To The Australian Regardless of the way the Wentworth electorate's decision has gone, Australia is in a dangerously unstable state and we all need to work hard to promote greater national unity, better understanding between different-interest groups and more stable government at the federal level. How to do this? Harper Lee's insight in To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind. Put yourself in the shoes of those you disagree with before barging ahead to grab what you think you want. As a monarchist, I enjoyed reading that in the 1999 constitutional referendum "the public denied the political class what it wished for, which was its own aggrandisement" ("Public affection keeps the republic at bay", 20-21/10), but that is only part of the truth. Huge numbers of Australians voted for a republic then either because they wanted an Australian head of state or because they preferred a more egalitarian political order, or both - admirable idealism there, if also (from my point of view) short-sighted. We monarchists need to ask: "How can we keep our Crown while to some degree satisfying those republican yearnings?” In two ways, one of which is already happening, as Caroline Overington notes ("A right royal love affair"): attuning royal behaviour more closely to the needs of ordinary people. The other way? A completely independent Australian Crown, established in careful co-operation with the House of Windsor. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age There is some truth in your editorial claim that "the historical ties to England are no longer the focus of our national identity" ("No reason to delay republic debate", 19/10), but they remain the most important aspect of the foundation of our political order. Australia will be wise to continue to honour them, and that means no republic. The warm welcome given to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex strongly suggests that most Australians do not see Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family as "foreigners". They are much more intimately a part of us than that term states. Most important of all is the fact that monarchy is inherently a superior form of government to republicanism. It makes more sense, therefore, to work long-term for a totally independent Australian throne. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
‘The Age’ newspaper in Melbourne seems unwilling to publish any submission (letter or opinion piece) opposed to ‘indigenous’ constitutional recognition and/or the signing of a treaty. Is it afraid that the case against such change is too persuasive?
On 14th July 2018 The Age published an opinion piece by well-known and very successful author Stephanie Dowrick entitled ‘Scandal at our nation’s heart’. It concerned alleged mistreatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders by contemporary Australia. I at once submitted the letter below to the Letters Editor.
To The Age Although federal Labor MP Linda Burney believes it would be very wrong if constitutional recognition becomes an election issue ("Settle Indigenous recognition issue before federal poll: Labor MP", 31/7), that has already happened. The ALP is plainly tied to such change, so those of us who do not want to see further moves towards the dismemberment of our nation have nowhere to go but the Coalition. It is good that Liberal MP Julian Leeser has called for comment "from a wide range of Australians". This should include those firmly opposed to the recommendations of the Uluru Statement from the Heart or any other inequitable tampering with our constitution. There is good reason to feel that we have the better arguments and are in the majority. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian (21st July 2018) Greg Sheridan tells the truth about Brexit ("Turmoil for nation-state as May stumbles over EU deal", 21-22/7): that, despite the decisive victory for Leave in the 2016 referendum, "the elite has never accepted the legitimacy of this decision and is constantly trying to undermine it." The Brexit struggle is more than a "question of whether the nation-state can succeed" in the modern world of globalization powered, essentially, by the financially strong. The integrity of Britain itself is at stake. Only a firm and "hard" Brexit can preserve that. A resumption of truly independent sovereignty, carrying with it a renewed commitment to traditional British law and its concomitant intellectual freedom, is non-negotiable. The British political order has never been free of corruption, but parliamentary failure to honour the Brexit result would be a profound and historic change for the worse, perhaps irrevocable, with international ramifications affecting the morale of many nations, including Australia.. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Australian (10/07/2018) It indeed looks as though the UK government is seeking "to reverse the meaning of the popular vote to leave the EU" ("Corbyn lurks as chaos strikes Tories", 10/7). Ever since former PM David Cameron stated, immediately upon resigning after the Brexit vote, that Theresa May was the person he recommended to take over leadership of the Conservative Party, many of us supporters of Brexit have feared that she would undermine the Brexit project and betray the popular mandate (52%) for leaving the EU.
The fact that other nations, such as France and Ireland, who initially voted in plebiscites to leave the EU, were forced to hold second referendums which reversed the previous decisions, increases our conviction. The resignation letter of David Davis touches on two vital points: the taking back of sovereignty and the return to national control of the law and legislation. The difficulty the British people are experiencing in trying to get the "hard" (that is, firm) Brexit they want is that sinister but financially powerful interests are aiming to sink the project. The whole scenario reminds us that we, too, have a real problem of securing genuine representation of the popular will in our own parliament. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
To The Age (11/07/2018) Your editorial on Britain and the UK ('May walks tightrope amid Brexit chaos', 11/7) correctly identifies a major aspect of the Brexit controversy: 'the electorate is pitted against its own representatives.' It was always doubtful that Theresa May, no matter what declarations she made, would lead in the enactment of a resumption of British sovereign independence. She was a 'remain' advocate in 2016 and she was the recommended successor for leadership of the Conservative Party by outgoing PM David Cameron, also a 'remain' man.
A truly honourable British parliament would by now have implemented a 'hard' (that is, firm and authentic) Brexit. That it has not happened calls into question the integrity of that institution and is an affront to genuine democracy. Huge numbers of 'little people' and 'ordinary Britons' made a supreme effort in 2016 and overcame a largely biased press and a campaign enjoying superior financial and institutional resources. It will, alas, be very hard for them to succeed a second time; and in the meanwhile May's 'soft' (pseudo) Brexit bleeds their confidence and energies. It's a sad story. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
It is hard to find academics willing to have a hit at the tyrannical system, since they are soon removed. Yet, UK academic Stephen Leonard, in Travels in Cultural Nihilism, (Arktos, 2017), seems to have done a good job of slaughtering sacred cows, bolding proclaiming that multiculturalism is a failure. I don’t have the book, but there is a good review of it at another site, whose writers are richer than me, so they will not mind the poor borrowing from the richer poor: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/03/28/review-travels-in-cultural-nihilism-some-essays/
“In ‘Psychological Angst’ Leonard attempts to understand why Western populations remain silent as their access to free speech becomes increasingly restricted. He attributes this silence, in part, to the growth of ‘groupthink,’ a “psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.” In the context of groupthink, which is increasingly underpinned by hate speech legislation, “the power of peer pressure is such that any dissent is socially unacceptable, and would lead to alienation.”
Here are a number of videos abut the march on Washington, by “young” people to protest ordinary Americans having guns. The agenda, or what one speakers calls the “beginning of a revolution,” is to completely disarm basically white Americans. At no point does any of these eager beavers deal with the issue of gun violence in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore. The “March of our Lives,” was politically correct event, paid for by the Deep State elites, so naturally there would be nothing that would draw attention to the real gun violence in America, where murders were happening while they spoke, even in the same city in which they were protesting. And, no criticisms of the FBI and law enforcement, who knew that the shooter was a problem, but ignored it.
One would have thought that this should be the main issue of concern, since banning guns in America, would still leave America awash with illegal guns anyway. Add to this that some of the speakers give a communist salute, and the cat’s out of the bag. Let us hope that the message gets out loud and clear to American patriots, that this is the libtard vision of the US future. There needs to be an investigation into who funded such an event, because high school students could not have done this alone. Then there needs to be another march on Washington by gun owners to counter all of this. After that, I suppose the communists are right; there will be a “revolution,” as they say, with some from the Left already indicating that they are planning armed revolt, probably with the confiscated guns: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/demo-congressman-hints-at-armed-rebellion-against-trump.html https://personalliberty.com/dont-need-civil-war/
To THE AGE It is not the business of any state government to sign a treaty with Aboriginals (‘First steps on a long road’, 24/3) and it is scandalous that the fanatical Andrews government has set aside $28.5 million in an attempt to bring this about. Signing treaties is purely the prerogative of the federal government. Jill Gallagher complains that ‘we’ (a group not clearly defined) ‘never ceded sovereignty’. Well, it must have been lost, for the sovereignty of Australia is now held by the Queen on behalf of the Australian people as a whole. It is impossible that any constitutionally valid agreement could be arrived at today with ‘the first people of this country’, for there is no way such an entity could be recognized at law, most so-called Aboriginal Australians having some non-Aboriginal ancestry. Moreover, the majority of Australians will never support a separatist agenda at the ballot box. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
Here are some words of wisdom from one of America’s best known hunter, Phil Roberson of the TV show Duck Dynasty fame, which applies to all Western nations dealing with the issue of mass immigration:
“I love visitors. But I’ve got a sign on my property that says one thing loud and clear: No Thru Traffic. You see, I decide who comes and goes. I hold the key to the gate. It’s my wall. My barrier. Open borders? No way. Not on my property and not in my country. Like President Trump says, we need a wall. Want to get past my gate? You’d better believe I’m vetting you. We need to know who you are, where you came from, and what you’re doing here. If you’re out to destroy our safety, our property, or our freedom, you need to turn tail and hotfoot it out of here before you see me and the business end of my AR. Look, I love people from all over the world. But that’s what it’s come to in America. There are people who don’t love God and don’t love me. The human race is just too wicked for me to leave my gate wide open. Hey, there are a lot of left-wingers running around.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/08/phil-robertson-plan-extreme-vetting/
I got the following email from our noble Director, and although dealing with the US immigration situation, the same arguments apply directly to Australia and the rest of the West:
“WHAT IF ALL ILLEGALS LEFT THE STATES......... Considering the Denver Post is a very liberal paper I’m surprised they published this. This really shows how the hiring of illegal’s is a false economic practice. Tina Griego is a Free-Lance reporter for the Denver Post. She writes some really good stuff and she is a strong advocate for LEGAL Immigration homework on issues is part of her make-up and fabric.
The issues of guns is likely to be the one which pushes America over the brink into Civil War 2.0, because it brings together everything which is tearing America part , including the race and immigration, and the political elites crisis. Following the Florida shooting, which was falsely attributed to someone influenced by the Alt Right, the media have been in a feeding frenzy over Donald Trump’s idea of arming certain teachers: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/24/president-trump-arm-teachers-staff-and-school-shootings-will-end/
Leftoid, Michael Moore, has said that the National Rifle Association is worse than ISIS! https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/02/michael-moore-nra-is-worse-than-isis http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/374752-oprah-joins-clooneys-in-supporting-florida-students-gun-control
Following on from the usual politically correct outbursts over Australia Day, we have the first indication of movement at the front. Labor Part elites are suggesting that a referendum be held on January 26 on the Republic and Aboriginal recognition: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/anthony-albanese-calls-for-twin-january-26-referendums/news-story/e69e5bd842057b80e9d3f5dae0348f2f
“Anthony Albanese has called for referendums on the republic and indigenous constitutional recognition to be held on a January 26, as a way of creating a national “platform of unity’’ and ending ¬divisions over the date of Australia Day. Mr Albanese, who was deputy prime minister in the second Rudd government and rival to Bill Shorten for the Labor leadership after the party lost power in 2013, used a speech at a citizenship ceremony in his Sydney electorate of Grayndler to suggest how January 26 could be kept as Australia Day, with the support of indigenous people, by holding ballots on two major issues confronting that ¬national identity.
To THE AGE John Warhurst wants us to ignore ‘furphies’ (‘Ignore republic-debate myths’, 26/1), but he ignores some of the best arguments in favour of our monarchy. Firstly, it is embedded in sacred tradition and fundamentally works for good on the people as a whole by encouraging us to ‘lift up our hearts’ and raise our vision towards the higher worlds and the divine creator and sustainer of all. A republic, by contrast, is too mundane and earth-bound. It is not, incidentally, ‘the people and society’ rather than the monarchy that have given us our rightly prized constitutional stability: both have.
Secondly, Warhurst ignores the profound way in which our monarchy is linked to our history, so that its very existence causes us to be mindful of the legacies we inherit from our ancestors, whose wisdom and industry need to be considered and honoured by each subsequent generation. Traditional cultures around the world warn of the danger of ‘the headless man’, the quasi-automaton cut off from divine guidance. Communist totalitarianism is an example and it grows out of republics. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
To THE AGE Your scornful description of the decision of the British people to leave the European Union as ‘nativist populism’ (15/1) ignores the big issues behind it: the protection of the monarchy, the retention of national identity, the resumption of a great legal tradition and a return to greater liberty. It is shocking but not surprising that certain powerful individuals and groups are doing everything possible to annul the Brexit result. Other members of the EU had their votes to leave overruled by political chicanery. It is to be hoped that British character and integrity will prevail against it. Better to be poor and free than wealthy and corrupt. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
To THE AGE Justin Malbon (‘A simple way to get a president’, 4/1) ingeniously suggests that the republican cause can be facilitated by the addition of the title of ‘president of Australia’ to the office of governor-general. However, this appears to be yet another ethically dubious scheme for getting around the fact that another referendum might well meet the same fate as that of 1999.
Malbon is right to note that ‘symbolism is potent’. To change our nation from monarchy to republic is no small matter. It has many ramifications, some of them profound (such as the vast difference between sacred and secular authority). Honourable republicans should ensure that no change is effected save by a referendum that has been fairly conducted. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
Relax, let an old lady handle this one. There is a growing cultural war over toilets, with something of a trend to create unisex toilets:http://www.smh.com.au/comment/gender-neutral-public-toilets-should-be-the-norm-20160503-golmtp.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/public-service-push-for-genderneutral-bathrooms-20170511-gw2taq.html
Urinals are on the way out, with the sort of standard toilets we all have at home coming to the fore. Thus, men, being extremely poor aims, will make these toilets unhygienic for women. Ladies, you know what I mean! All in the name of political correctness.
We have seen concern, and quiet murmurs issued by conservatives, about parliament’s complete failure to protect religious freedom. Indeed, “our” politicians saw fit to vote down all amendments that would have protected religious freedom. Even proverbial blind Freddy could have seen this coming, yet the 62 percenters went along with a “Yes” vote with no guarantee of any protections.
As noted here:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/samesex-marriage-mps-no-to-liberty-ushers-in-new-sectarianism/news-story/b2bf56a09fa6312ccc923474c8a328c9
First, the same sex marriage legislation, and then, almost instantly, we have this:http://theconversation.com/we-have-marriage-equality-now-we-need-lgbtqi-inclusive-sexuality-education-in-schools-87501https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/12/08/opinion-we-have-marriage-equality-now-we-need-lgbtqi-inclusive-sexualityhttps://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/12/08/day-day-infamy/
Read all about it if you need more details than the headlines.