A Republic is a dead duck?


Joshua Gibbins offers a young person's observation on the seemingly evaporated notion of Australia becoming a Republic.

It is
truly sad for all Australian Republicans who still wish to see an end to the
monarchy in their lifetime.

It seems that now, even after Australia’s biggest republican pressure group has
gone to such lengths, and raised so much money; a republic is still far from

The Australian Republican Movement since, rebranding itself ‘Our Identity’,
seems to have moved away from the old arguments about hereditary rule and similar
spent and tired arguments.

The Australian Republican Movement now seem to be trying to run a positive
campaign that, as David Morris says, ‘brings people together’.

Now the Australian Republican Movement is talking about the ‘Australian
identity’, multiculturalism, and what the Australian general public perceives
to be ‘Australian’.

Ironically, for a pressure group that talks about Australia having an identity
problem and wanting to unify all Australians, the pressure group has rebranded
itself ‘our identity’, changing its logo, webpage and webpage URL, leaving
little trace of their former identity.

Is this a positive campaign, or is it just a thinly veiled ploy to win support?

By questioning the Australian identity—by going out and saying that Australia’s
identity needs unifying—does that not seem more of an insult?

On an Australian breakfast show, the Republican National Director and the Television Host talk about
Australia becoming a republic.

It can be
viewed here.

The Republican Movement National Director David Morris says that the
Australian Republican Movement feels that Australia needs uniting, which leaves
me asking, isn’t Australia already united?

Under the 1901 Act of Federation, Australia, granted by Her Majesty Queen
Victoria, all Australians are united under the Crown in the Commonwealth of

Another statement by Mr. Morris is the Australian Republican Movement feels the
best way of uniting Australia is through having an Australian President.

The problem with this is; the Australian Republican Movement has said many
times that in a minimal Republic model only the title of the office of
Governor-General to President would need to be changed.

In this case, if the present day Australian-born Governor-General does not
already unify the multicultural Australian people, how will a simple change of
name in a public office make any difference?

Even with
that said, an elected president would not, unite the Australian people more
than they already are.

The very concept of a republic though is divisive with one candidate
winning over others therefore alienating a section of the public in the

If a politician, such as the current Prime Minister, or a former parliamentarian
was elected as president, would that unite the people?

If an Australian movie or T.V. soap identity was to be elected as president, would
that unite the people?

Just because the people tick or number a box on a ballet sheet does not solely
unite the people.

Speaking as someone that has personally been in the presence of Her Majesty the
Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, at Melbourne’s Federation Square, I have witnessed
firsthand that the monarchy does in fact unite all Australians.

Whether it’s the excitement of royalty or just being in the presence of popular
people, Australians from all walks of life go out to see the Royals and chatter
to each other while waiting for their arrival.

So, is Australia really in need of uniting?

Joshua is a 23-year-old constitutional monarchist studying a Diploma in
Library and Cultural Studies.



Egyptian court hands death sentence in absentia

Remember that silly movie that sent Moslems into a slaughterous rampage In Libya last September? Well, under the "egalitarian" Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, Canadian Nader Fawzy has been sentenced to death despite his claims of no involvement. Such is the religion of love and pieces. 

A Canadian who was sentenced to death in absentia Wednesday in Cairo over an anti-Islam movie that caused deadly riots in parts of the Muslim world said he's terrified of being kidnapped and spirited to Egypt.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Nader Fawzy denied any involvement in the "Innocence of Muslims," saying the Egyptian government has long been out to get him because of his Coptic Christian activism. "Of course, I'm worried about this death penalty," Fawzy said.

Read more:www.2canada.com/nanaimodailynews

The look of astonishment

UPDATE: 29/11/12

These dogs are watching Parliamentary Question Time and the despicable performance of The Right Utterly Contemptuous Julia Gillard. Shame, Shame!


Lilly, Willy and Wally are now watching the parliamentary brawl, Gillard Vs Abbott and are astounded that the pugilist Abbott accepted the bout but failed to land a blow. The dogs have been studying "The great Battles of WWII" and ask what kind of fool charges the enemy ramparts pretending his index finger is a gun? They also wanted to know what Muhammad Ali's "ropa, dopa" trick was. Having no answer I added Valium to their chicken necks – and joined them for dinner.


Incompetent blunder or a dangerous agenda?


Nicola Roxon is an honours law graduate who topped her class at the University of Melbourne. She was a Labor union organiser and a Labor lawyer with Maurice Blackburn and Co before reaching the highest placed lawyer in the land, the Attorney-General of Australia under a Labor government at the young age of 45. She must be good, super smart, the best lawyer in Labor’s legal arsenal to get that job. But the business of having “brains”, as it was in my day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, has changed dramatically.

Before Ms Roxon was born there were more or less two levels of education, those who left school at 15, and those who went to high school and then on to university. The early leavers generally entered the trades and filled the needs of factories and retailers. University graduates filled the void of doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professions.

Then came a tidal wave of PhD’s flowing from the campuses of higher learning. Australia, the lucky country, produced a surplus of Einsteinian sophisticates that owned the Sydney Morning Herald “work wanted” ads. Doctors of everything either useless or unwanted washed dishes, mowed lawns or sat in coffee shops, smoked dope and cursed the system. The promise that a PhD guaranteed the high life was misleading.

This was rather curious to tradespeople who were already paying-off their first Holden Ute, or saving for a “block of ground.” They viewed Uni scholars as intellectually superior, even if they couldn’t fix a dripping tap. They were up there with politicians who spoke incomprehensible jabber, most of it believed. We also believed they knew what was going on and would look after the people. That was until school dropouts discovered that most of these geniuses were bereft of common sense. “Wouldn’t know how to tie his shoelaces” became the adopted term.

Years later and very much a cynic, I ask if the Attorney-General is just another of the Labor indoctrinated “shoelaces” brigade or a determined socialist with an agenda designed to control? Roxon proposes to expand the list of ways a person can be “offended” and drag the offender off to court. It’s not enough that Julia Gillard made draconian changes to our anti-discrimination laws. In awe and subservience to her boss, Roxon has gone further. If the owner of a business displays an election placard in support of a particular candidate, a staff member can claim discrimination because they want another candidate to win—they are “offended.”

It gets worse. Roxon plans to rip-up 800 years of common law undermining basic legal principles, especially the one presented by the English lawyer Willian Garrow in 1791 that entrenched, “innocent until proven guilty.” The defendant will now have to prove their innocence rather than the complainant prove guilt. Yep, this is surely hatched around a Labor sausage sizzle where they all have diarrhoea from food poisoning. Placing the onus of proof upon the plaintiff is the basis of any just legal system.

Within this madness are costs. The new laws, engineered by God only knows who, will establish a punitive system against the accused before guilt is found. Such claims will cost the complainant nothing, even if they lose. The defendant pays everything. Keep in mind that a suit can be launched by anyone who feels “offended” by a remark, even third hand, made by another. I might be offended when someone tells me “to have good day.” The weather, before or after first coffee, or mood will decide if I want to have a good day. “Offence” can be as fickle as that.

The proposed changes are too complex to deal with here, and I am but layman in such matters. However, I recall the consequences of the Racial Discrimination Act used against freedom of speech in the court’s determination to silence Andrew Bolt. We now suffer a mish-mash of intermingling laws that can be manipulated; construed and applied according to the whim of the adjudicator. The only certainty in this type of law is that the defendant is guilty and will pay.

With further consideration I declare the architects of this change as plain stupid and the enemy of democracy—evils of the socialist “shoelaces” brigade. The right to be “offended” will serve as a punitive weapon for all—a two-way sword indeed. For example: recently, Ms Gillard called her opponents, “misogynists,” and “nutjobs on the Internet.” She called Tony Abbott “jack the ripper.” David Marr's article in The Monthly says, “Abbott was an intimidating bully towards a female student at university.” Any, or all of that, depending where you stand, is “offensive.”

Roxon may yet distinguish herself as the socialist lawmaker who gridlocked Australia’s courts with frivolous calls of discrimination. Her handling, or rather interference in the Peter Slipper affair may speak volumes of her legal judgement? The biggest loser in all this may well be the leftist ABC, SBS and Fairfax publications that millions of Australians view as highly “offensive.” Now, who will I sue first?

And so, the question: is this an incompetent blunder or a dangerous agenda?

That question is, of course, is rhetorical as the two are not incompatible. Like Napoleon’s idea of invading Russia. Like Hitler’s same idea. Like …..

Thought for the week: Consider the import of the above very carefully.

Remember Lynton Crosby? You will now!

You can call it poetic justice or serendipity. Australian
Labor got the Scottish dirt-monger John McTernin as strategist and Britain’s
Tory; David Cameron got the Australian loose cannon Lynton Crosby as his
campaign guru.

McTernin and Crosby seem to have a similar modus operandi.
While McTernin escapes the deep poo of Australian politics, Crosby has jumped,
both feet, into the British political dung-hole and comes up seriously on the

Crosby will be better remembered here as John Howard’s
advisor who took them both into the sea in the “children overboard” affair, a matter later found to be a myth.

As McTernin is our problem for now, Crosby is proving a
liability to Cameron with his outspoken opinions. ‘Lynton Crosby, has been
accused of calling Boris Johnson's aides "f**kwits".’ Crosby helped
organise two election victories for Johnson in London where he told Johnson ‘to
concentrate on traditional Tory voters instead of  “f**king Muslims”.’ Oh, dear me Lynton, too much VB!

However, others share Crosby’s sentiments toward Muslims. A
former Conservative Peer Shreela Flather, Britain’s first female Asian peer
agrees the party should not court Muslim votes because they are “all on
benefits”. ‘I don’t condone swearing, but Lynton is right to say it is
pointless for the Conservatives to chase Muslim votes. They are all on benefits
and all vote Labour,’ said Baroness Flather.

So, how will those eligible among the 30,000 that crashed our borders

Could this attitude be a precursor to a new political
thinking among politicians in the West?

GC. Ed.

Read more:www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

ABC Equates Skeptics to Paedophiles and Drug Dealers

Jo-nova-12a-600Jo Nova discusses a recent broadcast on taxpayer-funded ABC radio equating climate skeptics to drug pushers and paedophiles:

Last Saturday on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers.

Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out  with…” He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs.

“What if I told you pedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthmatics, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous, but there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, distorting the science.”

“These distortions of science are far from trivial, our neglect of what may be clear and urgent problems could be catastrophic and now a professor of psychology at UWA has shown what he says is the basis of this unrelenting debauchery of the facts…”

Stephan Lewandowsky goes on to defame

This is degradation and a malicious attack on skeptics with misinformation:

“They were rejecting the science not based on the science... but on other factors… what we basically found was the driving motivating factor behind their attitudes was their ideology.
People who endorse an extreme version of free market fundamentalism …They are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer, and between HIV and AIDS…

Ladies and gentlemen it’s time to get serious. Both Williams and Lewandowsky are ignoring the scientific evidence, denigrating their opponents, destroying rational conversation and honest discussion before it can even start. We can’t let them get away with this.

They are paid public servants who use taxpayer funds to push their personal ideology. It has to stop.

Robyn Williams, what you do is not science. It’s crass tribal warfare.

Stephan Lewandowsky, skeptics base their arguments on evidence. You are in denial. We don’t deny AIDS or that smoking causes cancer, and we never have. Your tactic of deliberately seeking out a few nutters (or fakes) to interview, then besmirching the names of serious commentators is blatant, obvious and  documented.

Name-calling in order to suppress debate

The class of people who use regulations to control others, rather than persuasion and voluntary competition, have resorted to name calling for years to suppress the free and fair debates that they cannot win. Now they are employing that technique in other areas.

What they road-tested on skeptics, they  now use in the wider political debate against their political opponents — such as Tony Abbott and Alan Jones. With each success they are becoming more loud, aggressive, and obnoxious.

The mainstream media makes this cheap tactic successful.  As long as they promote these anti-science, baseless smears as if they were serious commentary the media is the problem.

When are the MSM going to stop treating the names as serious content, because they are so transparently untrue and designed simply to smear opponents? Indeed, when are the MSM going to stop being complicit or even active partners in the name calling? Perhaps we could start with demonstrations at ABC offices…

You can complain to the ABC here: http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm

Jo Nova is the author of The Skeptics Handbook, and has previously hosted a children's TV program, had regular science segments on ABC radio, and was an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the Australian National University. This was originally published on her personal blog and is reproduced with permission. 

Fishing industry wrecked by whacky policy

Allan Essery writes about the government's environment policy and how it is being driven by Greens and other environmentalists whose marine agenda follows the doctrine of catch or eat no fish.

Recently we heard the Gillard Government’s Environment
Minister, Tony Bourke’s introduction to the creation of a huge Marine National
Park that is said to be in size equal to the area of Australia.  It was a
simplistic explanation that had all in my household in fits of laughter when he
claimed that there was a need to protect our ocean environs so that in fifty
years time children could go out on the ocean and see ‘Nemo’.

There are most certainly parts of our offshore waters that
need protection for obvious reasons but to create massive marine national parks
just to satisfy environmentalists and Greens has no other outcome than to
damage our economy and send many in our fishing industry backwards, out of the

The Australian Fishing Management Authority says, “Fish are
a multi-billion dollar industry for Australia.  They are our fifth largest
food producing industry, in fact worth more than $2.1 billion to our economy
every year.”  They go on to say, “Australian fish stocks are generally in
good shape and improving.  Catch levels are set under harvest strategies
that provide for more abundant target species than previous settings.” 
Everyone seemed to be happy with that arrangement except the Greens, the
environmentalists, and Tony Bourke.

With the importance of commercial fishing to our economy and
their own survival in mind Brian Jeffriess, of the Commonwealth Fisheries
Association, says it threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of fishermen and
their communities.  General manager for Austral Fisheries, Andy
Prendergast says the Australian fishery is already one of the best managed in
the world.  He says his fishermen will be excluded from their most
important fishing ground, which lies off the Wellesley Islands group in the
Gulf of Carpenteria.

Mr Prendergast says adding insult to injury is the fact that
this part of the fishery is where the industry currently conducts scientific
monitoring to measure the health of the fishery.  Under the guidance of
the CSIRO, industry has funded charters that go out, and, “we have what we call
a benthic impact study site to see the effects of trawling on the marine

Chris Smyth, of the Australian Conservation Foundation
claims, “There’s plenty of science around that shows that protecting areas
of oceans works.”  He says that the establishment of highly protected
zones actually increases fish stocks. Now who would have thought
that?  It doesn’t take a mental giant to work out that if you ban fishing
in a certain area fish stocks will increase; is that as good as it sounds?

In Western Australia recreational fishermen are, as an
example, pointing to the damage resulting from tight restrictions on Pink
Snapper.  The limit: one fish per angler, per day.  “The Pink Snapper
are now in plague proportions, which have a detrimental effect on other fish
species,” they say.

Guy Leyland is a spokesman for the WA Fishing Industry
Council.  "Our reaction is strong disappointment, there will be
impacts in terms of the commercial fisheries off Western Australia," he

"Those impacts range from mild to severe. I think some
businesses will probably reach the tipping point in terms of their viability.
They will be forced out of fishing businesses.

"The impacts range from shark and scale fish in the
north-west, in the south-west mackerel, scale fish and rock lobster off the
Abrolhos Islands and Kalbarri and scallop and shark fishing off the south-west
and south coast of Western Australia.

"What I find extraordinary is this spruiking by the
Gillard Government in terms of this initiative of effectively setting aside
from any economic activity a huge part of Australian sovereign waters, that's
being spruiked as a major achievement, which I find extraordinary.

"It would seem we're leading the world in terms of a
carbon tax, shutting down our live cattle industry to Indonesia, the next
achievement of the Gillard Government is to add the commercial fishing industry
in Australia, so shutting down primary industries and regional economies for
the offer of inner city seats of the east coast."

What does this mean for the taxpayer?  It means that
there will be a new $2.1 billion hole to fill as the significant economic
advantages of our fishing industry disappear just to satisfy the Greens and
environmentalists lobby.

Allan is retired from active RAAF duty. In civilian life he was a pilot and flight instructor.  He was also the commander of an Royeal Volunteer Coastal Patrol maritime rescue unit on the South Coast of NSW and senior officer for the Far South Coast.  He fights for a fair go for ex-servicemen and women and is a harsh critic of the government's treatment of serving and ex-service personnel.