Australia says NO -- This will be the second Time Julia Gillard has done
this!
She sure isn't backing down on her hard line stance and one has to appreciate her belief in the rights of her native countrymen.
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead with guts and determination. ...
She sure isn't backing down on her hard line stance and one has to appreciate her belief in the rights of her native countrymen.
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead with guts and determination. ...
Australian
Prime Minister does it again!!
The whole world needs a leader like this!
Prime Minister Julia Gillard - Australia
The whole world needs a leader like this!
Prime Minister Julia Gillard - Australia
Muslims
who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of
Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential
terror attacks.
Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:
Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS,
NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT... Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation
worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since
the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the
majority of Australians.'
'This
culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories
by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!'
'Most
Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political
push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles,
founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate
to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you,then I suggest you
consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our
culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This
is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every
opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and
griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I
highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE
RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If
you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to
be here. So accept the country that accepted you.'
Kingston, while she's at it why doesn't she tell the Queen to take a fri_in hike!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLove her views. Our leaders should have some of this.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder why I even spasmodically follow the debates on this thread. I get a little restless when I read articles which are un researched, cut and pastes of outlandish views which have no basis of fact. Please let me explain. The post by William is his usual cut and paste effort with just a few embellishments.
DeleteHere are the facts: The” speech” quoted was never delivered by Julia Gillard. It is purported to have been first made by the Liberal (Republican in your country) John Howard way back in 2008.In actual fact, the article was written by an American ?Journalist Barry Loudermilk concerning the situation in America!. And it has since appeared here and elsewhere purporting to have originated by Howard, Rudd and Gillard. So there you are, all un researched rubbish on the usual level of Williams’s posts.
Now it may surprise many but I totally agree with the views expressed in the article. As a student of your history I can imagine some of the early members of the Republican movement standing on the stump proclaiming similar views when discussing No taxation without representation, or the harsh laws passed in Westminster following the Tea Party episode etc.
Now the reference http://www.hoax-slayer.com/howard-muslim-speech.shtml. I confess to being computer illiterate so you may need to truncate the reference. I have emulated William and “cut copy and paste”
Finally, William once more suggests Julia Gillard expels the Queen. Well William, even though you live in the culture of 1776, there have been improvements in communications since then. I would have thought that even you would have heard that Julia Gillard is now three Prime Ministers away and no longer has influence. We have a Republican (Liberal National coalition) in power now and believe it or not, Tony Abbott the PM is a staunch monarchist. As for me, I too am a Republican and would willingly consign the Royals into oblivion. I would not however under any circumstance force then to go. We had a referendum here some years ago on the subject and it failed dismally. The Queen has stated quite frequently that she is happy for the people to decide, which they will do in the not too distant future. Once again, for the benefit of my American friends, the Queen has no power here, she is much loved as are most of the Royal Family but there are almost as many Australians who prefer a republic. We simply see the monarchy as a flashback to the past, quaint in a way and representative of a class system which still exists in Britain but which has no place in Australia where Jack truly is as good as his master.
Cheers and happy Christmas to all.
Still, the royal prerogative belongs to the Crown, and not to any of the ministers and the governor-general may unilaterally use these powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations,[21] such as when, during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, on the occasion of a stalemate over government funding between the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Deleter-general may reserve a bill "for the Queen's pleasure"; that is withhold his consent to the bill and present it to the sovereign for her personal decision. Under the constitution, the sovereign also has the power to disallow a bill within one year of the Governor-General having granted Royal Assent.[29]
In the United Kingdom, the sovereign is deemed the fount of justice.[30][31] However, he or she does not personally rule in judicial cases,[30] meaning that judicial functions are normally performed only in the monarch's name. Criminal offences are legally deemed to be offences against the sovereign and proceedings for indictable offences are brought in the sovereign's name in the form of The Queen [or King] against [Name] (sometimes also referred to as the Crown against [Name]).[32][33] Hence, the common law holds that the sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted in his or her own courts for criminal offences. Civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government) are permitted; however, lawsuits against the monarch personally are not cognisable. In international cases, as a sovereign and under established principles of international law, the Queen of Australia is not subject to suit in foreign courts without her express consent.
Australian naval vessels bear the prefix Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS) and many regiments carry the "royal" prefix.[43]
Wiki
A Morgan poll taken in October 2011 found that support for constitutional change was at its lowest for 20 years. Of those surveyed 34% were pro-republic as opposed to 55% pro-monarchist, preferring to maintain the current constitutional arrangements.[65]
DeleteWiki
Seems your country prefers living under the royals Kingston. The royals are sovereign Kingston. Sad to say in 2013.
1773-2009
There is probably no point in responding to the posts from William concerning the Royalty question here in Australia. However, rather than defend our system perhaps there is some value to be had by contrasting meanings given to one word in each of our nations. That word is "Constitution" or, more properly" the constitution".
DeletePlease correct me (politely) if I am wrong but I see my American friends waking most mornings and reminding themselves that the most important document n the national archives is the printed constitution of the United States together with the twenty odd amendments. My friends look first to that document to discover their sacred "rights" and to agitate vigorously should they feel that some action by government, body corporate or even a neighbor has infringed those same rights. Of course in such a litigious nation, lawyers and court staff are making a fortune from those who feel their rights have been infringed. This, in your country is considered normal and of course it is your affair to govern yourselves or to appoint via the ballot, those you wish to govern you. In short I perceive my friends to be so much more reliant on the Constitution for protection of your rights and freedoms than we do here in Australia.
In Aus we seldom think of the Constitution, about fifty percent of us have never heard of it and fewer than 10 percent would have read the document, Occasionally there is a reference in the media to a piece of legislation which may possible require clarification as to its constitutionality, this however is a rare occurrence. Having said that, a month or so back the Australian Capital Territory passed a law which made marriage legal between Gay people. The Federal Government immediately challenged the legislation in the Australian High Court (Your Supreme) and the court found that the Federal court had precedence over the definition of marriage.
The Constitution here also has provisions to settle disputes within government. These ‘Reserve Powers” referred to by William were last used on the first time a Federal Prime Minister and his government were dismissed by the Governor General. Now, particularly for the benefit of William I can advise that The Governor General was Sir John Kerr and he had been appointed to the high office by the very Prime Minister he was later to fire! Kerr of course was an Australian.
What must be remembered is that the appointment is formally made by the Queen but only on the recommendation of the AUSTRALIAN Prime Minister. When the Governor General decided the Government was unworkable, it was his decision and his alone to terminate Prime Ministers commission. The Queen was not asked for advice or permission and in fact it would have been quite improper for the GG to have done so It would in fact have proven the contention of William that we are governed from Britain.
What Americans generally fail to understand is that we have never felt the need to rebel and kick the British out of the country. We remain within the (British) Commonwealth of Nations but it is a ceremonial relationship. Yes we still swear an oath to the Queen and our Services mostly have the term “Royal” within their title, our coinage has the head of the Queen on one side and the word Australia is also included. It is all ceremonial in nature and has about as much practical value as William getting dressed in his britches and funny hat. In both our countries, history has driven us to where we are today, we are content and perhaps that is all that matters. Yes I too would be happy if we become a republic but I would never lose sleep over the question.
Cheers from Aussie
The article could have been summed up more simply to, "STAY OFF MY LAWN!"
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, I kind of sympathize with the annoyance that it is up to the country receiving immigrants to change its ways to accommodate the new comers. In the United States, this seems to be most prominent with regards to Spanish speaking immigrants who refuse to learn English. But, as a health care worker, I take care of quite a few patients from all over who immigrated here decades prior who can't speak English and it makes providing care very tough.
Observationally, it seems to me that many immigrants who come to this country DO wind up changing their ways. Or, if they don't, their kids do. Even I get annoyed with our political correctness in this country, but the reality is that the world keeps spinning and attitudes change. I've read plenty of articles like the one above, and have felt the same sentiments at times myself. My attitude changed as well. A trait of human nature seems to be that once things are going good for me, I should be able to lock the world in place and never have to question, let alone change my beliefs.
The Buddha once gave a teaching that is summed up simply, "It is easier to put leather on your feet than it is to cover the entire world with leather."
"It is easier to put leather on your feet than it is to cover the entire world with leather."
DeleteMerry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Max. That was a pretty good, sage-sounding quote.
Jean