.

Dear Foxy,

.

Many thanks for your response (top of page 14 of this thread).

I am sure you are right in thinking that the Queen has many more interesting things to do than become involved in Australian politics. The fact remains, she is both the head of State of Australia, with full constitutional powers, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Consequently, it seems to me that we do not have a secular head of State.

The fact that the Church of England in Australia became autocephalous on 1 January 1962 and changed its name to the Anglican Church of Australia 20 years later, on 24 August 1981, does not alter the fact that our head of State is also the head of a faith-based organisation.

As you mentioned: “The British government is considered a foreign power …”. Our head of State is also a foreign person. She does not have Australian nationality, nor have any of her predecessors held Australian nationality. We managed to emancipate ourselves from the British government, now …

We were subjects of the British Crown until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 put an end to our subjection with effect from 1 May 1987.

The monarchy of Australia is a very elaborate structure. It is a structure on paper which has never really been put to the test. As long as there are no major problems, no conflict of interests, everything is fine. The fairy tale of kings and queens and princes and princesses in beautiful palaces and horse-drawn carriages can continue…

I guess we just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope it stays that way until we become mature enough to face up to reality and cut the umbilical cord with the British Crown and act like grownups.

Until that day, you’re right, let’s just settle down, relax, lie back, and dream on …

https://ouvirmusica.com.br/neil-diamond/839770/

.

.

Let's try that link again :

http://ouvirmusica.com.br/neil-diamond/839770/

.

Dear Banjo Patterson,

Thank You for your response. I truly
enjoy productive and constructive discussions
that actually invite the exchange of information.
They make me want to not only visit
but participate. You, SteeleRedux, Poirot, and quite a
few others, have that great style of spoting.

Thanks also for the music link. I love Neil Diamond (I'm A
Believer). And talking about preaching - here's one
you may recognise from Dusty Springfield:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/dustyspringfield/sonofapreacherman.html

cont'd ...

I've just noticed that I've been mis-spelling your
surname. My apologies. Goodness me - and you never
said a word. You Sir, are a gentleman!

Big hug!

.

Dear George,

.

« I gather the site represents a minority view in France. What do you know about it, what do you think, how negligible is that minority? »
.

I am afraid I do not know the site nor its author. I suspect that many French people in France would probably share his analysis but not so many would share his conclusion. My impression is that the French are no more naïve than most other evolved societies as regards politicians and media moguls.

Naturally, the blogger’s vision of these dramatic events is shared by many people in France and naturally they measure the pros and cons of Charlie Hebdo’s satirical caricatures. But, as the blogger clearly indicates, his objective is “social risk management”. It is not difficult for most reasonable people (or “bons pères de famille” as we say in French) to imagine what they, society, or Chalie Hebdo should do, or avoid doing, in order to manage “social risk”.

I think it is true to say that the French have very good reasons to place “Freedom” very high on the list of values to be honoured, cherished and defended. Most know the answer to the question: “What’s the worth of living if you’re not Free?”. They know that “if you give an inch, they will take a mile!”

In my opinion, they understand the “play safe” method of the blogger but the blogger does not understand the importance of what is at stake so far as his fellow countrymen are concerned. They are willing to take much more risk than he can imagine. He has underestimated the value of “Freedom” to the French people.

That quotation of Kierkegaard sounds amusing but I’m not so sure of its validity. Maybe he’s right and maybe he’s not. Anyway, the French have other references such as Rabelais, for example:

« Le rire est le propre de l’homme » ( « what distinguishes man is his capacity to laugh »)

.

.

SR, your last post actually reinforces my point not yours.

Monis was pointedly not prosecuted for the content of his letters, rather for using the postal system for doing so.

Free speech means that you cannot be prosecuted for stating your opinion, however, this does not necessarily give you the right to use every means to publicise your views.

A paper can choose not to print your letter or paid advertisement, your worksite can fire you for harassment, another worksite can exclude you from protesting on its land or prosecute you for trespass, and likewise the postal service (a government body) imposes penalties for abuses of its services. Similarly, free speech does not protect you from legitimate retribution from others. Individuals, Companies and associations can exclude or boycott you.

However, if I printed the magazine Charlie Hebdo, or stated on a placard in a public place that white aboriginals were rorting the system in Aus, I could be prosecuted under section 18c irrespective of the merits of the argument simply because it caused offense.