- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 6035 Hour
- Reading permission
Welcome back cestmoi
cestmoi 2005-07-09 16:26|
<< Facts are hard to come by with those who defend "right or wrong my country".>>
That's rich, coming from people who defend the opres.sion, censorship, and other unprintable behaviours of CCP.
<<*** The head of Australia is Queen Elizabeth II who is represented by the Governor General (GG) and appointed by the Queen.>>
I've addressed that issue, appointed by HM, CHOSEN by the elected goverment of Australia. A minor point perhaps, but the practical control of the GG is by the elected representatives of the Australian people. I have no problem of this person being "appointed" by HM, if we were a republic, then they'd be sworn in by an unelected judicial official or something.
<<*** The Governor General, Sir John, sacked the popularly elected Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam (so much for democracy, ha!).>>
It is well written in the history books about this. Whitlam's government were embarking on some dangerous foreign dealings (Khemlani loans affair) the opposition controlled senate refused to pass supply bills 3 times. Convention is that the government of the day calls an election to pass supply. Whitlam didn't (because he thought he'd lose the election) and so Fraser was sworn in as caretaker on condition supply was passed. Whitlam tried to get the Queen to intervene, but she would not interfere as it was properly a matter for Australia to sort out. At the subsequent election the actions of the opposition and the GG were rewarded with an overwhelming loss to Whitlam. The Australian people democratically approved the action. No loss of democracy was involved, despite those whingers who attempt to maintain the fantasy otherwise.
<<*** As per JB's admission, Australia is not a republic. By definition a republic is [quote] understood to be a sovereign state ruled by representatives of a widely inclusive electorate. The term republic formerly denoted a form of government that was both free from hereditary or monarchical rule and had popular control of the state and a conception of public welfare. [unquote]>>
Yeah, we're not a republic, and with all due respect to "republics" I am glad we're not. You realise of course, cestmoi, that the top 5 countries in the world for standard of living are ALL constitutional monarchies. Australia and Canada are amongst this group, and both countries "share" HM as sovereign. Also Australia, despite being a "constitutional monarchy" has a social welfare system better than many (if not most) republics. So do the Scandinavian monarchies!
<< What are you telling us, JB? Some Australians are "more equal" than others? Yes, I can believe you >>
No more or less so than any republic you'd care to name.
<<....Indeed Sir John started off as a Labor party member, same ilk as but the same source you have cited also contain this qualification: During this period his political views became more conservative. (blah blah blah)>>
Sorry, but you didn't cite this originally, you only mentioned that he was a Liberal Party member. The source said he was a LABOR party member. We all know he went conservative, top hat and all, but I have not seen a reference to him being a member of the Liberal Party. Where's your source, or did you just make it up?
<< ..., less than two weeks ago, in your hometown of Melbourne, over 70,000 Australians demonstrated against Howard's proposed law to let employers fire, sack, retrench and deny livelihood to staff anytime they want....>>
As it happens, I do not agree with that policy and hope that it gets defeated. BTW, do you know which Australian political party is the only one which has, when in power, called out the Australian defence forces to break union strikes by performing the jobs of the strikers?