Re: Time for an Australia Republic is never!
BTov
> In alt.talk.royalty david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> : The ouster of Howard is a good sign. Now that there are two party
> : leaders who champion the cause of a Republic, it should be incumbent
> : to further this cause: More than 60% of Australians, and more than 90%
> : of young Australian citizens, back the removal of this "peculiar
> : institution" that has no place in a modern, egalitarian society, and
>
> Then "modern,egalitarian society" needs to be abandoned,
> and a society more firmly founded on loyalty to the Monarchy
> built.
>
> : switch back into a Republican mode. (By Republican I do NOT mean a
> : George-Bush-Republican by any way!).
> :
> : Howard botched the majority's will by deviously undermining the
> : Republican campaign. It should be noted that it should be learned from
> : the mistakes made and either:
> :
> : 1. Kevin Rudd go two stages - first "Yes" or "No" to the Republic
> : concept.
> :
> : OR
> :
> : 2. Primary ballot question in that regard, followed by sub-questions
> : in order to determine:
> : a. Do you want a symbolic head of state elected by Parliament.
> : b. Do you want to switch to a Republican executive mode as in the USA.
> : c. Do you want to popularly elect a figurehead president like in
> : Ireland?
> : OR
> : d. Do you want Parliament to elect an executive president (as in
> : Italy)?
> :
> : This time, with an avowed Republican at the helm, do not repeat past
> : mistakes.
>
> To have an avowed Republican at a helm IS a mistake.
>
> : David Huang
> :
> : P.S. With Turnbull possibly winning the Liberal Party's ensuing
> : primaries, maybe it's going to turn out for the best. Two Republican
> : party leaders.
>
> There's nothing good about republics.
what about israel reppublic, epsztain?
b'wahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
btov
haifa, israel
jel...@bigpond.com
The important detail here for Australia is ensuring that the country
ends up with a local as Head of State regardless of their ethnic
background. At present they have a foreigner in that role, a "state"
of affairs I am sure everyone would agree the majority of other
countries would not stand for.
CJ Buyers
>
Indeed you would be perfectly correct.
Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant
of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner.
Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
George
Former Prime Minister Howard woked for Israel, didn't he? That, as
well as his issuing of fiat currency, were the reasons true
conservatives were compelled to vote Labor.
George
No, I think it would be hard to find an Australian who would be a
suitable Head of State, since they are descended from convicts.
The only real 'Australians' are Aborigines- everyone else are just
recent imports.
AGw. (Usenet)
> Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant
> of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner.
I was under the impression that the High Court of Australia had ruled
in recent years that British citizens (without concurrent Australian
citizenship) were foreigners.
However, legal arguments in either direction are a bit beside the
point; people don't judge such things on the basis of what the law
says, but rather how they think things *ought* to be.
--
AGw.
Breton
Most of the Overseas Realms, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and so on who have freely chosen to retain the British sovereign as
their Heads of State would disagree with you. They all have appointed
local people to represent the Sovereign at home, and all in all this
system works very well. By contrast, the performance of countries who
elected a republican form of government (of whatever type, executive
or parliamentary) have not fared so well. So given the choice I am
perfectly prepared to "stand for" the monarchy remaining, thank you
very much.
Breton
jel...@bigpond.com
Oh please be sensible. If you can't then please be quiet.
jel...@bigpond.com
wrote:
You are right and CJ Buyers is wrong regarding the foreigner debate.
jel...@bigpond.com
That is simply not true. Members of the commonwealth are subject to
the same Australian immigration laws as anyone from other countries.
Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
here at all.
Donald4564
>
> Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant
> of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner.
>
>
With the Australia Act of 1986 and also a recent decision by the High
Court of Australia, Australia now recognises the UK as a foreign
power. I presume by further definition all other Commonwealth
countries where HM The Queen is Head of State would also now fall into
this category.
That said, whenever I visit the United Kingdom and am amongst my
friends there I am never for one moment thought of as "foreign", the
same vice-versa. This probably only goes to show that governments and
courts pass laws and rules at times which nobody really wants.
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
> No, I think it would be hard to find an Australian who would be a
> suitable Head of State, since they are descended from convicts.
>
Not all of Sir, not all of us...
> The only real 'Australians' are Aborigines- everyone else are just
> recent imports.
Since they were here before Australia was even thought of I can't see
how they could originally be referred to as such.
Regards
Donald Binks
Louis Epstein
It would (like any other country) be better off as a Monarchy.
Wasn't there supposed to be some sort of Davidic dynastic conference
held there recently?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: On Nov 28, 6:48 pm, BTov <dkast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nonsense.
It is specifically BAD for the Commonwealth Dominions
for Governor-Generals NOT to come from abroad...a Canadian
would make a better Governor-General of Australia than an
Australian...and vice versa of course.
And of course the Commonwealth should seek convergence
under its shared Sovereign.The past deliberate divergence
is a crime against the brotherhood of mankind...there should
be no further cultivation of separate national identities
where they can be prevented from arising!!
Louis Epstein
More to the point...
Her Majesty the Queen is by definition THE MOST Australian,
MOST Canadian,
MOST Jamaican,
MOST Barbadian,
etc. person in the world...as all those nationalities are
properly defined through allegiance to Her person.
Louis Epstein
[technical note:
somehow,spaces are being inserted after the commas between the
names of newsgroups to which this thread is cross-posted...this
generates error messages in my newsreading program,which requires
that the space after the comma be the ONLY space in either the
Newsgroups: or Followup-To: line of the header...whose program
or server is causing this?]
In alt.talk.royalty Donald4564 <dbi...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
:
:>
:> Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant
:> of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner.
:>
:>
:
: With the Australia Act of 1986 and also a recent decision by the High
An Act whose repeal should be demanded loudly!!!
: Court of Australia, Australia now recognises the UK as a foreign
: power. I presume by further definition all other Commonwealth
: countries where HM The Queen is Head of State would also now fall into
: this category.
:
: That said, whenever I visit the United Kingdom and am amongst my
: friends there I am never for one moment thought of as "foreign", the
: same vice-versa. This probably only goes to show that governments and
: courts pass laws and rules at times which nobody really wants.
:
: Regards
: Donald Binks
-=-=-
Louis Epstein
: On Nov 29, 12:47 am, George <qat-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> On Nov 28, 8:52 pm, jel...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:>
:> > On Nov 28, 6:48 pm, BTov <dkast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
The presence of non-Aboriginals in Australia being legitimate
is ABSOLUTELY conditioned on the presence of the Crown in
Australia being legitimate,as it happened by the Crown's authority;
and that IS sensible.
Revere the Crown,or leave Australia.
If you think it's not sensible,please be quiet.
Louis Epstein
I think they would all be better off if the Governors-General
were "parachuted in" from elsewhere in the Commonwealth,
independent of the local political process.
: By contrast, the performance of countries who
: elected a republican form of government (of whatever type, executive
: or parliamentary) have not fared so well. So given the choice I am
: perfectly prepared to "stand for" the monarchy remaining, thank you
: very much.
:
: Breton
-=-=-
jel...@bigpond.com
You would have trouble trying to convince the majority of Australians
of that.
jel...@bigpond.com
> In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> : On Nov 29, 12:47 am, George <qat-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please don't wallow in ancient history.
CJ Buyers
It is the High Court decision which is important to the declaration
that under the terms of the most recent nationality act, British
subjects who have been resident in Australia since 1949 are classed as
"aliens" and can be deported. However, apart from the specific
circumstances of the issue of deportation, I am not sure that the
judgement is particularly clear about any other circumstances.
If one actually reads up on the reasoning by the judges, it is so full
of holes, historical errors and even legal flaws, that it is hardly
worth the effort. It really is a very poor piece of work.
It is perfectly clear, for example, that neither the British
Nationality Act 1949 nor the earlier Australian nationality act of
1948 simply created two types of individual, citizen and alien. Three
types of person resulted from these acts, citizen, Commonwealth
subject and alien. This is perfectly clear in act after act of the
Commonwealth Parliament for many years, in relation to rights of
residency, voting rights, eligibility for Australian citizenship, form
of taking up citizenship, etc. To say that only two types of status
existed since 1949, is completely incorrect.
Secondly, the judges unnecessarily concerned itself with the question
of when Australia became independent. An issue, in my view, of no
consequence at all to the issue of citizenship or residency. The
particular rights and leaves applicable to Commonwealth subjects that
I mention above, applied equally to those countries who were republics
within the Commonwealth as they did to those of countries where the
Queen was Head of State. By adjoining the enjoyment of special rights
to a test of independence, they seem to be making the perverse case
that republics within the Commonwealth were not independent!
Quite apart from this, there is the whole issue of the actual
relationship between Commonwealth governments and the means by which
they are conducted. None appoints ambassadors to each other's head of
state. Even in the case of republics. The diplomatic representatives
are from government to government, not Head of State to Head of
State.
The courts failure to recognise these facts, or to understand them,
constitutes a major flaw in the usefulness or application of the
judgement. It is not one from which to draw any general conclusion,
and leaves itself open to an easy review and subsequent court to
overturn. In this regard, the court is the architect of its own
downfall. The change in decision itself (Shaw), from the previous
ruling that British subjects were not "aliens" (Taylor), rested on a
change in composition of one member of the court. As Justice Kirby
powerfully remarked that reversing decisions "on the basis of nothing
more intellectually persuasive than the retirement of a member of a
past majority" was a grave error; "every important constitutional
decision will be resubmitted for redetermination following new
appointments until the dissenter gets his or her way".
CJ Buyers
wrote:
> On Nov 28, 1:23 pm, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant
> > of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner.
>
> I was under the impression that the High Court of Australia had ruled
> in recent years that British citizens (without concurrent Australian
> citizenship) were foreigners.
See my reply to Donald elsewhere, for my comments on that matter.
> However, legal arguments in either direction are a bit beside the
> point; people don't judge such things on the basis of what the law
> says, but rather how they think things *ought* to be.
>
In which case the solution is even simpler. It does not require the
overturning of the entire political system. A simple Act of Parliament
could declare the Queen a citizen tomorrow.
Donald4564
An interesting point of view Mr. Buyers, but one I am afraid will get
little or no airing here at all. It would seem that most of our
politicians (including a lot on the conservative side) wish to see
Australia become a republic in every sense - so that every other other
country is regarded foreign and all those who are not Australian
citizens are alien.
We have seen over the past few years a republicanism by stealth. The
Governor of NSW was for instance removed from Government House and is
forced to commute from her home on the other side of Sydney to her
office in town daily. The oath of allegiance to the Queen has been
removed from the Citizenship ceremony - oblivious to the fact that
those native born are considered under law Her Majesty's subjects by
birth. The Queen's portrait has been removed from Government offices -
and so on and on.
It annoys me greatly that a lot of my fellow countrymen are so
ignorant as to how our government works - and that is reflected in the
politicians as well - a lot of whom have not the slightest idea of the
seperation of powers under the Westmimster system. Most of these
ignoramuses are venting their spleen to change the system, however I
am sure they have no idea of how a republic works either.
I reflect on some memories. I remember being at the pictures with my
parents back in nineteen-fonty-tont. The picture was "The Cruel Sea",
and in those days the National Anthem (in those days "God Save the
Queen") was played before the performance. Anyway there was a fellah
in front of my father who did not rise to his feet on hearing the
first few bars of the anthem. My father threatened to punch him on the
nose if he didn't stand up, a sentiment echoed by others in the
vicinity. Nowadays you hardly hear an anthem played at all - perhaps
at the beginning of some sports fixture. Most Australians don't know
the words to "Advance Australia Fair" either.
Perhaps we will have another referendum about a republic and of course
as no one can make up their mind what sort of republic to have, it
will again be defeated - but will everything revert back to how it was
- I doubt it!
Regards
Donald Binks
(formerly a British subject, fellow Commonwealth citizen, now a
foreign alien)
George
It would be better if Her Majesty would send a proper Lord as Governor-
General. Knowing Australians, the next Governor-General will probably
be some "true-blue Aussie" like Shane Warne or Pauline Hanson.
Of course, for an subject of the Queen of Australia to express the
view that Australia should be a republic, it is quite openly treason,
and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
CJ Buyers
That isn't a good enough reason to allow the argument to fall to them
by default. Best to argue against them at every available opportunity.
It may feel like an uphill struggle at times, but one should not be
disheartened and should fight the good fight!
Jan Böhme
> On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
> > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
> > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
><snip>
> Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
> they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
> have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
> here at all.
The actual issue that Christopher raised is different from the one you
imagined. It's about dual nationality: If the Queen won't do as an
Australian because she holds other nationalities as well, why would
another Australian with dual nationality - say, being both an
Australian and a Greek national - be eligible as Head of State?
Jan Böhme
Don Aitken
<jan....@sh.se> wrote:
>On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>Not that I know anything about the issue, but the immigration laws are
>not the only laws that might discriminate between different types on
>non-citizens. Are there any other situations than immigration where
>the Australian law provides a special status to citizens of a member
>of the Commonwealth? One silly little thing might be enough to justify
>Christopher's assertion.
>
I believe that both Canada and New Zealand allow Commonwealth citizens
to serve in their armed forces without requiring them to be
naturalised. Does Australia do the same?
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
CJ Buyers
Isn't Shane Warne now living in England and bringing up his children
there?
jel...@bigpond.com
I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual
citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British. That was my point.
jel...@bigpond.com
The Queen does not send anyone, she has not sent anyone for quite some
time George. The Australian PM chooses, the Queen merely pays lip
service by rubber stamping the choice of GG.
CJ Buyers
>
And the legal basis for this is?
jel...@bigpond.com
Are you seriously trying to say that The Queen is an Australian
citizen ?
AGw. (Usenet)
> And the legal basis for this is?
The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
2007.
I suppose it's possible that she's been granted Australian citizenship
at some point, but that would have required explicit action in that
regard by the Australian government. I would have thought that such
things were a matter for public record, though.
--
AGw.
CJ Buyers
>
I am simply asking you to justify your claim.
CJ Buyers
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:56 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> > > The Queen does not hold dual
> > > citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British.
>
> > And the legal basis for this is?
>
> The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
> Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
> 2007.
>
AGw. (Usenet)
You're saying the Queen's served in the ADF??
However, if one assumes for the sake of argument that she has, that
does not confer automatic right of citizenship, thus this scenario
falls within what I said in my second paragraph:
Don Aitken
It seems to me to be reasonably obvious that the Queen cannot be a
citizen of any of her realms. If she was, she wouldn't be Queen.
jel...@bigpond.com
I think it is perfectly clear that The Queen is not an Australian
citizen. It is clear she is not Australian. It is clear that she is in
fact British. Therefore Australia has a foreigner as it's Head of
State. That is galling to the majority of Australians, just as it
would if an Australian were the Head of State of the UK.
George
Yes, that is very bad. Although I do not criticise Her Majesty in
anyway, it would be better if the Queen was to send a proper, British
lord as G-G of Australia.
George
There is no such thing as an "Australian citizen". There are subjects
of the Queen of Australia.
It is the Queen who authorises Australian passports, whose
representative appoints the Australian Prime Minister, etc. It is to
the Queen that the Australian Defence forces swear allegiance.
Without the Queen, there is NO Australia. Any 'Australian Republic'
would have no legal or moral authority, and no meaning whatsoever-
like the USA.
Saying the Queen of Australia is not Australian is reflect the kind of
reasoning which appeals to primary school children.
George
The majority of Australians are then morons. Secularist, 'egalitarian'
scumbags.
CJ Buyers
Well, then demonstrate it. If it is perfectly clear, you should have
no problem in quoting chapter and verse.
> It is clear she is not Australian. It is clear that she is in
> fact British. Therefore Australia has a foreigner as it's Head of
> State. That is galling to the majority of Australians, just as it
> would if an Australian were the Head of State of the UK.- Hide quoted text -
>
Oh I see. It has nothing to do with the real world. Racism, pure and
simple.
CJ Buyers
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:45 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 11:44 am, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 9:56 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> > > > > The Queen does not hold dual
> > > > > citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British.
>
> > > > And the legal basis for this is?
>
> > > The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
> > > Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
> > > 2007.
>
> > Have you read section 23 of the 2007 Act?
>
> You're saying the Queen's served in the ADF??
Where does it say anything about serving in the ADF?
It simply requires one to be a member for at least 90 days. The Queen
and Duke of Edinburg have been holding military appointments in the
regular forces for over 50 years.
> However, if one assumes for the sake of argument that she has, that
> does not confer automatic right of citizenship,
In what part of your statement did you say anything about automatic
citizenship?
Assuming that is what you meant, are people not entitled to automatic
citizenship to be ineligible for Head of State in your republic? Are
you going to ban adoptees? Are you going to ban immigrants? Are you
going to ban people who acquired their citizenship by marriage? Are
you going to ban natural born Australians who may have lost their
citizenship due to old laws on dual citizenship?
AGw. (Usenet)
> There is no such thing as an "Australian citizen".
Huh? The term is defined in s. 4 of the Australian Citizenship Act
2007.
--
AGw.
CJ Buyers
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:44:12 -0800 (PST), "AGw. (Usenet)"
>
>
>
>
>
> <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Nov 30, 9:56 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> >> > The Queen does not hold dual
> >> > citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British.
>
> >> And the legal basis for this is?
>
> >The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
> >Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
> >2007.
>
> >I suppose it's possible that she's been granted Australian citizenship
> >at some point, but that would have required explicit action in that
> >regard by the Australian government. I would have thought that such
> >things were a matter for public record, though.
>
> It seems to me to be reasonably obvious that the Queen cannot be a
> citizen of any of her realms. If she was, she wouldn't be Queen.
>
agree that is the British legal concept, it isn't necessarily the
interpretation in other foreign realms.
That having been said, the Australian constitution actually says
nothing whatever about citizenship. It does, however, speak of
subjects of the Queen, upon whom it confers certain rights.
My responses here are simply arguments against republicans, who
imagine that the Shaw case is ammunition with which they can beat up a
dear old lady. Alas, there are several ways to skin their cat. No harm
in doing so nine times over.
AGw. (Usenet)
> On Nov 30, 12:00 pm, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 11:45 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 30, 11:44 am, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
> > > > Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
> > > > 2007.
> > >
> > > Have you read section 23 of the 2007 Act?
> >
> > You're saying the Queen's served in the ADF??
>
> Where does it say anything about serving in the ADF?
>
> It simply requires one to be a member for at least 90 days. The Queen
> and Duke of Edinburg have been holding military appointments in the
> regular forces for over 50 years.
I think a reasonable legal argument could be made that honorary
appointments do not constitute "service" for the purposes of the Act
in question.
> > However, if one assumes for the sake of argument that she has, that
> > does not confer automatic right of citizenship,
>
> In what part of your statement did you say anything about automatic
> citizenship?
If the Queen wasn't automatically entitled to Australian citizenship
then she'd presumably have to apply for it, which seems a somewhat
improbable thing to happen. Do you have any evidence that she's ever
applied for citizenship, or otherwise been granted it?
> Assuming that is what you meant, are people not entitled to automatic
> citizenship to be ineligible for Head of State in your republic?
My republic? What are you talking about? I don't live in a republic,
and have not expressed a desire that one should be established.
Pointing out that the Queen is not an Australian citizen is simply a
statement of legal fact. Whether that legal fact is material or not
is ultimately for the Australian electorate to decide. However, even
if she were an Australian citizen by express statutory provision, it
seems improbable that the debate on the monarchy in Australia would be
couched in different terms, or would be at a different level of
intensity.
> Are
> you going to ban adoptees? Are you going to ban immigrants? Are you
> going to ban people who acquired their citizenship by marriage? Are
> you going to ban natural born Australians who may have lost their
> citizenship due to old laws on dual citizenship?
Now you're just getting hysterical.
--
AGw.
CJ Buyers
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:25 pm, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 12:00 pm, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 11:45 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 11:44 am, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
> > > > > Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
> > > > > 2007.
>
> > > > Have you read section 23 of the 2007 Act?
>
> > > You're saying the Queen's served in the ADF??
>
> > Where does it say anything about serving in the ADF?
>
> > It simply requires one to be a member for at least 90 days. The Queen
> > and Duke of Edinburg have been holding military appointments in the
> > regular forces for over 50 years.
>
> I think a reasonable legal argument could be made that honorary
> appointments do not constitute "service" for the purposes of the Act
> in question.
One may make as many reasonable legal arguments as one may draw upon,
but the facts remain as follows 1) the type of appointment is not
specified in the law, only membership of the armed forces and 2) most
of the appointments are not honorary but on the active force.
It may be true that HM does not exercise any day to day command
function, but again the Act does not call for anything of the kind.
> > > However, if one assumes for the sake of argument that she has, that
> > > does not confer automatic right of citizenship,
>
> > In what part of your statement did you say anything about automatic
> > citizenship?
>
> If the Queen wasn't automatically entitled to Australian citizenship
> then she'd presumably have to apply for it, which seems a somewhat
> improbable thing to happen. Do you have any evidence that she's ever
> applied for citizenship, or otherwise been granted it?
That wasn't your statement nor the one I was replying to. I have no
evidence either way as to whether she has or has not. You said that
the "Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
2007". That is incorrect.
> > Assuming that is what you meant, are people not entitled to automatic
> > citizenship to be ineligible for Head of State in your republic?
>
> My republic? What are you talking about? I don't live in a republic,
> and have not expressed a desire that one should be established.
Whoever's republic, the point remains to be answered.
> Pointing out that the Queen is not an Australian citizen is simply a
> statement of legal fact.
That's as may be, but that has little to do with a coherent argument
as to why a country ought to be a republic or not. Nevertheless,
> Whether that legal fact is material or not is ultimately for the Australian electorate to decide.
Well, it isn't the Australian electorate who are presenting themselves
here with this ir that argument. I am here only countering those who
are presenting their arguments on this forum.
> However, even
> if she were an Australian citizen by express statutory provision, it
> seems improbable that the debate on the monarchy in Australia would be couched in different terms, or would be at a different level of
> intensity.
So what? Each argument will be faced and countered as it is
presented.
> > Are
> > you going to ban adoptees? Are you going to ban immigrants? Are you
> > going to ban people who acquired their citizenship by marriage? Are
> > you going to ban natural born Australians who may have lost their
> > citizenship due to old laws on dual citizenship?
>
> Now you're just getting hysterical.
Hardly. I am trying to follow the logic of your argument. It is you
who mentioned automatic citizenship, so I have simply asked you about
the categories of citizen who also do not have an automatic right to
citizenship.
Jan Böhme
> On Nov 30, 2:54 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
> I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all.
Very well. Then you misrepresented him instead.
> The Queen does not hold dual
> citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British.
I'm just an ignorant Swede, but the way I understand the whole idea of
different realms and all that, the Queen is exactly as much an
Australian citizen as she is a citizen of UKOGBANI, in a strictly
legal sense.
You may well be right inasmuch as the Queen's _ethnicity_, when viewed
from Australia, seems to be British (whatever a "British" ethnicity
might be) rather than Australian - whatever an "Australian" ethnicity
might be.
But then we're talking about subjective assessments of two ethnic
categories, which both are rather questionable in and by themselves,
rather than about the law. And besides, discrimination on ethnic
grounds has rather a bad name these days.
Saying "I don't want an absentee Head of State who governs through a
representative" is fair enough, and certainly a valid point of view.
Your Blut-und-Boden style reasoning about what the Queen "really" is
strikes me as considerably less satisfactory.
Jan Böhme
Nicho...@gmail.com
I don't remember Mr. Buyers' precise statement, but you are
deliberately misunderstanding Jan.
If being British = not Australian, than logically Greek = not
Australian. Since all descendants of Greeks are by definition, Greek
nationals you have strongly implied no-one of Greek descent deserves
to be head of state in Australia.
So answer Jan's simple question:
Should a person of Greek descent ever be Australian Head of State? If
yes, why do you have a problem with a British national being
Australian head of State?
Nick
Louis Epstein
: On Nov 29, 4:16 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote:
:> In alt.talk.royalty jel...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:> : On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Indeed you would be perfectly correct.
:> :>
:> :> Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant
:> :> of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner.
:> :> Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
:> :> of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
:> :> foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
:> : That is simply not true. Members of the commonwealth are subject to
:> : the same Australian immigration laws as anyone from other countries.
:> : Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
:> : they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
:> : have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
:> : here at all.
:> More to the point...
:> Her Majesty the Queen is by definition THE MOST Australian,
:> MOST Canadian,
:> MOST Jamaican,
:> MOST Barbadian,
:> etc. person in the world...as all those nationalities are
:> properly defined through allegiance to Her person.
:>
:
: You would have trouble trying to convince the majority of Australians
: of that.
This indicates a disastrous weakness on the part of the Australian
educational system.
:> -=-=-
Louis Epstein
: On Nov 30, 2:54 am, "Jan B0hme" <jan....@sh.se> wrote:
:> On 28 Nov, 22:34, jel...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:> > On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susu...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> > > Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
:> > > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
:> > > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
:> ><snip>
:> > Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
:> > they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
:> > have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
:> > here at all.
:>
:> The actual issue that Christopher raised is different from the one you
:> imagined. It's about dual nationality: If the Queen won't do as an
:> Australian because she holds other nationalities as well, why would
:> another Australian with dual nationality - say, being both an
:> Australian and a Greek national - be eligible as Head of State?
:>
:
: I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual
: citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British. That was my point.
The Queen does not merely hold,
but is the defining epicenter of,
the nationalities of all the Realms
of which She is Sovereign!
Louis Epstein
Louis Epstein
: On Nov 30, 12:01 pm, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com> wrote:
:> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:44:12 -0800 (PST), "AGw. (Usenet)"
:>
:>
:> <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
:> >On Nov 30, 9:56 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> >> On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:> >> > The Queen does not hold dual
:> >> > citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British.
:>
:> >> And the legal basis for this is?
:>
:> >The Queen does not appear to satisfy the requirements of either the
:> >Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the new Australian Citizenship Act
:> >2007.
:>
:> >I suppose it's possible that she's been granted Australian citizenship
:> >at some point, but that would have required explicit action in that
:> >regard by the Australian government. I would have thought that such
:> >things were a matter for public record, though.
:>
:> It seems to me to be reasonably obvious that the Queen cannot be a
:> citizen of any of her realms. If she was, she wouldn't be Queen.
:>
: That entirely depends on the laws of the land concerned. Though I do
: agree that is the British legal concept, it isn't necessarily the
: interpretation in other foreign realms.
But a law's making a contrafactual assertion can not
affect the intrinsic nature of Monarchy.
: That having been said, the Australian constitution actually says
: nothing whatever about citizenship. It does, however, speak of
: subjects of the Queen, upon whom it confers certain rights.
:
: My responses here are simply arguments against republicans, who
: imagine that the Shaw case is ammunition with which they can beat up a
: dear old lady. Alas, there are several ways to skin their cat. No harm
: in doing so nine times over.
-=-=-
jel...@bigpond.com
wrote:
And you have totally misunderstood what I said. I have no problem at
all with a British national being Australian HOS as long as they are
also an Australian citizen, that is a dual national. What is all this
talk of Greek descent ? Why should that be a problem ? Melbourne is
the second Greek city in the world after Athens. As I said earlier The
Queen is not an Australian citizen, that is the problem that many
Australians have, not the fact that she is British.
jel...@bigpond.com
> In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> : On Nov 29, 4:16 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Oh please we are living in the 21st century, the time of absolutism is
over. I have no problem with monarchy at all, if it is merely symbolic
in style.
jel...@bigpond.com
> In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> : On Nov 30, 2:54 am, "Jan B0hme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
> :> On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
> :>
> :> > On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> > > Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
> :> > > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
> :> > > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
> :> ><snip>
> :> > Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
> :> > they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
> :> > have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
> :> > here at all.
> :>
> :> The actual issue that Christopher raised is different from the one you
> :> imagined. It's about dual nationality: If the Queen won't do as an
> :> Australian because she holds other nationalities as well, why would
> :> another Australian with dual nationality - say, being both an
> :> Australian and a Greek national - be eligible as Head of State?
> :>
> :> Jan B?hme
> :
> : I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual
> : citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British. That was my point.
> :
>
> The Queen does not merely hold,
> but is the defining epicenter of,
> the nationalities of all the Realms
> of which She is Sovereign!
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
However that is not to say she is Australian, or Indian or Jamaican.
Rico
have to revoke mine. Oh, you can't do that or I'll be a stateless person.
"AGw. (Usenet)" <fred...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b154a0d7-09e5-43b1...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Don Aitken
>And you have totally misunderstood what I said. I have no problem at
>all with a British national being Australian HOS as long as they are
>also an Australian citizen, that is a dual national. What is all this
>talk of Greek descent ? Why should that be a problem ? Melbourne is
>the second Greek city in the world after Athens. As I said earlier The
>Queen is not an Australian citizen, that is the problem that many
>Australians have, not the fact that she is British.
But she isn't a British *citizen* - she isn't a citizen of anywhere.
If Australian law was changed to make her an Australian citizen, that
would be the only citizenship she had.
You haven't grasped what the position of the sovereign is. It is a
rule of the common law, applying in *both* countries that legislation
affects the sovereign only expressly or by *necessary* implication.
The fact that she satisifes the criteria which would make anyone else
a British citizen is irrelevant.
Nicho...@gmail.com
Partly, but the communications errors seem to be on both ends.
> I have no problem at
> all with a British national being Australian HOS as long as they are
> also an Australian citizen, that is a dual national.
I'll assume you're referring to dual citizenship. Nationality is
technically another matter entirely. Kurdish is a nationality, but
nobody has Kurdish citizenship.
> What is all this
> talk of Greek descent ? Why should that be a problem ? Melbourne is
> the second Greek city in the world after Athens. As I said earlier The
> Queen is not an Australian citizen, that is the problem that many
> Australians have, not the fact that she is British.
Greek Aussies are all dual citizens. And you apparently hated the idea
of a Head of State who was a citizen of a foreign country. That hang-
up's not as rare as you'd think -- Canada's Governor-General married a
French citizen, getting automatic French citizenship, and had to
renounce it when she took office. IIRC the current leader of the
Canadian Opposition also took some flak for being a dual-citizen.
Nick
Louis Epstein
: Oh please we are living in the 21st century, the time of absolutism is
: over. I have no problem with monarchy at all, if it is merely symbolic
: in style.
The lack of popularity of theoretical absolutism can never
affect its status as the ideal system of government.
That's true in the 21st century AD,as it was in the 21st century BC,
and will be in the 121st!
:> :> -=-=-
Louis Epstein
:
: However that is not to say she is Australian, or Indian or Jamaican.
Of course she is...because it is only by holding
allegiance to her that one can be Australian or Jamaican.
(Not Indian...though from 1952 to 1956 she was the most
Pakistani person in the world).
:> -=-=-
Rico
<jel...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:999b5721-482c-4117...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The soverigns of Britiain have never been citizens of their own country.
The as subjects of their anscestors they were defined as British subjects in
the same context of the current laws and ceased to be subjects once they
became the soverign (the exception to the law was George I)
jel...@bigpond.com
However she is British, and most certainly not Australian. One the
original points of this thread was to do with Australia not having a
local as it's Head of State. Nothing Mr Buyers has said warrants The
Queen being labelled as an Australia.
jel...@bigpond.com
I have no problem with dual citizenship. I happen to be a dual citizen
myself, as are my children. I do have a problem with a foriegner being
the Head of State of another country.
Louis Epstein
: On Dec 2, 9:04 am, "Nicholas...@gmail.com" <Nicholas...@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:> On Nov 30, 9:01 pm, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:> > On Dec 1, 3:56 am, "Nicholas...@gmail.com" <Nicholas...@gmail.com>
:> > wrote:
:>
:> > > On Nov 30, 4:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:>
:> > > > > On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
:>
:> > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> > > > > > > Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
:> > > > > > > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
:> > > > > > > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
:> > > > > ><snip>
:> > > > > > Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
:> > > > > > they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
:> > > > > > have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
:> > > > > > here at all.
:>
:> > > > > The actual issue that Christopher raised is different from the one you
:> > > > > imagined. It's about dual nationality: If the Queen won't do as an
:> > > > > Australian because she holds other nationalities as well, why would
:> > > > > another Australian with dual nationality - say, being both an
:> > > > > Australian and a Greek national - be eligible as Head of State?
:>
:>
:> > > > I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual
I have a problem with nations of the Commonwealth deliberately cultivating
identities distinct from one another beyond what good faith efforts in
concert can contrive to avoid.
Sharing a Head of State should be considered vital to all of them,
and Governors-General should preferably be from anywhere EXCEPT the
Dominion in which they serve.
jel...@bigpond.com
> On , , Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:06:32 -0800 (PST), Re: Time for an
> Australia Republic is never!, George <qat-che...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 30 Nov, 21:18, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 8:56 pm, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> >> > > On Nov 30, 2:54 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Nov 29, 12:23 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals
> >> > > > > > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such
> >> > > > > > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State?
> >> > > > ><snip>
> >> > > > > Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not
> >> > > > > they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I
> >> > > > > have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue
> >> > > > > here at all.
>
> >> > > > The actual issue that Christopher raised is different from the one you
> >> > > > imagined. It's about dual nationality: If the Queen won't do as an
> >> > > > Australian because she holds other nationalities as well, why would
> >> > > > another Australian with dual nationality - say, being both an
> >> > > > Australian and a Greek national - be eligible as Head of State?
>
>
> >> > > I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual
>
>
> >> citizen ?
>
> >of the Queen of Australia.
>
> >It is the Queen who authorises Australian passports, whose
> >representative appoints the Australian Prime Minister, etc. It is to
> >the Queen that the Australian Defence forces swear allegiance.
>
> Quite, my New Zealand passport says "The Governor-General in the
> Realm of New Zealand requests in the Name of Her Majesty The
> Queen all whom it may concern to allow the holder to pass without
> delay or hinderance and in case of need to give all lawful
> assistance and protection."
However stripping away the rhetoric and legalese, the fact remains
that the majority of Australians view The Queen as a foreigner, simply
because she is not Australian. She was born in England, speaks with an
English accent (at least the 1940's version) and her grandson jumped
up and down with pleasure when the English beat the Wallabies at
Marseille. This is the stupid anomoly that Australia finds itself in.
As previously stated no other country would stand for it, least of all
the UK.
It is just a matter of time before Australia becomes a republic. With
the ditching of Howard that time has shrunk considerably.
CJ Buyers
>
On the basis of where people were born, and what accent they speak
with, precious few would be regarded as "Australians" by your score.
So, one suspects that you have not exactly consulted the majority of
Australians. Though as an aside, that majority seems to be falling.
Not long ago you had consulted 100% of them and 99% had agreed with
you. Might one ask how long the lapse in time between your first and
second referendums?
I do not know if that distinguished gentleman of Chinese extraction is
still in office, but the fellow who was Lord Mayor of Melbourne during
the last Commonwealth games could hardly be understood.
One of my mother's neighbours has lived in the country for 56 years
and one still has to speak to her in a sort of broken pigeon English,
sorry "Australian". She has not even graduated to the point of
accent.
There are parts of Melbourne where one can go down whole streets where
the shop signs are all in Vietnamese and Chinese. How many of them, do
you suppose, speak with an Australian accent?
jel...@bigpond.com
Sorry My Buyers I will contact all 20 million of them tomorrow in
order to obtain their opinions.
You have completely misunderstood my post My Buyers, which explains
why you are still trying to flog musty old books in the flash suburb
of Croydon. I assume you are talking about the Melbourne suburbs of
Foostcray and Sunshine ? Great people and fantastic food, and yes they
speak English with an Australian accent. And I am more certain that
these wonderful children of recent migrants will vote for a republic
in due course. Because you see Mr Buyers all they all feel that The
Queen is a foreigner. How about you try to persuade them otherwise ?
BTW your anti-Australian ranting has been noted.
Jan Böhme
> There are parts of Melbourne where one can go down whole streets where
> the shop signs are all in Vietnamese and Chinese. How many of them, do
> you suppose, speak with an Australian accent?
Leaving aside the sticky question of what a native Australian accent
really is. Is it only the "Stroilian" of the South-East? Or is the
quite different accent of the Sandgropers of Perth included? If it is,
then also the New Zealanders must speak with an Australian accent,
mustn't they? Perhaps some South Africans too, come to think about it.
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
> BTW your anti-Australian ranting has been noted.
Is the Committee for Un-Australian Activities at work?
Jan Böhme
jel...@bigpond.com
Did'nt you read his words ?
CJ Buyers
So, the so-called 99% and the majority of Australians, turn out not to
have been consulted or at all.
> You have completely misunderstood my post My Buyers, which explains why you are still trying to flog musty old books in the flash suburb of Croydon.
On the contrary, I have understood you perfectly well. Amongst other
things, you cannot read. The constant reference to books being musty
only suggests that those found in your vicinity have never been
touched.
>I assume you are talking about the Melbourne suburbs of
> Foostcray and Sunshine ?
Sunshine and Footscray, certainly not. You need to familiarise
yourself with Australia a little bit more.
> Great people and fantastic food, and yes they
> speak English with an Australian accent. And I am more certain that
> these wonderful children of recent migrants will vote for a republic
> in due course.
Children of recent immigrants? Is that how you understand the phrase
"lived in the country for 56 years"?
> Because you see Mr Buyers all they all feel that The
> Queen is a foreigner.
Sorry, did these people express that opinion in the first referendum
you held or the second? Or the one you are going to hold now?
How about you try to persuade them otherwise ?
I will not need to do anything of the sort. You will persuade them of
the shallowness of your argument the moment you put it forward. See
how far you get with them, arguing that people be forbidden from being
Australian Head of State, on the grounds of where they were born and
the accent they speak with.
CJ Buyers
> On 4 Dec, 12:08, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > There are parts of Melbourne where one can go down whole streets where
> > the shop signs are all in Vietnamese and Chinese. How many of them, do
> > you suppose, speak with an Australian accent?
>
> Leaving aside the sticky question of what a native Australian accent
> really is. Is it only the "Stroilian" of the South-East? Or is the
> quite different accent of the Sandgropers of Perth included?
Not to mention the Queensland drawl!
> If it is,
> then also the New Zealanders must speak with an Australian accent,
> mustn't they? Perhaps some South Africans too, come to think about it.
>
Now, now, that's getting too close to those dastardly Zimbabweans
again. Poor Mr Secretary Hain, he has plenty on his plate to cope with.
jel...@bigpond.com
You just don't get it do you ? So my argument that the majority of
Australians would prefer an Australian as HOS is shallow ? What planet
do you live on Mr Buyers. You are a fool and an idiot if you think
otherwise. The first and last referendum was in 1999 (I should know as
I voted in it) was a sham, a delibrate set up by the monarchist
government. The ambiguity of what a republic might actually
consititute turned people away. The Monarchists argument revlved
around "if it works why change it ?" I am certain the next ref. will
have a different result. For a start a large % of voters who voted for
the status quo are in fact now dead.
You don't do humour very well at all do you ?
"Children of recent immigrants" was in reference to the Vietnamese you
spoke of. And yes I was right about the Melbourne suburbs I spoke of
and you were WRONG My Buyers. Too much time holed up in cosmopolitan
Croydon.
jel...@bigpond.com
Get real, there are more differences between the accents of those born
in Sunderland and Newcastle, than there is between those born in
Brisbane, Melbourne or Perth.
It is so patronising when people pretend to claim they are experts on
places they only read about.
Donald4564
Not all of us who voted for the status quo in 1999 are dead, although
the few "Yes" voters at the 1999 refererendum would probably wish us
to be in that state. The argument that we have a 'foreigner' as
sovereign is shallow. Australia is full of 'foreigners' if we take
your argument further. The main reason voters did not wish to change
to a republic was because they don't trust politicians and with good
reason. One only has to look at the legislation that Whitlam and Wran
tried to put through in the 70's and 80's - desperately trying to find
ways of tampering with the Constitution without having to put it to
referendum.
We would be far better off in Australia if we were rid of State
Governments as under our three tier system we are over-governed
completely - besides which the States are still 'sovereign' under the
present Federal system. This latter point has caused confusion and
mayhem over the years and has not been completely straightened out
under the Australia Acts of 1986, for instance if there had been a
successful "Yes" vote in the 1999 referendum in say a majority of four
states out of six, then the other two states could have remained under
the monarchy.
The other argument often put to me about retaining the monarchy and
for that matter the flag, is that other countries might have a
disparaging view of us. Quite what another country's view of what the
situation is in my country to me is neither here nor there. It is for
me and my fellow Australians to decide what is right for us and no
other country's business. Gough Whitlam used to parade around telling
us that our flag was too similar to New Zealand's or the Cook Island's
and that people from other countries have difficulty in distinguishing
it - I would have liked to ask him if he could distinguish between the
flags of Benin and Togoland? Again the flag of Australia is for
Australians and not for other countries to decide - too bad if they
can't distinguish it - we can.
I, and a good many of Australians are quite proud of the uniqueness of
our system of sharing our sovereign with other Commonwealth nations.
We are a bastion of democracy and decency in a world that is ever
increasingly not beleiving in such things.
Regards
Donald Binks
CJ Buyers
Yabba, dabba, do.
You are certain this, 99% of Australians think that, the majority of
Australians agree somthing else, most Ausralians, blah, blah, blah.
All bluff an bluster without the slightest evidence for anything.
What happened? Sore that Turnbull was defeated in the Liberal election
and the new PM has said there won't be a referendum during at least
his first term.
> You don't do humour very well at all do you ?
>
> "Children of recent immigrants" was in reference to the Vietnamese you
> spoke of.
I did not even mention the children of Vietnamese anywhere.
> And yes I was right about the Melbourne suburbs I spoke of
> and you were WRONG My Buyers.
The children of Vietnamese may live there, but I was obviously not
talking about them. Unless you are saying that the children of
immigrants also do not speak the language.
You have quite obviously not been around Melbourne very much, have
you. Where does your answer com frome? Did you consult "99% of
Australians" again, or did you hav another word with your pal down the
pub?
> Too much time holed up in cosmopolitan
> Croydon.- Hide quoted text -
>
Sorry old chap, your saying something is wrong, even in capital
letters, does not make it so.
CJ Buyers
Really? The accents of an Italian immigrant born in Sicily in Syndey
is the same as one born in Florence in Melboure? The accent of a non-
English speaking Malay in the Cocos Islands is the same as an
Aboriginal in the Northern Territory? The accent of a Greek born
Australian is the same as a white WASP in Brisbane or a Vietnamse in
North Melbourne? The accent of a Cypriot Turk in Adelaide is the same
as a Lebanese in Hobart?
Gosh you know Australia so well. No wonder you imagine you know the
minds of 99% of Australians?
jel...@bigpond.com
Don't be so bloody stupid Mr Buyers, You know full well what I was
talking about. I do know the country well considering I have lived
here for over 20 odd years. There is little or no difference between
the accents of people from Brisbane or Perth, if they are from the
same ethnic background. You have confused the matter for your own
devious ends.
You are a fool and obviously worse a mischief maker.
jel...@bigpond.com
Melbourne ? I visit there at least once sometimes more a year.
Malcolm Turnbull. He bats for the enemy. Actually I was glad he was
not voted leader as the guy who was will shoot himself in the foot
very quickly indeed.
I stick by my statement, the next time there is a referendum, whether
it is 5 or 10 years down the track will result in The Queen (or
perhaps her son) being given their marching orders.
CJ Buyers
I did not say that you have not visited it, I said you do not know it.
Just as you believe that you have conducted fantasy referendums on
what "99% of Australians" believe, or the "majority" of Australians
think, or "most Australians" would like, I have no doubt that you
sleep walk your way through Melbourne too.
Of course, there is always the possibility that you know exactly what
I am talking about. That you have been using bluff and bluster in the
mistaken view that people contributing here do not know about
Australia.
> Malcolm Turnbull. He bats for the enemy. Actually I was glad he was
> not voted leader as the guy who was will shoot himself in the foot
> very quickly indeed.
You imagine.
> I stick by my statement, ...
Which statement? The one where you had already consulted the
Australian people and "99%" (including presumably lunatics and babes
in arms) had supported a republic? Or do you mean your other
referendum in which the "majority" had voted in favour? Perhaps you
mean the third one, where "most" people did?
> the next time there is a referendum, whether
> it is 5 or 10 years down the track will result in The Queen (or
> perhaps her son) being given their marching orders.- Hide quoted text -
>
Oh, somehow I doubt it. Next time round you will not have the Diana
effeect to put any wind in your sails. Instead, a couple of visits or
family events with young Prince Will, has time to work a little bit of
majic over at least 50% of those young Australians.
CJ Buyers
Yes I do know exactly what you mean. You were speaking of an exclusive
sector of the "white" community, and excluding just about every other
race and ethnic community there is. The very people your ilk of
disreputable knaves try to use as justification for a republic.
> I do know the country well considering I have lived
> here for over 20 odd years.
Well, you may have lived there for 20 years, but you are showing very
little evidence of knowing it very much?
How long one lives in a country is no evidence of anything. My
mother's neighbour has lived in Australia for over fifty years, thirty
years longer than you have. She still cannot even speak the lingo and
needs to be spoken to in a sort of broken pigeon "Australian".
> There is little or no difference between
> the accents of people from Brisbane or Perth, if they are from the
> same ethnic background.
Katchung! That's called "shooting your fox".
jel...@bigpond.com
>
> read more >>
No bluff or bluster Mr Buyers, I simply disagree with you and that
sticks in your craw.
What fantasy referendums ? Are you saying that the majority of
Australians are in a favour of a monarchy ?
jel...@bigpond.com
Absolute horseshit Mr Buyers. I happen to be a migrant myself. I fight
for the rights of migrants whenever I can. I fight racism whenever I
can. You need to address the obvious elitist crap you and Louis
Epstein spout in this ng.
My mother's neighbour ! Is she intellectually challenged as you appear
to be ? Guess she must be if she still can't understand what people
are saying to her in a country she has lived in for half a century.
CJ Buyers
Horseshit, there used to be a lot of it about. Australia used to breed
horses for the empire.
> I happen to be a migrant myself. I fight
> for the rights of migrants whenever I can. I fight racism whenever I
> can. You need to address the obvious elitist crap you and Louis
> Epstein spout in this ng.
Oh sure, sure, sure.
We have seen you "defend" immigrants on this board no end. But those
immigrants you defend are quite obviously only those who speak English
with the accent of "white" Australians. They are not included if they
speak with the accent with which they were born, do not speak English,
or even if they happen to speak with the same accent of those who are
the original inhabitants of Australia. So never mind immigrants, even
the accents of the Aboriginals are not "Australian" enough for you.
> My mother's neighbour ! Is she intellectually challenged as you appear
> to be ? Guess she must be if she still can't understand what people
> are saying to her in a country she has lived in for half a century.- Hide quoted text -
Intellectually challenged? Dear, dear is that more evidence of you
fighting for the rights of migrants?
There are many more people like her in Australia, as there are in all
immigrant communities all over the world. If their community is large
enough, it is possible to spend a whole lifetime working in an Italian
owned firm, using an Italian doctor, shopping in Italian shops, eating
in Italian eateries and confessing to an Italian priest on Sundays. In
some communities they eve have their own schools, so that some
children born in the country can still end up speaking with the accent
of their forefathers.
jel...@bigpond.com
Not only are you a bigoted fool, but you also throw accusations around
at will. Let me be clear on a few points My Buyers. I am no racist. I
am a migrant. I view a multcultural society as my ideal. I have a
strong northern English accent. I work very closely, and with fondness
with Aboriginal Australians. I am busy learning to speak Arabic. I
have no idea where you get your slanderous statements from. However it
seems to me, despite your embarrasing posturing in claiming that The
Queen is Australian, you just can't bear the thought that this country
might vote to become a republic. It seems to me it is this which
upsets you the most.
CJ Buyers
Don't you mean to say "some of your best friends are Aboriginals"?
I am afraid all these protestations now are no help, you have already
exposed yourself with your own words. You will have to be satisfied
with suing yourself. It is you who excluded Abroiginals and immigrants
from your "Australian" accents. It is you who said that a lady who did
not speak Australian after living there for over 50 years was
intellectually challenged, not I. That is on record here for all time.
Belated pretenses about who your friends are and what languages you
are trying to speak, will not take any of that away.
> However it
> seems to me, despite your embarrasing posturing in claiming that The
> Queen is Australian ...
I do not have to posture anything. I have given the references to
Australia's own laws. Which, I have still not seen you refute. Sooner
or later you had to play the race card, which your kind usually end up
doing when cornered. That isn't my fault, that is what usually happens
with your type.
> ..., you just can't bear the thought that this country
> might vote to become a republic. It seems to me it is this which
> upsets you the most.- Hide quoted text -
Well, it seems to me that the last time that the voters of Australia
were given a chance, they voted against a republic. So if it is
anybody who cannot stand a democratic decision, it seems to be you.
jel...@bigpond.com
I said no such thing Mr Bookseller. Where did I say that only "white"
Australians should be HOS ? You are a liar. What I said, and I am
typing this very very slowly so even you can understand it, is that
only an Australian citizen should be HOS. Not someone like The Queen
who is not an Australian citizen. Now to make thigns even cleare Mr
Bookseller, I have no problem at all, in fact it would be quite
interesting to have an Sudanese refugee, who settled in Australia let
us say during 2004 (I say this because I have a couple of Sudanese
families who live a few doors down from me and the boys frequently
drop in to do their homework with my own boys) become the next
Australian HOS after we say to the British monarch, thanks but no
thanks.
Now before you reply from your moth eaten bookstore, as I can see from
your frequent replies customers are thin on the ground (the show Black
Books anyone ????), the last and only referendum to date was in 1999
(have'nt I said this already ? Clearly you read only what you want to
read) and that was frankly a sham. The next will be vastly different.
How is the weather today in glorious Croydon Mr Bookseller ?
CJ Buyers
Huff and puff away. You know perfectly well what you said. I and
another poster asked you about accents. Different kinds of accents to
be found all over Australia. Your reply was very clear. It stated that
everyone from the same ethnic group spoke with the same accent. By the
by, that staement is factually incorrect. The meaning of your
statement was to exclude everyone who was from another ethnic
background mentioned in the questions, i.e. Aboriginals, Malays,
Italians, Greeks, Lebanese, Turks. No doubt you apparent interest in
Arabic is only so that you can part them from their money.
I see you do not address the point about the lady who could not speak
Australian. Why? Did you not type that very, very slowly, or has your
brain simply been working very, very slowly?
> Now to make thigns even cleare Mr
> Bookseller, I have no problem at all, in fact it would be quite
> interesting to have an Sudanese refugee, who settled in Australia let
> us say during 2004 (I say this because I have a couple of Sudanese
> families who live a few doors down from me and the boys frequently
> drop in to do their homework with my own boys) become the next
> Australian HOS after we say to the British monarch, thanks but no
> thanks.
More window dressing, which changes nothing about what you have said
and what you actually mean deep down. I wonder what accents they speak
with? I wonder what they would think wbout your views on accents?
> Now before you reply from your moth eaten bookstore, as I can see from
> your frequent replies customers are thin on the ground (the show Black
> Books anyone ????), the last and only referendum to date was in 1999
> (have'nt I said this already ? Clearly you read only what you want to
> read) and that was frankly a sham.
Not really. You told us that 99% of Australians thought so and so,
then it was the majorityof Australians, then that became most
Australians, now I see it is none.
> The next will be vastly different.
You can hope, I suppose. Nothing wrong with that. But from the
evidence so far, I find it a little hard to take your predictions with
more than a pinch of salt.
> How is the weather today in glorious Croydon Mr Bookseller ?- Hide quoted text -
It is actually quite lovely, thanks. A few dark clouds but brightened
up by the whole world passing before my window. You see, we have the
Home Office immigration centre close by, so we are probably the most
cosmopolitan place on the planet.
By the way, we have lots and lots of water. More than we need really,
so we could send you some in water, if you like. We pay GBP 1.00 for 4
litres of milk, GBP 0.69 for bread, and GBP 1.00'kg for bananas. Shall
we send you a few food parcels?
By the way, you will not have any power to say anything to the British
monarch. Your referendum, if another comes your way, will be about the
Queen of Australia.
jel...@bigpond.com
>
> read more >>
So when you begin to lose an argument Mr Bookseller you resort to
lies, putting words into the mouths to suit your own ends. You have
twisted and misconstrued my words to bolster your very weak, and
frankly idiotic argument that The Queen is Australian. I have noticed
that you are not very liked on this ng. I am beginning to realise why.
To put the record straight for the umpteenth time, as clearly you are
not that bright, my original statement was that there was very little
difference in the Australian accent between its major cities, unlike
Britain. You have twisted that to somehow me wanting to disallow or
rubbish non-white Australian communities. You sad little creep of a
man. That is not whta I said, and you know it.
I assume then there is dark little plump raincloud sitting over your
miserable bookshop.
Jan Böhme
That's as may be, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if we
are to define an "Australian" accent such that it actually includes
all native Australians, then it also will have to include a lot of non-
Australian citizens, including citizens of entire countries like New
Zealand.
Either a New Zealander speaks with an Australian accent, or a native
of Perth doesn't. Take your pick.
> It is so patronising when people pretend to claim they are experts on
> places they only read about.
It's actually a bit risky to make conclusions of what people have
first-hand experience or not about from a Usenet discussion. But I can
tell you that, whatever I else may have first-hand experience of,
working at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre in Nedlands, W.A.,
gave me quite a decent first-hand experience of the local accent in
the Perth area.
Jan Böhme
jel...@bigpond.com
Jan, having lived in Australia for over 20 years I think I am
qualified to speak on the Australian accent. I was originally talking
of the generic one. Of course there a myriad of others, which would be
defined by their ethnic or racial group. It is not unusual for people
to talk of "Lebenese Australian" accent or a "Greek Australian"
accent. I was not questioning that. I was simply saying that the
generic Australian accent differs little from state to state, unlike
Britain or Germany for that matter.
To further the example, in Australia there is not the variety that say
exists in the USA, where there is definate New York accent or a
southern accent. That was the nature of my point, not that nonsense
that Mr Buyers is spouting, which frankly accuses me of rubbishing non-
white Australians. That is not what I said, and nothing could be
further from the truth. On top of that he refutes and belittles by
explanations.
CJ Buyers
>
And your convoluted reasoning for excluding the accents of Aboriginals
from the "generic" pool is?
Quite how the Melbourne accent can be regarded as close to that of
Brisbane, when a much larger number and proportion of Greeks live in
Melbourne, remains unexplained.
"Generic" Australian does not seem to include either native or
immigrant. Sounds like "generic" is double speak for a very nasty
prejudice that dare not speak its name.
jel...@bigpond.com
Are you accusing me of being a racist you piece of shit ? Because if
you are you then you could hardly be further from the truth. Please
quote where I have exluded anyone from anything in terms of
Australia ? You are an dishonourable man as you can not take a
person's word at face value. You have on purpose decided to besmirch
me simply because of my strident views on Australian republicanism.
Jan Böhme
> Jan, having lived in Australia for over 20 years I think I am
> qualified to speak on the Australian accent. I was originally talking
> of the generic one. Of course there a myriad of others, which would be
> defined by their ethnic or racial group. It is not unusual for people
> to talk of "Lebenese Australian" accent or a "Greek Australian"
> accent. I was not questioning that. I was simply saying that the
> generic Australian accent differs little from state to state, unlike
> Britain or Germany for that matter.
Yes. But _my_ point wasn't about different immigrant accents. My point
was that the dialectal differences indeed are limited - but not only
throughout Australia, but in English of the entire Southern
hemisphere, such that some native, "generic" if you like, variants of
Australian are indistinguishable from "generic" variants of other
countries - notably that of New Zealand, but also indistinguishable
from certain idiolects in Southern Africa.
Thus, either one has to accept that New Zealanders speak with an
Australian accent, or define "Australian accent" so narrowly that it
excludes a good deal of the speakers of "generic" Australian
themselves.
Jan Böhme
CJ Buyers
>
Oh dear or dear. The innocent republican in a cruel, cruel world.
I do not need to accuse you of anything. You wrote it all out
yourself, very, very slowly.
It is you who excluded Aboriginals. It is you who excluded just about
every other immigrant group as not being "generic". It is you who said
that a lady of Italian origin who had not learned Australian, after
living there for over 50 years, was intellectually challenged.
Master Sudan, if he exists at all, will read those words and ask
himself: if that is what he thinks about an Italian and a European, I
wonder what he thinks about my dear old mum.
All the protestations after the event change nothing. Your words are
on record, in your own posts.
jel...@bigpond.com
You are dead wrong mate. I was also very naive when I first arrived
here. I thought the Australian and New Zealand accents were one in the
same, now they sound as different to my ear as say between a Scouse
and Geordie accent. Try telling someone from Auckland that they sound
similar to someone from Adelaide or for that matter Cape Town.
jel...@bigpond.com
I excluded no one and you know that. At worst you are a lair, at best
a pest with too much time on his hands.
You are also dishonourable, unable to believe what posters tell you.
It is little wonder that no likes you.
CJ Buyers
>
Sticks and stones old chap, sticks and stones. Or shucks you want
people to like me. How nice. Should I believe that, I wonder. Or are
you telling lies?
I notice there is no specific denial about calling people who had not
learned "Australian" intellectually challenged.
I give you the chance of doing that here and now.