Monarchist v Monarchist: a battle royale
|
The gloves are off and a battle royal is sizzling away between the Monarchists who bow low to Professor David Flint and those who curtsey deeply to Philip Benwell. Flint who heads Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) says the Governor General is our head of state but Benwell of the pure and uncompromising Australian Monarchist League says that in nonsense — the Queen is holder of that high office. Benwell says his group will not abide “deception of any sort” and accuses the Flintites of denying they are monarchists but merely Republicans who were thrown into a spin when the phrase “an Australian for head of state” was coined. Mr Benwell even went as far as rapping Quentin Bryce over the knuckles for agreeing with Kevin Rudd’s prediction of the inevitability of a Republic. As though that wasn’t enough, he says some of the states Governors and even the Governor General herself are purposely appointed in an attempt to politically demean the office and thereby help bring down the Monarchy. But Benwell has two bob each way. He admits that in our “people’s democracy” we have absolute power to remove a government at an election and remove the Monarchy at a referendum. He and Flint agree on one point — the Governor General is a political animal doing the bidding of the Prime Minister. Both men seem to forget the Queen is in the same situation — she does what Downing Street says. Both women have political masters. Over at camp Flint there’s a ceaseless barrage of blog items which if anything harm his cause — it has to be said Benwell is focused on retaining the Monarchy at all costs Flint dredges up irrelevances about restoring imperial honours and publishing stories about the royals which would have the Women’s Weekly proud the 1940’s. But the battle continues — neither camp speaks to the other and in the middle are well meaning but out of touch members wondering just what is happening. Establishing a Republic might just remove their misery. |
|
|
|
5 Comments
To think Australia’s future would be in the hands of these two elderly queens is too much to bear.
We will never, ever be a nation as long as we are proud to be part of a dead empire which was Great Britain. To think that someone who was fortunate enough to be born into the job has to be shown deference by what we Australians laughingly think of ourselves as being, free, individual and masters of our own destiny. In brutal fact, we are as free as the animal in a can of beef stew, as individual as a hundred and thousand dot. And the only thing we master is a game of footy.
To establish a Republic-and no one could hope for that more than I-would require self-esteem, being adult, and having the faith in ourselves that we deserve the right
to be a nation, entire unto itself. This is not going to happen in my lifetime.
I couldn’t give a damn whether our Head of State is a powerless rich English woman or a powerless rich Australian woman and the polls indicate that about half the population feels the same way. There is no grassroots support for a republic in this country.
Why? Because an estimated 100,000 Australians are homeless. 500,000 Australian children live in poverty. Aboriginal people live in Third World conditions, and are not recognised in the Constitution. We treat refugees like shit. We are in a recession. Etc, etc.
19th Century Australian republicans were progressive - many socialist - at a time when the majority of the population was ineligible for the vote. Modern Australian republicans do not advocate any sort of meaningful democratic reform.
If republicans are keen to change the constitution, how about pushing for something that could potentially improve the lives of our least powerful citizens, such as a constitutional bill of rights? Or what about acknowledging ATSI people in the preamble? Or ensuring that all votes cast are of roughly equal value?
The mainstream republican push comes across as decadent, as though social and humanitarian problems are not our problem or have been solved. Change for purely symbolic, nationalistic reasons is a waste of everyone’s time.
The statement by RV is one of the more passionate missives in favour of a monarchy which have ever graced the comment columns in print, and/or online media.
However, your reasons for not wanting a Republic are both specious and mendacious. To quote the many wrongs in Australia as being a reason to remain a monarchy is a breathtaking bit of nonsense. You continue your extraordinary recitative by saying 100,000 homeless, 500,000 children living in poverty, Aboriginal people living in third world conditions. AND ALL OF THIS IS HAS COME ABOUT UNDER A MONARCHY. This alone would be a reason to have a Republic. And as it all happened under a monarchy I’d venture to suggest that to remain a monarchy would be morally repugnant.
To continue following your logic we would have to wait until this land has become a Utopia before achieving a Republic.
You state quite airily that ‘Modern Australian Republicans do not advocate any sort of democratic reform’. And our present monarchical system does? The many ills of Australia…’We treat refugees like shit.’ Well this ill treatment has been nursed along since the founding of Oz and its greatest flowering came under the Blue Ribbon, die for the queen, Liberal Party led by that greater than staunch monarchist, John Winston Howard.
You decry symbols as being a waste of time. Really? I notice the reverence with which America treats its symbols. And in Australia the nearest we come to symbolism is on Saturday afternoons at the football. This foetid scenario may appeal to the dessicated citizens living close to retirement in the outer regions of Melbourne. The ones who have flag poles in their gardens, and have cheered on our young men who have been butchered in foreign wars. Most frequently in the name of the person on the English throne. (Yes, and for America as well)
I can scarcely wait throughout the years remaining to QEII followed by her son Charles, to see the speed with which all of your problems are seamlessly fixed by divine charter, and the house of Windsor. Doubtless we will have a bill of rights given to us as well. Although at the speed with which the Government is moving
on the environment this will probably be way down the list of unattainable events.
When everything has been fixed to your satisfaction we will be free to become a Republic. How exciting! I can hardly wait to miss your scenario.
Signed by one incredibly decadent Republican…Homer honey, peel me a grape before I hie me to this evening’s orgy.
You seem to have read into my post what you wanted to read. I am not arguing in favour of a monarchy, I am arguing against wasting effort in campaigning in favour of changing to republic when such a change would make no difference to anyone’s life. I am not saying that our social problems will be fixed by virtue of remaining a monarchy, I am saying that we should care about those problems rather than which country our wealthy HoS lives in.
You just spent, say, five minutes writing your diatribe. What that means is that you care about this issue. What I am saying - and why I have spent time writing my comments - is that is that you should focus your attention on other things, because they are more important.
If you have the time and the energy to campaign for a republic, I believe that you should instead spend that time and energy on more important issues. If constitutional reform is what you are interested in, why not advocate meaningful constitutional reform?
Most Australians don’t care about this issue, and that there is good reason for that: they have other things to worry about. It is a distraction from the genuine social problems that this country faces. Those who see this as an important issue are not the ones worrying about where they will find the money to pay for their child’s dental care (false consciousness aside).
I hardly need point this out, but… the US is a republic. They have far worse social problems. Is it “morally repugnant” for the US to remain a republic? The monarchy has no power. It is not the cause of our social problems.
You point out that our most abysmal treatment of refugees to date came under Howard, a monarchist. I don’t see how becoming a republic would prevent the rise of another John Howard. And I don’t see how his beliefs re the one matter are relevant to his actions on the other - he was hardly locking up kids in order to please ER.
I did not say that symbols are a waste of time. The Apology to the Stolen Generations was a symbolic gesture and - according to the majority of Aboriginal people quoted in the media - it achieved much good. But in the same way that the Apology should have been backed up by financial compensation, the change to a republic should take place alongside genuinely democratic reform. It is a difficult matter to change the Constitution - so why not make the effort worthwhile?
Yes, it is decadent to care about this issue when people are dying in this first-world country from malnutrition and lack of medical care.
It’s not really relevant, but just to make it clear: if another referendum on this matter were held tomorrow, I would vote in favour of a republic (assuming our electoral system were to either remain the same or become more democratic). But if the change came without major democratic reform, I would regret the intellectual power, time, and millions of dollars wasted in the exercise.
I apologize if I have misunderstood you.
However, one of the main points in my comment is there will always be people suffering from the various injustices which assail them, and that if one is going to put off the Republic until our present problems are fixed, there will be a whole other list of problems which will appear to be more important than a Republic.
And, simple soul that I am, I believe anyone who isn’t in favour of a Republic is against a Republic. You sir, may be quite relaxed and happy to see Oz slumbering on in our self-made desert where corrupt states premiers allow crooked developers to fill our streets with ramshackle housing, while the mining giants from overseas plunder our minerals and the citizens rest in the sun, glued to the latest footy game. And their women read their women’s magazines which masturbate over the English royals, have orgasms about the latest fashion colour and how keep fifty percent of the female population from thinking. About anything.
How in the name of whichever god you believe in can a country evolve and advance if it isn’t prepared to get off its backside and fight for something?