Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Selling the charter of rights
|
When John Howard and his monarchist cronies set their minds to ensuring in 1999 that no Australian could become our Head of State one of their favourite lies, and yes it was a lie, was that only the well educated, latte sipping elites wanted a Republic. Out there in “real Australia” no one cared about it, or if they did they thought the existing system was fine. That strategy worked to some extent, and was one of the ingredients that killed the Yes vote in the Republic Referendum of ten years ago. When I took over as ARM Chair in 2000 I spent the majority of my time out in the bush and the suburbs. I traversed the country from Cairns to Kalgoorlie. I went to Leeton and Griffith in the Riverina, Port Augusta in South Australia, and Townsville, Mackay and Cairns in Far North Queensland. The Australian’s Stuart Rintoul came with me to Charters Towers and Corryong. The idea was to get people interested in the idea that Australia should have its own head of state. I addressed gatherings as small as five in the Corryong pub to over 200 at a school in South Australia. What interested me was that people in the bush and in the burbs, the people taken for granted, and for whom Howard and the monarchists arrogantly assumed to speak, were very interested in the Constitution, the republic and Australia’s future. This included school kids, their parents, elder folk and local media and shire councilors. If my experience is any guide, the decision by the Rudd government’s charter of rights consultation committee headed by Frank Brennan to adopt a strategy of getting out and meeting ordinary Australians, rather than simply chatting with opinion leaders and politicians, is a smart one. Tammy Williams, an Indigenous lawyer on the panel, says that “It’s the people in the streets, the people who are part of CWA meetings, who are the backbone of the Australian community, who we haven’t heard from — the issue is how do we coax them to come out and share their views.” It’s not hard Tammy. You will find that people are energized by being consulted on matters so fundamental to our nation. It will surprise you that even in the most conservative parts of the country, you will find people who are supportive of a charter of rights, just as they are supportive of a republic. The important thing to do is to seriously engage them and come back to them — don’t just waltz into town, have a one hour meeting, a head out to the local airport. Wander through the town, go to the schools and even visit the supermarket. It was on one of these street walks in 2001 that I encountered an elderly woman in Port Augusta, sitting having a cup of tea with a friend. This women, well into her 80s and who had lived all her life in rural South Australia, told me she backed a republic, not for herself because she loved the Queen, but for her grandkids and their friends. Her octogenarian friend nodded approvingly. |
|
|
9 Comments
It’s telling in your support for a charter of rights that you still haven’t come to grips with the simple fact that both the monarchists and republicans had their chance to put their case equally to the ppl in the 1999 Referendum. You lost deal with it!
If you can’t accept a democratically sealed defeat then move to the USA! We defeated you then and we’re gonna do you in again whether by this clandestine charter of rights path or otherwise.
Good article. ‘Anonymous”s comment is pure historical revisionism. My response to both this comment and the article in general is that if monarchists are convinced they won in 1999, then they’ll have no probs at all with my (and some other republicans) practice of insisting that ‘God Save the Queen’ be sung as often and as embarrisingly as possible, that union jacks be flown wherever innapropriate and that fawning to mother England become part of our national psyche. Nothing will swing votes towards a republic like this sort of carry-on. Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves etc etc. Land of Hope and Glory (this is a big one among Goodies fans).
I agree with Greg Barns. There is this big assumption by those who label things like human rights and the republic issue as “elitist”. There are many Australians who are interested in national issues and there shouldn’t be an assumption that we think these things don’t matter. The “Your Rights at Work” campaign was all grass roots. I don’t think Tammy Williams spent too much time wondering about what the people on the ground thought when she was a member of John Howard’s handpicked National Indigenous Council. And they supported the lack of consultation about the Northern Territory Intervention with Northern Territory Indigenous communities and the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act.
I cannot understand why a minority of my fellow Australians cling to the English monarchy like suckerfish; it’s about time surely to grow up at last. At the so-called “referendum” overseen by a self-acknowledged monarchist, i.e. The Rodent - the question put should have been initially “Do you favour a Republic?”. I think we all know what the answer would have been. (I hope all the undershot jawed monarchists can understand some of the words with more than four letters of the alphabet in them). Cheers anyway.
anonomous you are wrong. the monarchist case was given extra time by a blatantly partisan PM and embodied lies like the governor general is the head of state.
THe republican case was marked by the problem of models with the direct election types spoiling because nobody paid them what they thought was their due.
What pray tell does democratically sealed mean and who is we?
In a perverse way, I am looking forward to this battle. You attack the Mystical Body of Christ, you war against God. It was Voltaire, I think, who once predicited he would “bury” the Pope. Guess who buried who?
Considering you remembered Voltaire, but not the specific Pope, I’d say Voltaire won!
You crazy papist you.
The republican movement’s case was inept and poorly organised and the divisions that emerged then between the direct election model and selection-by-parliament model, together with the question of the “reserve ” powers and whether the ‘president’ would have such a prerogative, were, and remain, the republicans achilles heal.
One crucial question to any Bill of Rights will be the definition of ‘person’ and who is the subject of those rights. If the Bill and its apologists exclude the unborn, and I think they will, then large sections of the Australian community, including the entire Catholic Episcopacy, will become entrenched opponents. The Church has already seen the abuse of human rights inherent in the recent Victorian legislation, predicated on the absurd proposition that killing an unborn child is no different to removing your appendix and the equally appalling attempts by the Abortion industry, realising that they are running out of doctors and nurses, to coerce Catholic hospitals and individuals, whose conscience correctly informs them that abortion is the most callous of homicides, to assist in the killing of the innocent and helpless.
President-elect Obama, with his Freedom of Choice Act is also about to begin his assault on the unborn and Catholic healthcare in North America. More African American children are killed by abortion than anything else. That tells you alot about Obama and what he represents.
In a perverse way, I am looking forward to this battle. You attack the Mystical Body of Christ, you war against God. It was Voltaire, I think, who once predicited he would “bury” the Pope. Guess who buried who?
.
I cannot understand why a minority of my fellow Australians cling to the English monarchy like suckerfish; it’s about time surely to grow up at last. At the so-called “referendum” overseen by a self-acknowledged monarchist, i.e. The Rodent - the question put should have been initially “Do you favour a Republic?”. I think we all know what the answer would have been. (I hope all the undershot jawed monarchists can understand some of the words with more than four letters of the alphabet in them). Cheers anyway.
Yes, John Howard is a monarchist, but who was it who arranged the constitutional convention? It was him. The republicans forget this little fact, just as they forget that they lost the referendum. Greg Barns, I think you should use your talents on a new hobby, the die-hard republicanism in a country that enjoys a tremendous constitution is bemusing at best, boring at worst.