Political Correctness Rant

[old man emu]

There is a very rarely used Common Law power of arrest that Police have. It is the power to arrest to prevent a breach of the Peace. There is breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawfully assembly or other disturbance. In an emotional time such as exists in Britain now, displaying a sign  with the words "Not my King", while displaying an expression of the opinion, which is legal to to do, the locality where the sign is displayed could lead to an affray. Affray: conduct would have caused a person of ‘reasonable firmness’ to fear for their safety. 

 

So, as a pre-emptive strike a Constable could take the displayer into custody, i.e. make an arrest, then quite simply remove the person from the area and tell them to stay away from the area they were arrested in. Having said that the Constable can end the arrest. Just because the Constable has effected an arrest, it does not mean that a prosecution for an offence needs to take place. 

[nomadpete]

13 hours ago, onetrack said:

anti-monarchists in every society in every country. Scratch them a little, and you'll usually find they're of Irish ancestry

The Irish have long memories....

They've never forgotten the potato famine, have they!

 

What about the Scots, don't they have a bit of a long standing grudge too?

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was an Irish guy where my wife worked during the Monarchy vote in Australia. He voted for the monarchy, because he didn't want the "politicians selection" for head of state. Yep, just as the cunning pro-monarchy ads told him. What he and his like achieved was the on-going selection by ONE politician.

Now that was so stupid that you would think he had no education, but he was well educated and seemed smart most of the time.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I heard of a guy arrested for shouting at the queen's funeral procession, and while I am anti-monarchy, I am also anti bad-manners and reckon he was behaving badly.

As for King Charles, I reckon we need another vote on becoming a republic, but later on.

How much does Australia send to the royals anyway?

[onetrack]

Quote

How much does Australia send to the royals anyway?

I've been sending them a couple of dollars a week to ensure they keep out of the poorhouse. Every Australian should follow my example.  I'd hate to see the Royals have to hock the Crown Jewels just to pay the bills incurred in operating all those castles and keeping all those horses.

[old man emu]

12 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

How much does Australia send to the royals anyway?

Nothing. Australia does not pay a cent for the maintenance or security of the Sovereign. The exception is only when she visits Australia which can only be at the request of the government at which time expenses incurred from the planned itinerary are paid for by the Australian government This applies equally to any visiting dignitary invited to Australia by the government.

[Yenn]

Are we ready for a republic, with a President.

Just today I read that the Welsh are going to have an anti monarchy protest in Cardiff when Charles is there. They don't like the way he gave William the title of Prince of Wales, while the Queen was lying instate.

I think a lot of Aussies are similar to the Welsh, in that they don't think through what they are proposing. Maybe the Welsh are just being politically correct, as denigrating Charles seems to be the done thing.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I read on the ABC Website that Giulia Gillard is ready to have the debate on thre republic, and that apparently polls  indicate that 40% of Aussies want to cut ties with the monarchy. Well, I am happy the Giulia is happy to start talking about it, but has she forgotten she is no longer PM? Also, last time I checked, 40% wasn't a majority, either. Now, there may be, say 20% undecided, which would mean that 40% still want to keep ties, but I think it would be more balanced if the ABC had of published what the level of those polled wanted to keep ties and the number undecided.

 

I also know pollsters try and get the questioning right so that it takes some bias out of the equation - but what does wanting to cut ties to the monarchy mean, anyway? Do they actively want to; i.e. it is a conscious thought in their mind and an issue they consider important - or is it just when asked, and it really doesn't impact their day to day life?

 

Ideologically, Australia should become a republic, IMHO. However, there is little, if any real tangible benefit, more political risk and the money spent to get there could be put to better use like health services, roads, rural areas, and the like. To me, it's a great distraction from other more pressing issues.

[spacesailor]

Long reign .

IDI AMIN

 

Ugadan president 

I don,t like the ideo of republics , too many way for the power hungry to becomeour little .

Dictator 

spacesailor

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

but has she forgotten she is no longer PM?

I don't think that's fair. She might not be in politics but she does hold major positions in public life. But isn't she saying the same thing as we are saying here? 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't think its unfair.. it was as if she was trying to set the agenda for a referndum on it, conceding the Voice referendum would come first.

 

Are her public positions elected office?

 

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Are her public positions elected office?

Why should they be? If you want to take umbrage, go at the dumb "reporter" who asked the question. As far as I'm concerned, she's got as much right as I have to comment on this topic.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Maybe it was the way it was reported...   She does have as much right to comment as you or I..

[onetrack]

If the Republicans really want to start a bunfight over whether we should still be tied to a monarchial system - which has served us admirably for the 234 years of Australias existence, as we know our current governmental system - then they had better start advertising just exactly WHY a Republic is going to serve us better than the setup we already have.

 

Under the current arrangement, we have managed to operate pretty peacefully for 234 years, with no civil wars, no revolutions, no dictators, and no assassinations - unlike many Republics.

I would like to see the record of the most outstanding Republic on the planet, just to have a decent comparison between what we have now, and what the Republicans propose.

 

As the old argument goes - "Why change it, if it's working O.K.?" There are many people who are always promoting change, without any clearly outlined plan of how that change will benefit us, materially, economically, politically and financially, as a nation. The Royal family costs us nothing financially, and their only real job is to act as the non-political arbitration between political disputes, and call for new elections.

I have this great fear that a Republican style of Govt may too easily turn into a dictatorship, with no chance of removing the dictator, apart from a bloody revolution, and resorting to firearms.

[red750]

Just another excuse to squander squillions, like changing the name of Moreland Council to the aboriginal name for the area. Does absolutely no benefit for the suburb and even aboriginal elders have described it as having no value. Whenever something like this changes, there is a fortune wasted changing signs, stationery, records, you name it. Wasting as much money as the buildings Putin is destroying in the Ukraine.

 

Oh yeah. I forgot. All the jobs it will create. More like all the profit for the already wealthy. 

[old man emu]

One of the reasons for the rise of a dictatorship in Germany after 1930 was the failure of the country to operate as a republic. The pre-1918 monarchy might not have been perfect but Germany was "doing nicely, thank you", with its industrial, economic, scientific and cultural advances. The post-1918 republic was unable to handle the conditions facing the country The people didn't like the change, so they reverted to a style of government that promised a return to stable times. In reality, there was not much difference between the way the country ran under the monarchy and the way it ran under a dictatorship.

 

I'm being very narrow here and restricting my comments to a comparison of an autocracy and a republic. I'm not concerned with the atrocities of the NAZI autocracy. That's something for another thread. 

 

 

[nomadpete]

11 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I don't think its unfair.. it was as if she was trying to set the agenda for a referndum on it, conceding the Voice referendum would come first.

 

Are her public positions elected office?

 

Well, we seem to allow far less qualified people (such as sky tv personalities) to make sweeping political statements. Why not an ex pollie voice an opinion?

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

If the Republicans really want to start a bunfight over whether we should still be tied to a monarchial system - which has served us admirably for the 234 years of Australias existence, as we know our current governmental system - then they had better start advertising just exactly WHY a Republic is going to serve us better than the setup we already have.

Now THAT resonates.

 

If we are going to make ANY changes to the govermnent systems, we should start by clearly showing the cost/benefit/risk analysis.

 

I confess, last time around, I only voted for a republic because the superficial publicity made it sound like a good idea. It has to be more than just 'a good idea at the time'. There has to be a clear advantage to the country before it is worth introducing the risk of getting a 'popularly elected' psychopath that can buy their way into to the top job, just by buying the greatest advertising package. (Thinking of the USA system here)

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by nomadpete

[spacesailor]

The French-man tried to become a Dictator of France. 

An it took the British to put him away !.

AND

A great Republic France has been.  How many revalution,s have they had to date, 

My little bit of taking the Ps out of the idea, ' sarcasm " .

spacesailor

 

[Yenn]

Why would anyone listen to Julia Gillard, isn't she involved in banking, which is up there with the anti royalists as the subject to hate?

I reckon that if you have a good reason to change to a republic or not change, then you should let us know. I have no desire to change because someone suggests it without giving a reason.

My desire for change is that I find it stupid that our head of state is not Australian.

My reason to stay as we are is that the present system works well, although i have my doubts about the present G.G. The other reason is that I cannot trust those in authority to be looking after the interests of Australia.

Remember that a past PM installed a G.G. who was found to be so disliked by the ordinary people that he had to be dismissed. That G.G. was an archbishop, which shows how good religion is at looking after us.

[willedoo]

It would take a lot to convince me that a proposed system is better than the one we have, which for all it's faults, is still one of the world's best and most workable.

 

The world has plenty of examples of different models of republics. Most debate seems to be centered around the degree of power of the president. With countries like France, the U.S., Russia etc, it is all about the president. Most people wouldn't have a clue who the French and Russian prime ministers were.

 

On the other side of the coin is the countries where power is centered more on the prime minister. Most people would have never heard of Frank-Walter Steinmeier or  Droupadi Murmu,  the presidents of Germany and India. I'd prefer a model like that where the president is mainly a figurehead and not a Trump or Putin. More like the role of our GG now. It's probably a lot better to have power in the parliament rather than an all powerful president.

[red750]

America would be the only place where they call six men Mr. President.

 

Jimmy Carter

Bill Clinton

George W Bush

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

Joe Biden.

 

They still refer to them as Mr. President, as long as they are alive.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I like Julia, I reckon she was just never given a fair go. AS for the monarchy, it is hard to imagine a more old-fashioned idea. What other animals give their pack-leader the power to have their offspring inherit their job?

BUT replacing them with home-grown stuff sure risks getting a dictator if you do it wrong.

Personally, I liked the " 2/3 of elected pollies" idea, which would generally result in a bipartisan governor general. But this was rejected by the voters, and it just maybe that Charles is better than a dictator. As long as we don't have to pay him AND pay a stupid governor-general as well.

Alas, it is not going to happen as I want huh?

There is a lot to be said for rule by the rich....   they are not generally bitter and twisted for example.  Think of Churchill  and Menzies vs Hitler and Stalin to see what I mean here.

 

[nomadpete]

13 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There is a lot to be said for rule by the rich....  

Probably we have drifted to a topic that doen't belong onder the 'politically correct' banner, but......

 

That's a nice theory. But I suspect that very few super rich got that way by putting the good of the general public ahead of their own greed.

 

Can you think of any other selection criteria that might prioritise acting in the interests of the general public??

[Bruce Tuncks]

EQUALITY....  This is the current subject of debate. It appears that inequality costs you gdp. I have said before that I can see how inequality would weaken a country militarily, but it is harder to see the economic argument.

It is hard to think of a less equal system than feudalism.

Mind you, my son thinks that capitalism is too voracious on the planet's resources and the only system capable of a real long-term outlook is feudalism. ( Feudalism is the aristocracy headed by the monarch )

I prefer Dick Smith's idea which is to limit the voting for long-term things to those under 30.