Comments on: Selling the charter of rights

By: anonomous

anonomous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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).

By: Tara Bean

Tara Bean — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: john

john — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: dermot J mcguire

dermot J mcguire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: John James

John James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?
.

By: john

john — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

By: Michael Feller

Michael Feller — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.