The Picture of Elizabeth II
Serge
As Australia's Head of State, the Queen's portrait insolently appears on our
currency, a ludicrous situation I grant you, and one which is anathema to an
avowed republican such as myself.
However, be that as it may, when receiving some coins in change recently I
paused to examine the Queen's portrait more closely. One coin was minted in
1998 but she didn't look a day over 30, all the other coins were similarly
afflicted. I immediately checked the notes in my wallet and was aghast to
discover that here to, she didn't look a day over 30. Her portrait was
perfect in every detail, ageless no blemishes or wrinkles, no spots. It was
almost as if time had stood still.
It put me in mind of Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" but with the
central theme going terribly wrong.
Instead of the portrait becoming hideously grotesque and disgusting over the
years whilst the subject remained flawless. Here we had the opposite. The
portrait was flawless whilst the subject became hideously grotesque and
disgusting.
An epiphany?
Yes, but it stood out like dogs balls on a hot day!
Serge.
Paul C. Dickie
<serg...@one.net.au> writes
>An epiphany?
>Yes, but it stood out like dogs balls on a hot day!
I'll have to take your word for that, Serge. Unlike you, I don't go
round inspecting canine gonads...
But I'm astounded that you'd really stoop so low...
--
< Paul >
a.spencer3
Surreyman
Paul C. Dickie <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yY65SUDQ...@bozzie.demon.co.uk...
Mango
"Serge" <serg...@one.net.au> wrote in message
news:6xlo7.5504$iH4.3...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> As Australia's Head of State, the Queen's portrait insolently appears on
our
> currency, a ludicrous situation I grant you, and one which is anathema to
an
> avowed republican such as myself.
>
> However, be that as it may, when receiving some coins in change recently I
> paused to examine the Queen's portrait more closely. One coin was minted
in
> 1998 but she didn't look a day over 30, all the other coins were similarly
> afflicted. I immediately checked the notes in my wallet and was aghast to
> discover that here to, she didn't look a day over 30. Her portrait was
> perfect in every detail, ageless no blemishes or wrinkles, no spots. It
was
> almost as if time had stood still.
>
You must have diferent coins to me. Mine show wrinkles on the forehead and
neck and a double chin.
ant
our
> currency, a ludicrous situation I grant you, and one which is anathema to
an
> avowed republican such as myself.
>
> However, be that as it may, when receiving some coins in change recently I
> paused to examine the Queen's portrait more closely. One coin was minted
in
> 1998 but she didn't look a day over 30, all the other coins were similarly
> afflicted. I immediately checked the notes in my wallet and was aghast to
> discover that here to, she didn't look a day over 30. Her portrait was
> perfect in every detail, ageless no blemishes or wrinkles, no spots. It
was
> almost as if time had stood still.
>
checks coinc, one minted in 73, another in 89 and the final one in 99.
pretty clear progression of age on the portraits, those being representative
of the three different portraits used when minting our coins, the 73 is
youthfull as the day it was first inscribed by the artist shortly after the
coronation, then we have the 89 updated version with the larger crown,
deinfately an older face, then onto the 99 coin witht he new protrait and a
return to the smaller crown from the 73 coins, nice signs of age on her
face.
so in conclusion its clear that yo dont have a clue what you are talking
about.
ant
Lilibet
I say, this REALLY is becoming most tedious.
Why do my subjects continue to treat me with such utter contempt?
I'm particularly annoyed with that wretched Colonial scoundrel Serge for
continually posting offensive comments.
His latest post has Mother inconsolable, and my poor dear Husband apoplectic
with rage.
If there were some truth to his assertion:
"Instead of the portrait becoming hideously grotesque and disgusting over
the years, whilst the subject remained flawless. Here we had the opposite.
The portrait was flawless whilst the subject became hideously grotesque and
disgusting."
. . . then he may have had a point, no matter how rude, but it is an obvious
slander.
Every Friday night after Philip's weekly bath he comes to my bedchamber and
tells me how attractive he thinks I am.
I feel I may have to unleash Lord Such onto this insufferable fellow so that
he too will be forced into exile like Karen Horn, Annie Facstaff, Ppill and
the soon to follow Adrienne, the Australian hayseed and Sacha that totally
amoral and unprincipled 'business' woman.
I'm indebted to Lord Such for cleaning up my beloved 'alt.gossip.royalty'
and pray he will do the same with 'alt.history.british'.
Lilibet
"Serge" <serg...@one.net.au> wrote in message
news:M8rE6.5906$EQ3.2...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> As Australia's Head of State, the Queen's portrait insolently appears on
> our currency, a ludicrous situation I grant you, and one which is anathema
> to an avowed republican such as myself.
>
> However, be that as it may, when receiving some coins in change recently I
> paused to examine the Queen's portrait more closely. One coin was minted
> in 1998 but she didn't look a day over 30, all the other coins were
> similarly afflicted. I immediately checked the notes in my wallet and was
> aghast to discover that here to, she didn't look a day over 30. Her
> portrait was perfect in every detail, ageless no blemishes or wrinkles, no
> spots. It was almost as if time had stood still.
>
> It put me in mind of Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" but with the
> central theme going terribly wrong.
>
> Instead of the portrait becoming hideously grotesque
> and disgusting over the years, whilst the subject remained flawless. Here
> we had the opposite.
>
> The portrait was flawless whilst the subject became hideously grotesque
> and disgusting over the years.
Jack Butler
http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html
All it seeks is your response.
Please Dont Feed The Troll.
scoff
Ausies slagging off our Queen ... Mmmm could it be a troll...
Kate <kateN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15o4qtgs5bg3bs1eh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:09:18 +0100, "Jack Butler"
> <ja...@thecrossroads.com> wrote from aus.politics:
> Who is a Troll? How am I supposed to not feed one if I don't know
> they are one?
> ---
>
> Kate
Tony Hancock
"Kate" <kateN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15o4qtgs5bg3bs1eh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:09:18 +0100, "Jack Butler"
> <ja...@thecrossroads.com> wrote from aus.politics:
> they are one?
A pretty safe rule of thumb at the moment: anything crossposted between
aus.politics & a US newsgroup is a troll or a response to a troll.
John Kane
> "Serge" <serg...@one.net.au> wrote in message
> news:6xlo7.5504$iH4.3...@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > As Australia's Head of State, the Queen's portrait insolently appears on
> our
> > currency, a ludicrous situation I grant you, and one which is anathema to
> an
> > avowed republican such as myself.
> >
> > However, be that as it may, when receiving some coins in change recently I
> > paused to examine the Queen's portrait more closely. One coin was minted
> in
> > 1998 but she didn't look a day over 30, all the other coins were similarly
> > afflicted. I immediately checked the notes in my wallet and was aghast to
> > discover that here to, she didn't look a day over 30. Her portrait was
> > perfect in every detail, ageless no blemishes or wrinkles, no spots. It
> was
> > almost as if time had stood still.
> >
>
> You must have diferent coins to me. Mine show wrinkles on the forehead and
> neck and a double chin.
Mine don't but it is definately a older Queen. My coin is 1990. Serge, check
your date again.
>
>
> > It put me in mind of Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" but with the
> > central theme going terribly wrong.
> >
> > Instead of the portrait becoming hideously grotesque and disgusting over
> the
> > years whilst the subject remained flawless. Here we had the opposite. The
> > portrait was flawless whilst the subject became hideously grotesque and
> > disgusting.
> >
> > An epiphany?
> >
> > Yes, but it stood out like dogs balls on a hot day!
> >
> > Serge.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
------------------
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
Jerome Gregory
Does that make you a troll then, Girlyman Handcock, considering you
cross-post into aus.flame for the specific purpose of starting
flame wars?
J.
Serge
"Lilibet" <lil...@buck.pal.uk> wrote in message
news:JRqo7.5613$iH4.3...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> I say, this REALLY is becoming most tedious.
>
> Why do my subjects continue to treat me with such utter contempt?
>
> I'm particularly annoyed with that wretched Colonial scoundrel Serge for
> continually posting offensive comments.
>
> His latest post has Mother inconsolable, and my poor dear Husband
> apoplectic with rage.
>
> If there were some truth to his assertion:
>
> "Instead of the portrait becoming hideously grotesque and disgusting over
> the years, whilst the subject remained flawless. Here we had the opposite.
> The portrait was flawless whilst the subject became hideously grotesque
> and disgusting."
>
> . . . then he may have had a point, no matter how rude, but it is an
> obvious slander.
>
> Every Friday night after Philip's weekly bath he comes to my bedchamber
> and tells me how attractive he thinks I am.
>
> I feel I may have to unleash Lord Such onto this insufferable fellow so
that
> he too will be forced into exile like Karen Horn, Annie Facstaff, Ppill
and
> the soon to follow Adrienne, the Australian hayseed and Sacha that totally
> amoral and unprincipled 'business' woman.
>
> I'm indebted to Lord Such for cleaning up my beloved 'alt.gossip.royalty'
> and pray he will do the same with 'alt.history.british'.
>
> Lilibet
Listen you stupid, dull-witted, senile old cow.
Are you BLIND as well as stupid.
Don't you know that Lord Such is a good personal friend of mine.
Are you dyslectic, you steaming, disgusting, filthy old toe-rag, why don't
you READ some of his posts. He hates your guts, he's only taking the piss
when he swears his loyalty. He wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
You make George the 3rd look like a bloody rocket scientist, if you weren't
an accident of birth you'd be mucking out shit houses for a living.
Serge.
Lilibet
>
> Listen you stupid, dull-witted, senile old cow.
>
> Are you BLIND as well as stupid.
>
> Don't you know that Lord Such is a good personal friend of mine.
>
> Are you dyslectic, you steaming, disgusting, filthy old toe-rag, why don't
> you READ some of his posts. He hates your guts, he's only taking the piss
> when he swears his loyalty. He wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
>
> You make George the 3rd look like a bloody rocket scientist, if you
weren't
> an accident of birth you'd be mucking out shit houses for a living.
>
> Serge.
This is an obvious slander against by stalwart and Defender of the Crown,
Lord Such.
I refuse to be drawn, in what is an obvious attempt to cause friction
between us. Lord Such is, and continues to be, my strength. He is the
complete gentleman and a credit to his gender.
You Sir are a bounder and a cad.
Lilibet.
steve
<lil...@buck.pal.uk> wrote:
> "Serge" <serg...@one.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1LIo7.6168$iH4.4...@ozemail.com.au...
Drivell snipped
> >
> > Don't you know that Lord Such is a good personal friend of mine.
Considering he is dead and gone you do have strage habits. Or Are you in
communication with the dead as well?
Paul C. Dickie
<serg...@one.net.au> writes
>Don't you know that Lord Such is a good personal friend of mine.
And he's now on tour with Elvis, Linda McCartney and the Big Bopper?
--
< Paul >
David Shaw
wrote:
You Republicans will never forgive the Australian population for
voting you the weakest link, will you?
>
>
>
Ferg
> You Republicans will never forgive the Australian population for
> voting you the weakest link, will you?
Funnily enough, that referendum's result resembled quite closely the
general result in that "Weakest Link" contest where the initial rounds
see the least brainy ganging up to vote out the most brainy.
The real weakest link is this pathetically in-bred bunch of Chermans
belonging to the Saxe-Gotha-etc... family.
ok
I don't see the point you are trying to make? so what if the portrait is old
(young) who cares?
As to having the queens head on your notes in the first place, we in the UK
also have to put up with that aswell unfortunately.
Ok
Peter Mackay
ferg...@hotmail.com says...
Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
--
Cheers, Peter
AndyPandy
"Peter Mackay" <peter....@bigpond.com.aus>, a consumate liar, wrote in
message news:MPG.1611e8fbf5899a289898ba@news-server...
Andrew Thomas
would be the idea head of a milti-cultural nation like modern Australia.
"Peter Mackay" <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote in message
news:MPG.1611e8fbf5899a289898ba@news-server...
John Kane
> So what would you rather have. A smirking T.Blair?
Don't even suggest moving to something like that. Have you seen our PM? One of
the things that helped him win an election once was that the Tories come out
with a set of close up photos of him with a caption along the lines of 'Would
you want a man like this to represent you ' Very rough paraphrase. Everyone was
infuriated that the Tories would stoup so low!
Southerner
"Andrew Thomas" <Andrew...@adtconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o7pa2$jf8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I'd have thought that the present Queen, having ancestors from many
nations,
> would be the idea head of a milti-cultural nation like modern Australia.
And a female to boot, thus meeting the gender equity criteria.
[snip]
Andrew Thomas
"Southerner" <aure...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:3ba85c4b$0$589$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
Charles Dyer
(in message <9ob0j7$q28$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>):
She's fashion-challenged, or haven't you noticed those hats and those (for
lack of a better term) dresses?
And keeping Corgis just _has_ to be indicitive of some kind of severe mental
illness. The only dogs more obnoxious are Pekes. (Those Mexican things aren't
dogs, they're rats. Small ones.)
As for being black, well she's married to some Greek wog, isn't that good
enough?
--
Newsweek on tradenames:
Microsoft is a bad tradename. Micro and soft... needs Viagra.
Andrew Thomas
"Charles Dyer" <charl...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B7CE9D630...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:53:24 -0500, Andrew Thomas wrote
> (in message <9ob0j7$q28$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>):
>
> >
> > "Southerner" <aure...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3ba85c4b$0$589$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >> "Andrew Thomas" <Andrew...@adtconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
> >> news:9o7pa2$jf8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>> I'd have thought that the present Queen, having ancestors from many
> >> nations,
> >>> would be the idea head of a milti-cultural nation like modern
Australia.
> >>
> >> And a female to boot, thus meeting the gender equity criteria.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> > It's just a pity she's not black and disabled in some way !!
>
> She's fashion-challenged, or haven't you noticed those hats and those (for
> lack of a better term) dresses?
Q - What does the Queen do with her old clothes ?
A - Wear them !!
Ferg
are a *good* thing to look for in a head of state in a
South-East-Asian/South Pacific nation?
You haven't perchance noticed what an excess of Cherman genes has
caused in USA's society? Presidents who still play cowboys at the age
of 60? Luvverly, just what we bloody need.
Charles Dyer
(in message <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>):
I thought that Raygun was Irish... In fact, didn't he comment after he, Brady
and that DC cop whose name I forget got shot that it was open season on
Irishmen? The last Cherman prez was Ike, and Ike was a golfer, not a cowboy.
Michael Baker
> > Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
Hey, I applied to be a democrat, but they didn't accept me.
Peter Mackay
ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> Peter Mackay <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote in message news:<MPG.1611e8fbf5899a289898ba@news-server>...
> > In article <6b02215a.01091...@posting.google.com>,
> > ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> > > da...@f-e-mail.com (David Shaw) wrote in message news:<3ba6ed5a...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> > >
> > > > You Republicans will never forgive the Australian population for
> > > > voting you the weakest link, will you?
> > >
> > > Funnily enough, that referendum's result resembled quite closely the
> > > general result in that "Weakest Link" contest where the initial rounds
> > > see the least brainy ganging up to vote out the most brainy.
> > >
> > > The real weakest link is this pathetically in-bred bunch of Chermans
> > > belonging to the Saxe-Gotha-etc... family.
> >
> > Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
>
> Let me get this straight : You think (severely in-bred) Cherman genes
Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
--
Cheers, Peter
Ferg
and logic.
We have no need for heads of state who change their surname to appear
to be something they are not.
Changing their family name from Saxe-Gotha-(whatever) is no more nor
less racist than the reasons why we might reject the idea of having
foreigners as heads of state (as do the americans).
William Black
Ferg <ferg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> We have no need for heads of state who change their surname to appear
> to be something they are not.
>
> Changing their family name from Saxe-Gotha-(whatever) is no more nor
> less racist than the reasons why we might reject the idea of having
> foreigners as heads of state (as do the americans).
Well if you're an Australian you do, you proved it by voting for them...
And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the goalposts'.
There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Peter Mackay
ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> Peter Mackay <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote in message news:<MPG.1614f692bd8992399898d3@news-server>...
> > In article <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>,
> > ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> > > Peter Mackay <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote in message news:<MPG.1611e8fbf5899a289898ba@news-server>...
> > > > In article <6b02215a.01091...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > > da...@f-e-mail.com (David Shaw) wrote in message news:<3ba6ed5a...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > You Republicans will never forgive the Australian population for
> > > > > > voting you the weakest link, will you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Funnily enough, that referendum's result resembled quite closely the
> > > > > general result in that "Weakest Link" contest where the initial rounds
> > > > > see the least brainy ganging up to vote out the most brainy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The real weakest link is this pathetically in-bred bunch of Chermans
> > > > > belonging to the Saxe-Gotha-etc... family.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
> > >
> > > Let me get this straight : You think (severely in-bred) Cherman genes
> >
> > Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
>
> Your exceedingly tenuous inference of racism is incorrect in both fact
> and logic.
People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
German ancestry. That's racist.
--
Cheers, Peter
Ned Latham
> Ferg <ferg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > We have no need for heads of state who change their surname to appear
> > to be something they are not.
> >
> > Changing their family name from Saxe-Gotha-(whatever) is no more nor
> > less racist than the reasons why we might reject the idea of having
> > foreigners as heads of state (as do the americans).
>
> Well if you're an Australian you do, you proved it by voting for them...
Many of us voted against them.
> And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the goalposts'.
> There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
in 1975.
Ned
--
To reply, cut out my nose * Democracy means "the people rule". *
and make the met a net. * Fight for the power of assent. *
alterity
<peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote:
>People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
>German ancestry. That's racist.
How is a comment about the place of someone's birth racist?
Locationalist maybe, but surely not racist.
BTW, where were you born?
Peter Mackay
alte...@dingoblue.net.au says...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:46:29 GMT, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote:
>
> >People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
> >German ancestry. That's racist.
>
> How is a comment about the place of someone's birth racist?
Perhaps you think a comment and an attack are the same thing? They
aren't.
Was the attack on the World Trade Centre a comment in your eyes? No. So
don't be stupid.
As for racism, I've seen an awful lot of racist attacks on Afghanis here
in this group over the last few days, attacks based on no more than
nationality. So again, don't be stupid.
People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
German ancestry. That's racist.
If you want to argue otherwise, argue by yourself. Don't waste my time.
--
Cheers, Peter
alterity
<peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote:
>In article <vetnqts82j6s8bqq0...@4ax.com>,
>alte...@dingoblue.net.au says...
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:46:29 GMT, Peter Mackay
>> <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote:
>>
>> >People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
>> >German ancestry. That's racist.
>>
>> How is a comment about the place of someone's birth racist?
>
>Perhaps you think a comment and an attack are the same thing? They
>aren't.
>
>Was the attack on the World Trade Centre a comment in your eyes? No. So
>don't be stupid.
>
>As for racism, I've seen an awful lot of racist attacks on Afghanis here
>in this group over the last few days, attacks based on no more than
>nationality. So again, don't be stupid.
>
>People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
>German ancestry. That's racist.
>
>If you want to argue otherwise, argue by yourself. Don't waste my time.
How is an attack on someone's place of birth racist?
For example, if I were to say, "It is an outrage, Australia's Queen
was born in Britain," how is that attack on the Queen, based on her
British birth, an example of racism?
William Black
Ned Latham <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au...
goalposts'.
> > There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
>
> The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> in 1975.
You know, I set traps for the intolerant all the time and they always fall
into them.
You had a vote, a decision was made, end of story.
Your lot lost, that's how democracy works, live with it or organise
another vote. Saying voting isn't fair is one sure way to loose any support
you may have had at the beginning.
You'll be saying you were betrayed by the politicians in Vietnam, or even
WWI, next.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > William Black wrote:
> >
> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > > goalposts'. There was a democratic process and the Queen won,
> > > odd as it sounds.
> >
> > The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> > The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> > that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> > we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> > here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> > in 1975.
>
> You know, I set traps for the intolerant all the time and they always fall
> into them.
Your big trap is full of shit. Why should anyone tolerate stupidity?
> You had a vote, a decision was made, end of story.
Wrong. The sequence is: a decision was made, we had a vote: outcome
guaranteed. As to the story, I'm not in the slightest interested in
republicanism. It's no closer to democracy than the bullshit we're
under now.
> Your lot lost,
Wrong.
> that's how democracy works,
Wrong again.
> live with it or organise
> another vote.
Ah. So you agree that it's *not* the end of the story. Your inconsistently
speaks volumes for your "intelligence".
> Saying voting isn't fair is one sure way to loose any
> support you may have had at the beginning.
Idiot. I diodn't say voting is unfair.
> You'll be saying you were betrayed by the politicians in Vietnam, or even
> WWI, next.
No. The politicans in Vietname didn't betray us: the politicians in Oz,
however, have done so repeatedly. That's why those of us who are aware
despise them. Do you have enough brains cells to remember what Howard
said about the GST during the first election campaign he won?
----snip----
William Black
> William Black wrote in <9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > William Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > > > goalposts'. There was a democratic process and the Queen won,
> > > > odd as it sounds.
> > >
> > > The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real
say.
> > > The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> > > that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the
matters
> > > we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> > > here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> > > in 1975.
> >
> > You know, I set traps for the intolerant all the time and they always
fall
> > into them.
>
> Your big trap is full of shit. Why should anyone tolerate stupidity?
Personal abuse and not an argument.
I win.
End of conversation.
John Kane
Well I always thought that the Vietnamese were very loyal and did stalwart
survice in WWI. How could one be ... OH you mean later! Yes of course.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > William Black wrote:
> >
> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > > goalposts'. There was a democratic process and the Queen won,
> > > odd as it sounds.
> >
> > The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> > The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> > that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> > we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> > here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> > in 1975.
>
> You know, I set traps for the intolerant all the time and they always fall
> into them.
Your big trap is full of shit. Why should anyone tolerate stupidity?
> You had a vote, a decision was made, end of story.
John Kane
> William Black wrote in <9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > William Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > > > goalposts'. There was a democratic process and the Queen won,
> > > > odd as it sounds.
> > >
> > > The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> > > The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> > > that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> > > we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> > > here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> > > in 1975.
> >No. The politicans in Vietname didn't betray us: the politicians in Oz,
> however, have done so repeatedly. That's why those of us who are aware
> despise them. Do you have enough brains cells to remember what Howard
> said about the GST during the first election campaign he won?
>
Humm. Do we have a conspiracy type or not?
Ferg
> Ned Latham <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au...
> > William Black wrote in <9oftb5$5e2$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> >
> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> goalposts'.
> > > There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
Any fool could tell you what the result of a referendum asking whether
Australians would prefer an Australian head-of-state would be.
Hence, our leaders' insistence of putting the question into as
unpalatable a format as possible.
There was no democracy at work there.
Ferg
> People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
> German ancestry. That's racist.
cracks about people who visit China developing "slanty-eyes"?
What was that you were saying about racism?
Is it racist to insist that the Australian head-of-state should be
Australian?
Is it racist to insist that an applicant for an Australian passport be
Australian?
Is it racist for me to demand that the position of my country's
head-of-state *NOT* necessarily EXCLUDE any person who is catholic?
What would you say about a job that specifically barred catholics from
holding it?
fabi...@hotmail.com
Your side lost, so therefore "IT WAS RIGGED"
I notice the people who want a "republic" (even though Australia is
already one) want another referundum, then another one etc etc until
they win.
If the "republicians"win the next referendum, will there be another
one so the Australians can vote to maintain the status quo? It is
only fair if the "republicians" can keep having referenda until
theyget the result they want, so should the other side?
ok
> >
> So what would you rather have. A smirking T.Blair?
How about a picture of our historic landmarks. I don't see why we need to
have a portrait of anyone on our currency. I don't consider any one person
to be important enough.
Ok
John Kane
> On 24 Sep 2001 02:11:26 -0700, ferg...@hotmail.com (Ferg) wrote:
>
> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
> >> Ned Latham <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
> >> news:slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au...
> >> > William Black wrote in <9oftb5$5e2$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> >> goalposts'.
> >> > > There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
> >
> >Er, no, there wasn't.
> >
> >Any fool could tell you what the result of a referendum asking whether
> >Australians would prefer an Australian head-of-state would be.
> >
> >Hence, our leaders' insistence of putting the question into as
> >unpalatable a format as possible.
> >
> >There was no democracy at work there.
> Your side lost, so therefore "IT WAS RIGGED"
>
> I notice the people who want a "republic" (even though Australia is
> already one) want another referundum, then another one etc etc until
> they win.
Welcome to Quebec!
>
> If the "republicians"win the next referendum, will there be another
> one so the Australians can vote to maintain the status quo? It is
> only fair if the "republicians" can keep having referenda until
> theyget the result they want, so should the other side?
------------------
William Black
The solution is in your own hands.
Get yourself elected and have another vote.
Or is your democracy so corrupt that someone as pure as yourself couldn't
get elected?
Andrew
so. Who cares if we are not a republic. It has worked great all
these years, why change for something they may not work, plus waste
more money in the process.
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9onpvh$832$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
David Shaw
The reason the Republicans couldn't get up was because there were only
two possible ways of ending the present system:
1) The politicians selected the head of state and thereby increased
their power. Australian politicians are so totally venal, corrupt and
contemptible that the Australian public quite rightly doesn't trust
them an inch further than it has to, so it wouldn't vote for this
suggestion.
2) The public voted for an head of state, which would give the
President the democratic power to take on the Australian Prime
Minister and Government on matters of principle. There was no way the
politicians would allow that idea to be put to the vote.
Brad Carletti
>their power. Australian politicians are so totally venal, corrupt and
>contemptible that the Australian public quite rightly doesn't trust
>them an inch further than it has to, so it wouldn't vote for this
>suggestion.
Well, instead of a politicians' republic, we got to keep the existing
politicians' constitutional monarchy. :)
But it did make for great spin from the monarchists, didn't it?
>2) The public voted for an head of state, which would give the
>President the democratic power to take on the Australian Prime
>Minister and Government on matters of principle. There was no way the
>politicians would allow that idea to be put to the vote.
I'm almost surprised they didn't jump at the chance to make millions
in campaign contributions. :)
--
Brad Carletti
"However, it is important not to stare at the enemy
because he may sense the stalker's presence through
a sixth sense."
- US Army Field Manual 21-150 Chapter 7 "Sentry Removal"
John Kane
Well I always thought that the Vietnamese were very loyal and did stalwart
survice in WWI. How could one be ... OH you mean later! Yes of course.
--
------------------
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: John Kane <jka...@sympatico.ca>
Control: cancel <3BACDE78...@sympatico.ca>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3BACDE78...@sympatico.ca>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:10:59 GMT
Message-ID: <76bdba58aaue...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 30
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:19:32 GMT
<remainder snipped>
John Kane
> William Black wrote in <9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > William Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > > > goalposts'. There was a democratic process and the Queen won,
> > > > odd as it sounds.
> > >
> > > The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> > > The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> > > that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> > > we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> > > here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> > > in 1975.
> >No. The politicans in Vietname didn't betray us: the politicians in Oz,
> however, have done so repeatedly. That's why those of us who are aware
> despise them. Do you have enough brains cells to remember what Howard
> said about the GST during the first election campaign he won?
>
Humm. Do we have a conspiracy type or not?
--
------------------
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: John Kane <jka...@sympatico.ca>
Control: cancel <3BAD8F62...@sympatico.ca>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3BAD8F62...@sympatico.ca>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:10:54 GMT
Message-ID: <24dfod76cgic...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 34
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:17:40 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Ferg
> news:slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au...
> > William Black wrote in <9oftb5$5e2$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> >
> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> goalposts'.
> > > There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
Any fool could tell you what the result of a referendum asking whether
Australians would prefer an Australian head-of-state would be.
Hence, our leaders' insistence of putting the question into as
unpalatable a format as possible.
There was no democracy at work there.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: ferg...@hotmail.com (Ferg)
Control: cancel <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:22:18 GMT
Message-ID: <06cakd13eaae...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 30
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:59:05 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Ferg
> People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
> German ancestry. That's racist.
cracks about people who visit China developing "slanty-eyes"?
What was that you were saying about racism?
Is it racist to insist that the Australian head-of-state should be
Australian?
Is it racist to insist that an applicant for an Australian passport be
Australian?
Is it racist for me to demand that the position of my country's
head-of-state *NOT* necessarily EXCLUDE any person who is catholic?
What would you say about a job that specifically barred catholics from
holding it?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: ferg...@hotmail.com (Ferg)
Control: cancel <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:57:11 GMT
Message-ID: <57bcwc83enxa...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 28
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:59:00 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Michael Baker
> > Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
Hey, I applied to be a democrat, but they didn't accept me.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: "Michael Baker" <ba...@lava.net>
Control: cancel <9odhrl$mh2$2...@mochi.lava.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <9odhrl$mh2$2...@mochi.lava.net>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:06:40 GMT
Message-ID: <72cdac34atqd...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 28
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:35:09 GMT
<remainder snipped>
William Black
goalposts'.
> > There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
>
> The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> in 1975.
You know, I set traps for the intolerant all the time and they always fall
into them.
You had a vote, a decision was made, end of story.
Your lot lost, that's how democracy works, live with it or organise
another vote. Saying voting isn't fair is one sure way to loose any support
you may have had at the beginning.
You'll be saying you were betrayed by the politicians in Vietnam, or even
WWI, next.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com>
Control: cancel <9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:53:01 GMT
Message-ID: <87caae14dewa...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 25
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:21:57 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Peter Mackay
ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> Peter Mackay <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote in message news:<MPG.1611e8fbf5899a289898ba@news-server>...
> > In article <6b02215a.01091...@posting.google.com>,
> > ferg...@hotmail.com says...
> > > da...@f-e-mail.com (David Shaw) wrote in message news:<3ba6ed5a...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> > >
> > > > You Republicans will never forgive the Australian population for
> > > > voting you the weakest link, will you?
> > >
> > > Funnily enough, that referendum's result resembled quite closely the
> > > general result in that "Weakest Link" contest where the initial rounds
> > > see the least brainy ganging up to vote out the most brainy.
> > >
> > > The real weakest link is this pathetically in-bred bunch of Chermans
> > > belonging to the Saxe-Gotha-etc... family.
> >
> > Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
>
Well, looks like we've discovered yet another racist republican!
--
Cheers, Peter
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: Peter Mackay <peter....@bigpond.com.aus>
Control: cancel <MPG.1614f692bd8992399898d3@news-server>
Subject: cmsg cancel <MPG.1614f692bd8992399898d3@news-server>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:52:46 GMT
Message-ID: <40baeb80fvyb...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 15
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:35:03 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote:
>
> >People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
> >German ancestry. That's racist.
>
> How is a comment about the place of someone's birth racist?
Perhaps you think a comment and an attack are the same thing? They
aren't.
Was the attack on the World Trade Centre a comment in your eyes? No. So
don't be stupid.
As for racism, I've seen an awful lot of racist attacks on Afghanis here
in this group over the last few days, attacks based on no more than
nationality. So again, don't be stupid.
People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
German ancestry. That's racist.
If you want to argue otherwise, argue by yourself. Don't waste my time.
--
Cheers, Peter
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: Peter Mackay <peter....@bigpond.com.aus>
Control: cancel <MPG.1616aae64c9321859898eb@news-server>
Subject: cmsg cancel <MPG.1616aae64c9321859898eb@news-server>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:28:39 GMT
Message-ID: <46bdqf75aqjc...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 22
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:23:45 GMT
<remainder snipped>
fabi...@hotmail.com
Your side lost, so therefore "IT WAS RIGGED"
I notice the people who want a "republic" (even though Australia is
already one) want another referundum, then another one etc etc until
they win.
If the "republicians"win the next referendum, will there be another
one so the Australians can vote to maintain the status quo? It is
only fair if the "republicians" can keep having referenda until
theyget the result they want, so should the other side?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!newsfeed.vmunix.org!feedme.news.mediaways.net!nntp.kreonet.re.kr!feeder.kornet.net!news-xfer.nuri.net!newsxfer.hananet.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: fabi...@hotmail.com
Control: cancel <n7buqtctaqojtrclv...@4ax.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <n7buqtctaqojtrclv...@4ax.com>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:37:31 GMT
Message-ID: <71faic55efea...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 19
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:51:54 GMT
<remainder snipped>
ok
Ok
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: "ok" <o...@ok.net>
Control: cancel <rQHr7.3121$KP.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <rQHr7.3121$KP.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:40:54 GMT
Message-ID: <54cbac41beje...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 30
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:49:41 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Ned Latham
> > to be something they are not.
> >
> > Changing their family name from Saxe-Gotha-(whatever) is no more nor
> > less racist than the reasons why we might reject the idea of having
> > foreigners as heads of state (as do the americans).
>
> Well if you're an Australian you do, you proved it by voting for them...
Many of us voted against them.
> And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the goalposts'.
> There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it sounds.
The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
in 1975.
Ned
--
To reply, cut out my nose * Democracy means "the people rule". *
and make the met a net. * Fight for the power of assent. *
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!f.de.uu.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham)
Control: cancel <slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>
Subject: cmsg cancel <slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:47:59 GMT
Message-ID: <11bdod25ekne...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 36
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:24:00 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > William Black wrote:
> >
> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > > goalposts'. There was a democratic process and the Queen won,
> > > odd as it sounds.
> >
> > The vote is a democratic process only if it gives the people a real say.
> > The geryymander, cumpulsory voting and the perferential system ensure
> > that we the people do *not* have an effective say in any of the matters
> > we "vote" upon. It was *not* a democratic process, and the odd thing
> > here is that there are people who support that bitch who betrayed us
> > in 1975.
>
> You know, I set traps for the intolerant all the time and they always fall
> into them.
Your big trap is full of shit. Why should anyone tolerate stupidity?
> You had a vote, a decision was made, end of story.
> Your lot lost,
Wrong.
Wrong again.
----snip----
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!nntp.cs.uni-magdeburg.de!fu-berlin.de!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham)
Control: cancel <slrn9qql8n....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>
Subject: cmsg cancel <slrn9qql8n....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:40:16 GMT
Message-ID: <20aaff27bhad...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 22
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:19:05 GMT
<remainder snipped>
alterity
<peter....@bigpond.com.aus> wrote:
>People make attacks on the Queen based on her British birth and/or her
>German ancestry. That's racist.
How is a comment about the place of someone's birth racist?
Locationalist maybe, but surely not racist.
BTW, where were you born?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!news.bora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Reese <xyz6...@yahoo.com>
Sender: alterity <alte...@dingoblue.net.au>
Control: cancel <vetnqts82j6s8bqq0...@4ax.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <vetnqts82j6s8bqq0...@4ax.com>
Approved: xyz6...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.test,biz.test,news.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime
X-Server-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:50:37 GMT
Message-ID: <80ecee13dnpf...@ID-91353.news.dfncis.de>
X-Original-Trace: fu-berlin.de 993723486 13961738 65.162.142.84 (16 [91353])
X-Abuse-Complaints-To: ab...@cis.dfn.de
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.162.142.62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Meow: Yep
X-Bomb-All-Rag-Heads-Cause-They-Killed-Americans: Yes
Lines: 20
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:23:54 GMT
<remainder snipped>
Peter Mackay
Andrew...@adtconsulting.fsnet.co.uk says...
> I'd have thought that the present Queen, having ancestors from many nations,
> would be the idea head of a milti-cultural nation like modern Australia.
Can't see it as being a problem.
But of course some people will seize on anything to attack people they
don't like. Race, religion, nation of birth, skin colour.
Perhaps if we had an Aboriginal Queen they might change their minds, but
I doubt it.
--
Cheers, Peter
Kareem
"John Kane" <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BAF2C6F...@sympatico.ca...
> fabi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 24 Sep 2001 02:11:26 -0700, ferg...@hotmail.com (Ferg) wrote:
> >
> > >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<9ohrp1$qbf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
> > >> Ned Latham <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
> > >> news:slrn9qnrkc....@arthur.valhalla.net.au...
> > >> > William Black wrote in <9oftb5$5e2$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > And don't say 'Well it wasn't fair, the politicians moved the
> > >> goalposts'.
> > >> > > There was a democratic process and the Queen won, odd as it
sounds.
> > >
> > >Er, no, there wasn't.
> > >
> > >Any fool could tell you what the result of a referendum asking whether
> > >Australians would prefer an Australian head-of-state would be.
> > >
> > >Hence, our leaders' insistence of putting the question into as
> > >unpalatable a format as possible.
> > >
> > >There was no democracy at work there.
> > Your side lost, so therefore "IT WAS RIGGED"
> >
> > I notice the people who want a "republic" (even though Australia is
> > already one) want another referundum, then another one etc etc until
> > they win.
>
> Welcome to Quebec!
I was thinking of you!!
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
Ernest
Under the constitution any attempt to change it MUST be
specifically worded so that we, the electorate, can look at
the proposed change and decide if we want it. Any thing
that is on a generic basis can only be a plebecite not a
referendum.
Now a plebecite can give the govt an indication of what
the people would like to see happen but it would have NO
effect on the constitution by itself. A plebecite which asked
if we wanted an Aust head of state, may encourage the
govt to place the request before the queen. And she
could resolve the issue without any change to the Aust
constitution by simply passing on the title and authority
or Queen of Australia to an Australian born person whom
she felt was suitable. We could end up with King Johnny.
The added problem of the Aust commonwealth being a
group of independent sovereign states, all of whom have
the Queen as their individual sovereigns is an aspect that
was not fully address in the failled referendum either.
Stephen Souter
deadl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Under the constitution any attempt to change it MUST be
> specifically worded so that we, the electorate, can look at
> the proposed change and decide if we want it.
Where does the Constitution say this?
> Any thing
> that is on a generic basis can only be a plebecite not a
> referendum.
Why? The Constitution does not make any such distinction. In fact the
terms "referendum" & "plebiscite" do not appear in it.
A plebiscite is really only another term for a "referendum", although most
nowadays seem to use it in the sense of a non-binding referendum.
> Now a plebecite can give the govt an indication of what
> the people would like to see happen but it would have NO
> effect on the constitution by itself. A plebecite which asked
> if we wanted an Aust head of state, may encourage the
> govt to place the request before the queen. And she
> could resolve the issue without any change to the Aust
> constitution by simply passing on the title and authority
> or Queen of Australia to an Australian born person whom
> she felt was suitable. We could end up with King Johnny.
"Queen of Australia" is a mere courtesy title. Bestowing it on somebody
else would not affect her constitution position as Queen of Australia. To
change that would require, at the least, a change to covering clause 2 of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
> The added problem of the Aust commonwealth being a
> group of independent sovereign states, all of whom have
> the Queen as their individual sovereigns is an aspect that
> was not fully address in the failled referendum either.
The States are not fully sovereign. Their sovereignty is subordinated to
the Commonwealth Constitution and to the laws of the Commonwealth
Parliament.
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
Ernest
(Stephen Souter) wrote:
>In article <fak3rtoemsa6oh2i3...@4ax.com>,
>deadl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Under the constitution any attempt to change it MUST be
>> specifically worded so that we, the electorate, can look at
>> the proposed change and decide if we want it.
>
>Where does the Constitution say this?
>
Australian Contitution Section 128, the proposed law must be put to
the electorate after being passed by the govt. For them to do this
it has to be written in such a way as to clearly state what the law
proposes and in accordance with the legislation on the drafting of
proposed laws (forget the full name of that act). Thus it must be
fully detailed.
Also, since the current sectins of the Constitution give detailed
information on how things are done, I doubt enough people
would support a change that did not contain as fine detail as
the existing section that is to be replaced. This was clear in
the last referendum, the changes actually detracted from the
strength of the Constitution so the public voted it down.
>> Any thing
>> that is on a generic basis can only be a plebecite not a
>> referendum.
>
>Why? The Constitution does not make any such distinction. In fact the
>terms "referendum" & "plebiscite" do not appear in it.
>
Althought the constitution refers to changes in the legislation as a
referendum and only refers to referendums, it does that only as
changes to the constitution.
>A plebiscite is really only another term for a "referendum", although most
>nowadays seem to use it in the sense of a non-binding referendum.
>
I, like many, used to thinks so. But during the Hawke govt
there came into being some sort technical difference and the
term referendum is used only in relation to constitutional changes,
with plebecite being used for the other. Any matter decided by
referendum used to be required, by law, to be placed before
the voters for approval if the govt wanted to change anything
about that issue. Yet during the Hawke years a number of matters
that had been voted on as referendums, but not constitutional changes,
were arbitrarily changed by the govt on the basis that they were not
really referendums but plebecites as a referendum could only relate
to a constitutional change. I never agreed with this point of view but
have responded to it accordingly.
BTW some of these issues were:
1. In the early 1970's a referendum on what the national anthem
would be was held and the answer was 'God save the Queen'.
2. At the same time a referendum on the use of a national song
that could be used in place of the national anthem when the queen
or representative was not present was held, words for the songs
to be considered were provided. The answers were 'Yes' a national
song could be used and it would be 'Advance Australia Fair' as per
the words submitted to the people, ie the original wording.
3. A referendum on the establishment of a state type govt
for the ACT was held on three occassions and the answer was
a resounding 'No'.
Yet Bob Hawke and his cabinet (which included Keating, Beasley
and a few others who are still in parliament) decided that technically
these were not referendums (despite what was publicised at the
time) and that because they were plebecites that they were not
bound by the decisions made by the voters. Thus they arbitrarily
overturned those decisions and passed legislations to
a. Make Advance Australia Fair the national anthem;
b. Change the words of Advance Australia Fair without reference
to the voters;
c. Impose a costly and awkward state type local govt arrangement
on the people of the ACT.
>> Now a plebecite can give the govt an indication of what
>> the people would like to see happen but it would have NO
>> effect on the constitution by itself. A plebecite which asked
>> if we wanted an Aust head of state, may encourage the
>> govt to place the request before the queen. And she
>> could resolve the issue without any change to the Aust
>> constitution by simply passing on the title and authority
>> or Queen of Australia to an Australian born person whom
>> she felt was suitable. We could end up with King Johnny.
>
>"Queen of Australia" is a mere courtesy title. Bestowing it on somebody
>else would not affect her constitution position as Queen of Australia. To
>change that would require, at the least, a change to covering clause 2 of
>the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
>
The title comes about due to the fact that the Queen is designated
as her title in the Australian constitution, and thus she is Queeen of
Australia. The title is seperate to that of her other titles.
She could immediately pass the title to any one of her heirs that
she wishes to without any further change to the constitution as
we do not ahve any complex royal inheritance laws to follow. or
she could seek voter approval to change section 2 and pass the
title to any John, Dick, Harry, Kim, Toni, Claire.
>> The added problem of the Aust commonwealth being a
>> group of independent sovereign states, all of whom have
>> the Queen as their individual sovereigns is an aspect that
>> was not fully address in the failled referendum either.
>
>The States are not fully sovereign. Their sovereignty is subordinated to
>the Commonwealth Constitution and to the laws of the Commonwealth
>Parliament.
Under international law, the states have full sovereign powers.
However, the states have chosen to surrender some, but not
all, of their sovereign rights to a new entity that they created
with the Australian constitution, called the Commonwealth government
of Australia. Under the constitution the state laws are only
subordinate to the c'wealth laws in the specific areas that are
listed in the constitution. Outside of that the c'wealth has no
control over the states. That is why the c'wealth could not affect
any state laws re capital punishment or euthanasia or mandatory
sentencing by direct legislation. The can only suggest to the states
that they do as the c'wealth wish and then bully them in regards
to funding. NB the NT is not a state but a territory and thus it
is different again.
Stephen Souter
deadl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:08:45 +1000, s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
> (Stephen Souter) wrote:
>
> >In article <fak3rtoemsa6oh2i3...@4ax.com>,
> >deadl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Under the constitution any attempt to change it MUST be
> >> specifically worded so that we, the electorate, can look at
> >> the proposed change and decide if we want it.
> >
> >Where does the Constitution say this?
> >
> Australian Contitution Section 128, the proposed law must be put to
> the electorate after being passed by the govt.
Just one quibble: it actually says that such a proposed law goes to the
electorate after being passed by both the Senate and House of
Representatives--both of which, as we all know, consist of more than just
"the gov[ernmen]t".
> For them to do this
> it has to be written in such a way as to clearly state what the law
> proposes and in accordance with the legislation on the drafting of
> proposed laws (forget the full name of that act). Thus it must be
> fully detailed.
There's no such legislation that I'm aware of; and even if there was, no
ordinary Act of Parliament can dictate to Parliament and to the
Constitution the content or "look" of its bills or laws. The Constitution
might, but it doesn't.
The federal legislative drafting service does put out a handbook which
specifies various standards which it will adhere to. This handbook is
available on the WWW (if you're curious about it, there's a link to it
from one of my Commonwealth Constitution webpages, which you can get to
via the URL in my sig below). However, there is no legislation dictating
to Parliament what is to be in its own Acts of Parliament. Subject to the
Constitution, Parliament can put in them as much or as little detail as it
likes.
Possibly you're confusing this putative law with the Acts Interpretation
Act, which specifies certain default meanings (amongst other things).
> Also, since the current sectins of the Constitution give detailed
> information on how things are done, I doubt enough people
> would support a change that did not contain as fine detail as
> the existing section that is to be replaced. This was clear in
> the last referendum, the changes actually detracted from the
> strength of the Constitution so the public voted it down.
IMHO the reasons the public voted that one down had nothing to do with the
level of detail.
As a matter of fact the level of detail the Constitution goes into gives
varies enormously. While there are some provisions in the Constitution (eg
those in the Finance & Trade chapter dealing with the transfer of State
departments to the Commonwealth after Federation) do go into great detail,
many others--indeed, probably the overwhelming majority--do not. Many in
fact simply confer a power on Parliament and leave it to sort out the
details.
For example, representative democracy in the House of Representatives (in
the sense of being a body chosen by the electors) is essentially based on
a few brief words in s24:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly
chosen by the people of the Commonwealth...
The detail of how this is to be achieved is for the most part left up to
Parliament to legislate for.
There are many other provisions like this. For example, the first
paragraph of s92 (the freedom of interstate trade & commerce provision) is
notoriously short on detail, which is one of the reasons the courts have
had so much trouble interpreting it.
> >> Any thing
> >> that is on a generic basis can only be a plebecite not a
> >> referendum.
> >
> >Why? The Constitution does not make any such distinction. In fact the
> >terms "referendum" & "plebiscite" do not appear in it.
>
> Althought the constitution refers to changes in the legislation as a
> referendum and only refers to referendums, it does that only as
> changes to the constitution.
I don't think I understood a word of that! What exactly are you talking about?
The word "referendum", like the word "plebiscite", does not occur anywhere
in the Constitution. (If you know otherwise, kindly quote the section
where it does.)
In the case of s128, all that it speaks of is:
"the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to
the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the
House of Representatives"
Not only is the actual mechanism by which this "submission" takes place
not specified, but Parliament is given the express power to do the
following
"When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be
taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes."
Which would seem to mean that if Parliament wanted to it is free (within
the wording of s128) to devise some other mechanism. For example, it might
put a s128 bill to conventions of electors (note: of ELECTORS, not
REPRESENTATIVES of electors) voting in open ballot by a show of hands,
much as in the manner of shareholder meetings for a corporation.
> >A plebiscite is really only another term for a "referendum", although most
> >nowadays seem to use it in the sense of a non-binding referendum.
>
> I, like many, used to thinks so. But during the Hawke govt
> there came into being some sort technical difference and the
> term referendum is used only in relation to constitutional changes,
> with plebecite being used for the other.
I think you're confusing common usage with law. AFAIK, there is no Act of
Parliament or court judgment which decrees that the word "referendum" be
used only for constitutional changes. Just because many people use
"referendum" to refer only to s128 changes doesn't mean the rest of us,
let alone Parliament, are legally obliged to do so as well.
If you believe otherwise, then kindly cite the law or judicial decision
which requires this.
> Any matter decided by
> referendum used to be required, by law, to be placed before
> the voters for approval if the govt wanted to change anything
> about that issue.
Now I think you're citing an urban legend. Which "matters" are you talking
about?
> Yet during the Hawke years a number of matters
> that had been voted on as referendums, but not constitutional changes,
> were arbitrarily changed by the govt on the basis that they were not
> really referendums but plebecites as a referendum could only relate
> to a constitutional change. I never agreed with this point of view but
> have responded to it accordingly.
>
> BTW some of these issues were:
>
> 1. In the early 1970's a referendum on what the national anthem
> would be was held and the answer was 'God save the Queen'.
There has never been any such "referendum".
To find out more about past federal referenda & plebiscites, check out the
AEC's site:
http://www.aec.gov.au/referend/past.htm
There you will find that during the 1970s there were ten s128 referenda
(six during the Whitlam years and four during Fraser's) and one
non-binding advisory plebiscite on a national song, of which more about
below.
> 2. At the same time a referendum on the use of a national song
> that could be used in place of the national anthem when the queen
> or representative was not present was held, words for the songs
> to be considered were provided. The answers were 'Yes' a national
> song could be used and it would be 'Advance Australia Fair' as per
> the words submitted to the people, ie the original wording.
The national song poll was held in 1977, on the same day as four s128
bills on various constitutional machinery matters were also put to
referendum.
I voted in that one. We were not, however, asked whether "a national song
could be used". Merely what the national song would be. Nor did we vote
"YES" or "NO" in the national song poll as per s128 referenda but using a
House of Reps style preferential system. The reason was that we were
offered four choices, not just two to which we could give a "Yes" or "No"
response. Those choices were: Advance Australia Fair, Waltzing Matilda,
Song of Australia, and God Save the Queen.
Advance Australia Fair won. God Save the Queen came third.
> 3. A referendum on the establishment of a state type govt
> for the ACT was held on three occassions and the answer was
> a resounding 'No'.
>
> Yet Bob Hawke and his cabinet (which included Keating, Beasley
> and a few others who are still in parliament) decided that technically
> these were not referendums (despite what was publicised at the
> time) and that because they were plebecites that they were not
> bound by the decisions made by the voters. Thus they arbitrarily
> overturned those decisions and passed legislations to
>
> a. Make Advance Australia Fair the national anthem;
>
> b. Change the words of Advance Australia Fair without reference
> to the voters;
>
> c. Impose a costly and awkward state type local govt arrangement
> on the people of the ACT.
They could do that because the Commonwealth had the power to do so. In the
case of the ACT, the Commonwealth has a plenary power to pretty much do
whatever it likes (see section 122). Meaning if the government wanted to
renege later on Parliament has the legislative power to do so.
As for the national song, the 1977 vote was certainly a non-binding one.
If somebody wanted to go back to God Save the Queen, and Parliament
obliged, there was no legal obstacle preventing them. Just as there would
be none today from Parliament (with a popular vote) throwing out Advance
Australia Fair and bringing in Waltzing Matilda.
I might also point out that to the best of my recollection we did not vote
on any particular form of words. Merely on which title would become the
national song. No doubt if Waltzing Matilda had some some government down
the track would have excised the references to sheep stealing and suicide,
while if God Save the Queen had won no doubt the politically correct would
have felt obliged to rewrite the second verse, which goes:
"O Lord our God arise,
Strike down her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all!"
> >> Now a plebecite can give the govt an indication of what
> >> the people would like to see happen but it would have NO
> >> effect on the constitution by itself. A plebecite which asked
> >> if we wanted an Aust head of state, may encourage the
> >> govt to place the request before the queen. And she
> >> could resolve the issue without any change to the Aust
> >> constitution by simply passing on the title and authority
> >> or Queen of Australia to an Australian born person whom
> >> she felt was suitable. We could end up with King Johnny.
> >
> >"Queen of Australia" is a mere courtesy title. Bestowing it on somebody
> >else would not affect her constitution position as Queen of Australia. To
> >change that would require, at the least, a change to covering clause 2 of
> >the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
>
> The title comes about due to the fact that the Queen is designated
> as her title in the Australian constitution, and thus she is Queeen of
> Australia. The title is seperate to that of her other titles.
Where in the Constitution?
I think you will the Queen's present title is NOT designated by the
Constitution but by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament: the Royal
Styles and Titles Act, 1973.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/
If the Constitution had designated it, then she would still have the
titles she had back in 1900, one of which would be "Empress of India".
:)
> She could immediately pass the title to any one of her heirs that
> she wishes to without any further change to the constitution as
> we do not ahve any complex royal inheritance laws to follow. or
> she could seek voter approval to change section 2 and pass the
> title to any John, Dick, Harry, Kim, Toni, Claire.
(Sigh!)
If the Queen's titles were specified by the Constitution or Constitution
Act she could no more change it on her own than the Whitlam Government
found it could change the title of Australia's federation from
"Commonwealth of Australia" by mere Act of Parliament. (It was attempting
to excise the word "Commonwealth" from the titles of government bodies
etc.)
To the best of my knowledge the Queen's heirs do not "inherit" the kind of
titles you're thinking about. (Possibly, you're confusing them with such
real titles as "Duke of Cornwall" and "Princess Royal", which the Queen
does bestow.) A new king or queen decides what he or she wants to be
styled as for themselves as when they ascend the throne.
For more information on the Queen's styles and titles, check out:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/acs/style.htm
As far as the Queen's British titles go...
"Q. What is the full title of Her Majesty the Queen?
"A. Royal styles and titles are determined under the 1953 Royal
Titles Act. For the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, the
style and title proclaimed was: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of
God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the
Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
--http://www.royalinsight.com/199911/mailbox/questions4.html
(Her Australian titles are set down in an Act of the Commonwealth
Parliament as I pointed out above.)
> >> The added problem of the Aust commonwealth being a
> >> group of independent sovereign states, all of whom have
> >> the Queen as their individual sovereigns is an aspect that
> >> was not fully address in the failled referendum either.
> >
> >The States are not fully sovereign. Their sovereignty is subordinated to
> >the Commonwealth Constitution and to the laws of the Commonwealth
> >Parliament.
>
> Under international law, the states have full sovereign powers.
The States' powers having nothing to do with "international law". They are
preserved by various provisions in the Commonwealth Constitution, such as
s107.
If you know otherwise, kindly quote the treaty or court decision you're
referring to.
> However, the states have chosen to surrender some, but not
> all, of their sovereign rights to a new entity that they created
> with the Australian constitution, called the Commonwealth government
> of Australia.
Actually:
1) The "new entity" was called the "Commonwealth of Australia".
2) The Commonwealth Constitution is part of an Act of the UK Parliament:
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900. While the bill for
that Act was drafted in Australia by popular conventions of Australians
held during the late 1890s, but it was the UK Parliament (not the States)
which enacted the law which created the Commonwealth.