why is that provoking violence - do you wish to hit me?
And if you do, is that because I openly expose the immorality of your social norms?