To The Australian Michael Sexton is right to state that the essential issue of Brexit is the question of national sovereignty ("Plenty of spanners thrown into the Brexit works", 18/9). He could have added that the resumption of independence for Britain will be a profound victory for the principle of intellectual freedom, something gravely threatened by the EU's authoritarian attitude to legal issues. There must surely be an election to resolve once and for all the Brexit puzzle. We must hope that, firstly, the Conservatives and the Brexit Party will co-operate to maximise their joint success and, secondly, that enough Britons have been revolted by the dishonourable sabotage of the popular will, as clearly established in the 2016 referendum, to switch their votes from Remain to Leave.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian Perhaps we need to take more notice of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price ("I don't do Welcome to Country because it is a modern construct", Cut & Paste, 20/9). Like the "Aboriginal flag", this practice lacks authenticity and is being used to strengthen the forces of Aboriginal separatism. It's a pity, because there is poetry and some truth in it, notwithstanding. A more inclusive statement of remembrance rather than one of spurious welcome would perhaps be a suitable replacement.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Amanda Vanstone ("Let's face it, democracy is messy", 16/9) is right about two things: that the British people "have a grit and resolve that should not be underestimated" and that the EU bureaucracy has "got out of hand" and "is answerable to no-one." Her sympathy for a second referendum on Brexit is misplaced. The 2016 question was presented to the people in clear and unequivocal terms and the result should have been honoured by all concerned. That it has not been has exposed the unwelcome truth that a powerful elite wishes to maintain what is in fact oligarchic rule. Nothing can hide the fact that a failure of the political class and judiciary to effect a clean and complete Brexit will be a betrayal of both the people and the principles of justice and true democracy.
Nigel Jackson
To The Australian Nick Cater is correct to describe Brexit as "the pressing political issue of the day" for Britain ("Deserters help a resolute Boris", 11/9). This is because the result of the current struggle will determine whether for the foreseeable future free speech is returned to the British (by their escape from the jurisdiction of the Kafkaesque European Court of Human Rights) and whether their nation regains full sovereignty. What lover of freedom wants his or her people to be ruled by a supra-national, bureaucratic tyranny? In this context Janet Albrechtsen is right ("The prime minister cannot be in two minds about 18C") to urge our own government to be more proactive on defending intellectual freedom and allowing the expression of "uncomfortable views" so long as physical harm is not being clearly threatened.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Nicole Hemmer is wrong to stigmatise current UK politics as "a bigger farce" ("Fiascos part of a wider unravelling", 9/9). It is much more serious than that and looks like an impending tragedy, with neither side (Leave and Remain) willing to accept defeat, and the nation split almost fifty-fifty on which option should win. The blame for this, however, lies plainly with the Remain lobby, which contains starry-eyed idealists, socialist fanatics and most of the Establishment. In failing to accept the result of the 2016 referendum, these people have trashed both democracy and fair play.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
To The Australian Although I support Brexit 100%, I'm not sure it is accurate of Jennifer Oriel to state that "no one can deny that Brexit represents the will of the British people" ("Born-to-rule Remainers ignoring will of the people", 9/9). It certainly represents a majority in the 2016 referendum and may represent a majority of Britons today; but a large number of UK voters were and are against it. Thus we have the tragedy of a nation deeply divided on a very great constitutional issue. However, the first responsibility for the present chaotic situation undoubtedly rests with elements in the Remain camp including various powerful elites, through their failure to accept a majority preference. They deserve to lose. Let us hope they do, and without violence.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
Here is a summary about what is happening here in England, whatever that is now, brought to us by our furry friends at the BBC (just think like your ABC only much worse):
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-49495567
• “Prime Minister Boris Johnson set in motion the process to suspend the UK Parliament - which limits the time MPs have to block a no-deal Brexit
• The suspension - also called prorogation - will happen no earlier than 9 September and no later than 12 September
• The new parliamentary session will begin on 14 October
• The UK is set to leave the EU on 31 October with, or without a deal
• Mr Johnson said suggestions the suspension was motivated by a desire to force through a no deal were "completely untrue"
• His decision was criticised by Speaker John Bercow who said it was a "constitutional outrage"
• Jeremy Corbyn called the move "a smash and grab" on democracy and promised to bring forward legislation "to prevent what [the PM] is doing", followed by a vote of no confidence "at some point"
• Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said "it is not democracy, it’s dictatorship" and Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said it was "a dangerous and unacceptable course"
• But Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg said the move was a "completely proper constitutional procedure"
• MPs return from recess on 3 September.”
God save the Queen! And may He protect her from the insane globalists, who have invoked something of a historical threat:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/08/29/off-with-her-head-soros-funded-best-for-britain-group-threatens-queen-over-brexit/
“The EU loyalist Best for Britain group appeared to invoke the fate of the beheaded King Charles I after Queen Elizabeth II agreed to prorogue (temporarily suspend) Parliament for a few weeks before the Brexit deadline. Following news that the Queen rubber-stamped Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s request to suspend the parliamentary session — the longest-running for almost 400 years — so that his government can bring forward a new legislative programme on October 14th, the George Soros-funded group tweeted that it would “make no sense for the Queen to back this deeply undemocratic, unconstitutional and fundamentally political manoeuvre from the government,” in comments later attributed to its CEO, Naomi Smith. “If the Queen is asked to help, she would do well to remember history doesn’t look too kindly on royals who aid and abet the suspension of democracy,” the anti-Brexit group added darkly, appearing to allude to the fate of the monarch’s ancestor Charles I, who tried to govern without Parliament and was in the end publicly beheaded.”
To The Australian Henry Ergas ("Brexit reveals what Parliament thinks of the people", 6/9) cites an important statement in 1734 by John Wilkes that the whole power of electors is devolved upon MPs who must "regard only the public good in general". Parliament may indeed be sovereign constitutionally, as Ergas shows, but, once elected, MPs must seek to act honourably and righteously to defend the welfare of the nation. There is good reason to feel that many of the MPs who have voted to frustrate the Government's Brexit plan were not regarding the public good in general, but serving an unelected elite and/or furthering their own careers. As regards the incorporation of the UK in the EU, there is a long history of deception of the public by MPs and elements in the mass media. The duplicity of Remainers has indeed “shattered the complex web of make-believe" that has hidden UK political realities. It turns out that, when the chips are down, Britain is not a democracy but an oligarchy.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Barry Lizmore's claim (6/9) that "democracy is still healthy in Britain", thanks to the parliament's frustration of the government's Brexit plan, is the opposite of the truth. The ongoing efforts of Remainers to dishonour the clear 2016 referendum result show this beyond all doubt. Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay is right ("Brexit in the hands of the Lords") to accuse the Conservative rebels and opposition of "attempting to stop Brexit altogether". The scaremongering objections to a no-deal departure from the EU are a ploy only, an attempt to hide the dishonesty involved.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
Back in 1987 philosopher Allan Bloom published The Closing of the American Mind, which was an early critique of the emerging culture of political correctness and all things mad from the Left. The main argument was against the emergence of moral and cognitive relativism, rejection of the objectivity of science and knowledge, and Bloom asserted the need to defend Western civilisation, including the canon of great and classic literature. But, in the years up to today, this return to the classics has not occurred, and Western civilisation faces a relentless attack in the universities. This comes from the ageing boomer academics, as well as the more recent clones from gen X and Y, who ape them. Added now to this lamentation about the state of the university, comes The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, a lawyer and psychologist. The book deals with updated themes discussed by Bloom and other “cultural wars” authors, but the book is very toned down, in my opinion, due to the authors being liberals, which is their right, of course.
Thus, the dissent Right come out as Nazis and the like (p.12), and the election of Donald Trump is beyond the pale, (p.140), and they proclaim, after discussing numerous incidents of the suppression of mainstream views that: “the shock of Trump’s victory must have been particularly disillusioning for many black students and left-leaning women. Between the president’s repeated racial provocations and the increased visibility of neo-Nazis and their ilk, it became much more plausible than it had been in a long time that “white supremacy,” even using a narrow definition, was not just a relic of the distant past.” (p.140) never mind that although left women would have opposed Trump, millions of Blacks voted for him. Thus, Lukianoff/Haidt Trump directly equate Trump to extremism, but we do not see the liberal Left so equated with the actions of Antifa, also discussed in the book. The Charlottesville protests are equated to a bunch of “Nazis” bashing people (pp. 90-91), even though these people were in an absolute minority. Again vDare has dealt with all aspects of this, including the distortion of Trump’s claim, that there were “very fine people on both sides” (p.91), which they take as an endorsement of extremists from the Right, which hardly follows. Lukianoff and Haidt would then have to claim that everybody from the Dissent Right was a “Nazi,” which is just the sort of distortion that they argue against elsewhere in their book, like on page 89, where they talk of “labelling running wild – a list of serious accusations made without supporting evidence.” (p. 89) Did they examine everyone present at the protest? Of course they did not. Again the vDare site has numerous article refuting much of their claims, with Ann Coulter leading the charge. Hopefully she will debate these authors and put them in their place.
To The Australian Danny Gilbert claims ("For too long constitutionally invisible, indigenous Australians need their voice", 30/8) that Aboriginal constitutional recognition and our Aboriginals being heard "cannot be separated". That is patently untrue. Aboriginals have been heard and are being heard in all sorts of ways with powerful interests supporting them and massive government funding being provided. All this despite no mention in the Constitution, a document which happily treats all Australians today on an equal footing. Gilbert ignores the major objections to recognition of Aboriginals constitutionally - that it is fundamentally inequitable, divisive and dangerous to our security and stability as a nation. Instead he resorts to a ridiculous sweeping statement that our Aboriginals "have always been out in the cold." On the contrary, throughout our history there have been many fruitful interactions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and many Aboriginals have led most rewarding lives.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age You claim in your latest editorial ("Johnson should heed Whitlam-era lessons", 30/8) that UK prime minister Boris Johnson is "using his executive power to stymie the will of Parliament", but the more important truth is that he is using it to faithfully represent the will of the people as unequivocally established in the 2016 referendum. In the modern world parliaments on certain issues are not truly representative of their peoples and appear to have fallen hostage to financially powerful interest groups and elites. On Brexit that is what has happened in Britain. Johnson is on the brink of becoming a great British hero. If he succeeds in detaching the UK from the EU, watch how he then leads the Conservatives to a massive electoral victory afterwards. The essence of the Remainers, alas, is that they have been unwilling to lose gracefully.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
No, it is not a joke … well …sometimes I am not sure nowadays what to believe, but here goes:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7381313/Maori-group-makes-claim-valuable-piece-land-Australia.html?ico=pushly-notifcation-small
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/maori-group-lays-claim-to-land-in-western-sydney/ar-AAG7oJa?li=AAgfYrC&ocid=mailsignout
“A group of Maori people are calling for valuable land in Sydney's west to be handed over to them, claiming they were gifted the area by Aboriginal people more than 200 years ago. The Rangihou people say their king was handed the land in Parramatta by leaders of the Burramattagal Clan back in 1811 after they were first invited over from New Zealand. The 45-hectare parcel of land lies in an eastern section of central Parramatta. It includes parkland, James Ruse Reserve, Robin Thomas Reserve, Rangihou Reserve and a section of the Parramatta River. 'We are Ngati Rangihou Corrangie Hapu and we are here to reclaim Rangihou land,' the group's leader Lady Crown told 9 News. 'We want acknowledgement and recognition. We want the history books corrected, and compensation for damages of the land. 'We have the first laws in time, so our laws stand above any other law in the land.' The Rangihou people attempted to seize some of the land in March by changing the locks on the Waratah Soccer Club. They also charged people to use the car park of their makeshift set-up, before being evicted after four days.”
You just have to love the Italians, so much guts, passion and manliness, so much pizza, putting the Northern Europeans to shame. Look at their government … oh, it just collapsed:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/08/20/italian-pm-attacks-salvini-and-resigns-as-govt-collapses/
“Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has resigned, forcing the collapse of the populist coalition between the Five Star Movement and Matteo Salvini’s Populist-right Lega (League). The Italian PM was set to face a vote of no confidence brought by Salvini’s party after the Five Star Movement overwhelmingly opposed a recent vote on the Italian-French TAV train tunnel project. On the floor of the Italian senate, Mr Conte blasted Salvini, accusing the Interior Minister of “political opportunism,” according to a report from Italian newspaper Il Giornale.”
Every time I hear that song from the pop group Queen, we will, we will rock you, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJYN-eG1zk. I think of the Left and the Great Replacement, which they say is a conspiracy of the Dissent right, even though in their quiet moments the Left openly celebrate it, as all suicide cults do, longing for death. It is the way of decadence. Here is a good recent article by American Renaissance bringing us up to speed on how the Great Replacement program is proceeding, at least in the US:
https://www.amren.com/news/2019/08/the-lefts-message-we-will-replace-you/
“Contempt for whites is mainstream. Cable news pundits, influential Democrats, and newspaper columnists happily promote white replacement. Last week, black AboveTheLaw editor and frequent MSNBC guest Elie Mystal called for the subjugation of white Donald Trump supporters. “You don’t communicate to them, you beat them,” he said on AM Joy. “You beat them. They are not a majority of this country—the majority of white people in this country are not a majority of the country. . . . You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper recently looked forward to whites becoming a minority: “The idea that, you know, whites will not be the majority, I mean, that’s—it’s an exciting transformation of the country, it’s an exciting evolution and you know, progress of our country in many different ways.” His guest, Univision host Jorge Ramos, agreed. “There’s nothing really they can do against this incredible demographic revolution,” he said. A week before, actress Rosanna Arquette tweeted: “I’m sorry I was born white and privileged. It disgusts me. And I feel so much shame.” She later claimed the FBI advised her to lock her Twitter account due to the backlash. Liberals insist white supremacy dominates America. If that were true, those of us who write openly about the great replacement and the rights of whites would be honored and enriched. The corporate media would condemn anyone who insulted whites. Employers would fire them. Instead, anti-white racism can advance your career. Just ask Sarah Jeong, a New York Times editorial board member who got her job despite (or because of) her anti-white tweets.
To The Australian Lyle Geyer states (26/8) that "it is absolutely imperative that an urgent solution is forthcoming" to the problems of Aboriginal disadvantage. Such issues are usually not well handled if rushed. What is most of all needed is solutions that are effective and in accord with reality. Two things should be dropped. The whole campaign for "indigenous constitutional recognition" has been mistaken and this needs to be firmly admitted. It will never be endorsed by a majority of Australians at the necessary referendum, because it is inequitable and dangerously divisive. Secondly, the phrase "closing the gap" should be replaced by "improvement to Aboriginal living conditions". "Closing the gap" allows ideological pests to go on complaining forever rather than addressing real needs sensibly.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian Chris Mitchell fails to provide a truly comprehensive report on the reasoning of opponents of Aboriginal constitutional recognition ("'Feel-good' SMH missing when debate on Aboriginal voice gets serious", 19/8). Opposition to an improper insertion of race into the Constitution is not the main issue, but, rather, the danger of serious political division on this continent in the middle to long term. With totalitarian China on the move, this is a life-or-death matter for the Australian nation. Also very important is the sheer lack of equity in the whole concept. Mitchell is no doubt right, however, to point out that those Aboriginal Australians behind this campaign will not "give up their aspirations" and "surrender". Nor will their non-indigenous supporters. It will be a long fight for us savvy Australians to maintain the integrity and unity of our fundamentally British nation; but we will not give up either; and we will win.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age Discussion of Brexit needs to be based on a clear grasp of priorities ("Leak reveals no-deal chaos fear", 19/8). Short-term disruption of lifestyle for many is less significant than three other factors which show that Boris Johnson and his Conservative government should be supported and Remainers yield the field gracefully. These are, in order of importance, the regaining of its sovereignty by Britain, the restoration of complete legal and judicial independence to the British people (meaning freedom from the quasi-totalitarian European Court of Human Rights) and the honouring of the clear verdict of the 2016 referendum (thus allowing genuine democracy to succeed).
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
The ever-eagled eye Andre Bolt has pointed out something mighty interesting that I did not know about, even given my great expanse of “knowledge,” gained from years of dedicated drinking in bars for wisdom, while listening to talk back radio:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/plagiarism-uluru-statement-from-a-congolese-heart/news-story/d315bb99c166c13d93fc1e21246fcb5d
“The Uluru Statement from the Heart, written allegedly by Aboriginal representatives, has quickly become the approved definition of the special nature of Aboriginal sovereignty: This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This was presented as a statement straight from the heart of the delegates to a 2017 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Referendum Convention at Uluru:
