My dear wife, in all her wisdom, has, with vigour and determination, volunteered to work with the indigenous people of Australia in the "Recognise" movement. I don't think that she, for one moment, sat and thought through this very well and perhaps its best that she didn’t!
"Stuff Brexit and Same Sex Marriage, the "Recognise" movements challenge is far, far greater!"
This is about a group of people, who over 200 or so years, have been exterminated to a mere 3% minority of Australia. Their struggle for recognition is therefore a significantly greater challenge than Brexit or SSM and to add to things it is in an environment where the Anglo Saxons around the world have simply gone loopy (ala. Brexit, Trump, Abbot, Turnbull, Farage, Boris Johnson) and feel their domination and control of the world is under threat - Bring on the BRICS, we are sick of the GuSWhiSuCs.
What is disappointing about the situation is that none of the non-white communities in Australia realise that this movement is a struggle representing them as well - the constitution discriminates against all of them and they are blissfully ignorant or terrified to take action against it - lest they be sent home!! What's worse is that the constitution does allow the government to send them home!
There are a hand full who have read the Australian constitution (I need to confess that up front). In many ways, that’s a good thing, because it is such trash. The constitution has little impact what-so-ever in our day to day lives. The only time it does come into play is when a Neo-Con Right wing government (a la Abbott and Turnbull or Howard on behalf of Bush!) attempt to violate human rights against people who are non-white or non-Anglo Saxon . And we find, time and time again, that it is dismally ineffective at protecting human rights.
Australians just assume that, like the American constitution, theirs is one that was written by visionary, wise, forefathers of the nation and therefore it is good for the nation. The thing is that the Australian constitution was written in a completely different context from the American. Whilst Australians would love to be critical (usually they aren't intelligent enough to even contemplate it) of the American constitution, the reality is that it was written in a completely different context by people with quite different levels of intellect than the Australian.
The American constitution was written by visionaries who had just fought for liberties, freedom and independence from a brutal master. It was also during a philosophical clash about slavery - one that was successfully won by these same visionaries a few years later. This was a period of possibly the greatest change in social values in America. The drive was for blasting through shackles, opening up new opportunities, expanding the vision!
In contrast, the Australian experience was quite different. It was written by a collection of half-wit criminal ning-nongs masquerading as the social elite - judges etc.- with the intent of confirming, embedding and sustaining Anglo Saxon control across the whole continent. The drive was all about tightening the shackles on all but one, closing opportunities for all but one, narrowing the vision!
So, unlike the American constitution which has helped America prosper and remain an all-encompassing nation, the Australian constitution has only been an obstacle. And whilst Australian love to be self-adulating on matters such and racism and multiculturalism, it's more a case of the nation still being at a stage of immature denial than reality. While the rest of the world has accepted the extent of racism and are proactively acting to rectify it. We must never forget that it is this constitution that gave rise to the "White Australia" policy - one of only three (Israel and South Africa) nations that have ever had openly apartheid policy.
Many Australians (even white) would be alarmed by, not only the statements of the constitution, but also the views of the people who wrote it, if only they knew anything about it. But as I said before - they are blissfully ignorant.
Just a few excepts of the wonderful Australian constitution:
Chapter 5 - the states, section 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
"The commonwealth shall not make any law for
- Establishing any religion; OR
- For imposing any religious observance; OR
- For prohibiting the free exercise of any religion
AND
No religious test shall be required as a qualification any
- Office; OR
- public trust
under the commonwealth"
Yours truly is no lawyer, but it appears to me that this should have been two statements. The first part is non-threatening to the Anglican Anglo Saxons (GuSWhiSuCs) and is visionary. Not so, the second part. It appears that a religious test is prevented for only two scenarios. In all other scenarios people can be discriminated based on their religion or the lack of it.
One can only think that the only religion that these ning-nongs were feeling threatened by at the time would have been Catholicism. But in the present context, it has really come in handy for the neo-cons to develop their highly religious based discriminatory laws.
One would have thought this section would have been turned upside down and rather than listing where discrimination was not possible, they said it was not possible at all and then listed some exceptions such as religious roles. But that would not have met the underlying intent of the constitution.
When it comes to racism, the whole bunch of ning-nongs were racists and not surprisingly this is reflected in the constitution.
Part 4 - Both houses of Parliament, section 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament
"The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have to powers to make laws for peace, order and good government of the commonwealth with respect to:
xxvi the people of any race for which it deemed necessary to make special laws "
This is an outrageous statement and would not exist in the constitution of any civilised society. A racist, white supremacist society maybe, but not in a civilised society. It is a clear give-away of what the constitution was intended to accomplish.
Now let's look at the views of the some of the forefathers who wrote this drivel and greatly admired by Australians.
Barton really had some colourful views on races. One would say they were second to none but Churchill. This was the villain who was Australia's first prime minister. Barton's justification for the "Races powers" clause, stated above, was paraphrased as
"It enables the parliament to deal with people of any alien race after they have entered the Commonwealth;
to localise them within defined areas, to restrict their migration, to confine them to certain occupations,
OR
to give them special protection and secure their return after a certain period to the country whence they came"
All very noble causes, it seems.
"We are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races can live and increase freely for the higher civilisation.”
The fool was a complete racist fraud borrowing ideas from others (Churchill and Roosevelt) and implementing to "White Australia" policy. This Dumbo plagiarised an entire statement on immigration from Roosevelt - pretty much word for word replacing America with Australia. The dumb Aussies were none the wiser!
In introducing the "White Australia" bill in parliament, this idiot said
"I do not think either that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality. There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races - I think no one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior. The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman. There is deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can up these two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement or by anything else will make some races equal to others"
It is ironic that this buffoon picked on the Chinese as it is this very race that has turned the Anglo Saxon (or Englishman's) world completely loopy!
The first Chief Justice, dick head (Sir) Sam Griffith's intelligent contribution was
"What I have had more particularly in my own mind was the immigration of coolies from British India, or any eastern people subject to civilised powers… I maintain that no state should be allowed, because the federal parliament did not choose to make a law on the subject, to allow the state to be flooded by such people as I have referred to."
So much for equal justice - not much has changed in a hundred years.
As with Churchill, these men were proud of their eloquence and a completely misguided mob. But due to their arrogance and bravado, they would grandly make these vulgar statements publicly and therefore there is plenty of evidence of their red-neck simplicity and ignorance.
But one has to give them credit where it is due, the laws accomplished what they intended to. An eerie statement by Alfred Deakin, the first Attorney General and second Prime Minister:
"Little more than a hundred years ago Australia was a Dark Continent in every sense of the term. There was not a white man within its borders. In another century the probability is that Australia will be a White Continent with not a black or even dark skin amongst its inhabitants. The aboriginal race has died out in the South and is dying fast in the North and West even where most gently treated. Other races are to be excluded by legislation if they are tinted to any degree."
. . . and so it is – a predominantly “white continent”.
You got to love the terms used such as "tinted"!!! Yours truly did not realise that I was of a tinted race! I suspect the word "dying" is used rather loosely - exterminated might have been more appropriate! How annoying the North and West were so bloody ineffective at ridding their states of this inferior tinted race. I suspect there would be many Australians who think that the indigenous people of Australia should be thankful to the Whites for not exterminating them completely!
The reality is that Recognise is bound to fail. For one, it is rather narrowly focussed on only two groups of people - aboriginals and Torres strait Islanders - who constitute just 3% of the population. Whilst special consideration must be made to recognise that Australia is older than White settlement, the flaws in the constitution are blatantly around racism and religion which impact all minority races and religion in Australia. It is much more likely to succeed if it was broadened to make this an issue for all minorities.
Secondly, the average red-neck white Aussie is simply wallowing in their own cesspit and is incapable of thinking beyond that. "Who gives a f--- about the constitution" would be their response. Most wouldn't know one existed let alone what it did for them.
So, sadly, as much as I would wish that the efforts of my wife and other intellectuals bring success to the movement - I feel the challenge maybe immense. Good luck to "Recognise" I will support the movement in any way I can.
No comments:
Post a Comment