A BLAST FROM THE BISHOP!

continued…
You will remember it ended last week with… "The world now needs a U.N. army in the way that Britain 200 years ago needed to turn its bands of militia in each town into a national police force.... Strange distortion by George Bush's coterie of religious conservatives: The religious conservatives who surround George Bush, he says, espouse "a very strange distortion of Christianity" and the fact that "some of them stand to benefit financially from the reconstruction of Iraq" has made the whole enterprise even more suspect.

Of Israel, he says: "I agree with the millions of Jews around the world, and tens of thousands in Israel - some of whom I know from teaching at the Hebrew University - who grieve at what some Jews in Israel led by Ariel Sharon are doing. I'm not anti-Israel but when I see what's been done to the Palestinians over the past 50 years, I say, 'Well I'm sorry, but if you put people behind barbed wire, keep them caged, take their land despite international resolutions, and bulldoze their homes, you are asking for trouble'.
"This is not in any way to excuse or exonerate the horror and enormity of suicide bombing. It is just to say that if you squeeze people that tight sooner or later they'll do drastic things. There must be better ways to achieve peace than the road taken by the government of Ariel Sharon."

He gives the present cultural imperialists a serve
Interestingly, he draws a parallel between America's unilateralism in the Middle East and in the gay bishops' debate, seeing the same arrogant cultural imperialism behind both. The holding agreement of the crisis meeting of primates at Lambeth to set up a commission instead of splitting the Anglican Communion immediately was "scuppered within days with Frank Griswold [the US primate] making it clear at once he didn't agree with the consensus".

Dr Wright clearly does not accept the way the battle-lines on homosexuality have been sketched by the media. "I get irritated when people suggest the debate is between literalists and those who think scripture has to be interpreted or put into context. Some of us have spent our professional lives putting scripture in its historical context and in their contexts the relevant New Testament passages basically meant something deeply counter-cultural, then as now.

If people's instinct leads them towards persons of the same sex then that is, like many other things in life, something with which a Christian has to wrestle rather than just saying, 'Well, if you feel that strongly, that's the way it should be'. "This debate is really about the role of reason. We don't do reasoned moral discourse any more. We do, 'I feel strongly about this', 'I feel wounded about that', and 'Let me tell you about my pain'.

Victimhood is the new moral high ground. We've slid into a post-modern morass which sounds like reasoned discourse but which is really just an exchange of strong emotions. Feelings matter hugely, of course, but we mustn't mistake them for moral discourse. The debate has become so shrill precisely because we're trying to cover up for the fact that we no longer have any deep moral roots or thought-through moral principles."

No mechanism is in our culture for dealing with the problem of evil
Which takes us to what Dr Wright sees as the heart of the matter. Homosexuality can't be isolated from wider cultural debate. "There is an implicit pantheism in our culture most obvious in New Age spirituality and it leaves us with no mechanism for dealing with the problem of evil." We think that we have so many rules and regulations we can stop things from going wrong. We are lulled into a false sense of security. "But then, whether with the two little girls in Soham or the two giant towers in New York, evil is suddenly back and as a culture we don't have the coping mechanisms. But evil is powerful and it matters."

The Bishop has something to say on sex too
"In Christianity we have a God who takes the pain of the world upon himself. And thereby provides healing and new life which is a way out of it." Sex is one touchstone in all this. "Our culture screams that sex is for enjoyment, for recreation. But sex is like fire. It brings warmth and life to a relationship. Yet we light our fire only in the fireplace; if we lit it wherever the room was chilly we'd burn the house down. If we don't keep sex in its proper place perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when it backfires on us.

I don't know what sort of a mindset Ian Huntley had but I do know that he grew up in a world so soaked in a free-and-easy sex culture, a pornography culture which says 'sex is there for the taking, everyone wants it really', without any sense of human dignity or of the preciousness of sex.

"In a society which has seen a sexual revolution within a generation it is fair to ask, historically, 'Which generation in which culture would you trust to tell the truth about sex? Would you choose one like ours, which has produced so many bruised, wounded broken families, domestic chaos, and teenage pregnancies'?"

If this ignores the fact that many other eras have been characterised by sexual licence it reveals something of Dr Wright's personal history
"As someone who's been a pastor of students for many years I have picked up the pieces, time after time, of those kinds of relationships. As a society we need to take several steps back and ask whether we like where we've got to."

Liberals would respond that this does not make sufficient distinction between casual homosexual sex and faithful gay relationships but Dr Wright is adamant that the Church has to hang on to the truth that it is called to be different and not ape the world in its sexual, cultural, social, economic, military or other agendas. The New Testament does not recognise any sex/religion/politics divide, he insists.

Part of what the media rarely report about the Church is the work of unsung heroes and heroines across the country. "I was in a redundant bank in South Shields the other day where a credit union has been set up by the Church, doing what's needed where every other agency has abandoned ship," he adds.

The Archbishop of Canterbury understands all this, Dr Wright says. "Rowan is brilliant in several interlocking ways. There's nobody else who could do what he already has done. The primates' meeting showed his extraordinary gift of being able to draw people together. He's a man of such transparent Christian spirituality that it takes somebody peculiarly hard-nosed to resist. He has been called and equipped for a very difficult moment in church history and he's come across as a man of enormous integrity and courage."

This is not how many former supporters in the liberal establishment see him. They feel he crumbled under pressure, abandoning his tolerant inclusivity of homosexuals. "No, they built him up as a great liberal hero then screamed blue murder when he turned out to be more complicated. The idea that he capitulated to a bunch of evangelicals using their financial clout to threaten the rest of the Church is a smear." "The press tends not to see much more than a quarter of the issue. Rowan has shown that he's not going to be pushed around by any section of the Church but is going to listen extremely carefully to everyone."

Dr Wright knows many in the secular world will disagree. But the Church today, he says, is playing on a steeply sloping pitch. If the establishment view says something different from entire church tradition, on sexuality, on war, or whatever, and is criticised for that then the Church is "big enough to take that".
And Tom Wright, we are invited to infer, is big enough too.

FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE OR REFUSE, ONE THING AT A TIME

How many readers remember the battles fought over the fluoridation of public water supplies twenty-thirty years ago? Those battles were fought on very narrow fronts, against the big battalions of vested interests, by small numbers of freedom-loving people who had grasped the truth that as free people, the real issue was their right to choose or refuse medication whether it came through their water pipes or not! They grasped the truth that compulsory fluoridation of public water supplies amounted to mass medication, and they were opposed to compulsory medication on principle. That sort of thing happened in Nazi and communist regimes - not in the land of the free - Australia.

Whilst in Brisbane, Queensland last year I was amused to hear over radio the arguments put forward for fluoridation of the public water supplies by the government authorities. Adelaide, South Australia was used as a shining example of its great success. What they didn't 'bring to the light' was the fact there are any number of businesses in Adelaide flourishing and profiting by supplying households with 'spring water' for human consumption, for drinking. Great numbers of people in Adelaide do not drink from the public water supplies - because of the fluoridated water! Even though it costs them they have exercised their right to choose not to drink it! How the authorities have managed to come up with reliable research into the pros and cons of the benefits or otherwise of fluoride in Adelaide's water supplies is anyone's guess!

U.S. JUDGE RULES TROOPS WERE GUINEA PIGS FOR ANTHRAX JABS

The following news item was released just before the Christmas break; too late for the last 2003 edition of On Target. But because it is inextricably linked to our fundamental right to choose or refuse one thing at a time, in this case compulsory vaccinations, it is still worth reporting.

"The Pentagon has suspended compulsory vaccination of US troops against anthrax after a federal court judge ordered the military to stop treating its personnel like "guinea pigs". US District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the mandatory inoculations, administered to more than 900,000 troops, violated a law passed in 1998 prohibiting the use of experimental drugs on troops. A spokesman for the Justice Department, which represented the military in the case, said the Pentagon would instruct medical personnel at US military facilities around the world to temporarily halt the vaccinations while it reviews the ruling.

Australian troops had already refused the vaccine
Earlier in 2003, 52 Australian troops were flown home from the Persian Gulf after they refused to have the vaccine because they were concerned about possible side effects. This was despite the vaccination being voluntary for Australian forces. Lawyers representing US soldiers say the shots have sickened hundreds and caused a handful of deaths. In his 33-page judgement, Judge Sullivan ruled that the anthrax vaccinations violated a law passed by Congress in the wake of concern that similar inoculations may have led to illness among veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.

What has Defence Minister Robert Hill got to say about the matter now?
Australia's Opposition defence spokesman, Chris Evans, said yesterday the Defence Force should review its policy in light of the US judgement. Defence Minister Robert Hill and the Defence Department would not comment. Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James said the vaccine was "a reasonably dangerous injection". But he said the issue was almost irrelevant with Saddam Hussein's capture, "The most likely user of anthrax....was the regime of Saddam Hussein."

BASIC FUND

QUEENSLAND STATE ELECTION

Premier Peter Beattie has announced he will take the people of Queensland to the polls on February 7th. Reports have it that Opposition leader Lawrence Springborg, who took over from Mike Horan early last year, has spent the past 12 months rebuilding a devastated team. One would hope the Opposition has taken into account the reasons why they were 'devastated'. Even though they went into the February 2001 election with the Labor Party entangled in an inquiry into electoral rorting, Labor candidates gained three-quarters of the seats in that Queensland Parliament! What a sorry reflection on the Liberals and Nationals! Many voters must now hold them in such contempt.

In the coming election, Labor will have to have a 9 per cent swing against them, losing 20 of their present seats, before the Opposition will regain a parliamentary majority. They are not going to do it by just presenting Mr. Springborg as a good athlete as was recently seen on the ABC's 7.30 Report! Never mind his athletic prowess - what are the policies?

Voters in Queensland should now be busy questioning their local candidate, weighing up his understanding of his parliamentary role and the policies he will support - should he get to serve his people. And by thus accepting their responsibility in representative democracy the voters will ensure that they have played a part in recording a responsible vote. Freedom comes at a price - it is called responsibility and accountability, which includes being responsible and accountable for the vote cast!

HOWARD'S PROPOSALS TO AMEND COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION

The following submission was made by Mr. Philip Benwell on behalf of the Australian Monarchist League. It is a valuable guide to the proposed changes by the Howard Liberal Party. We take pleasure in publishing it for the benefit of our readers. Emphasis has been added throughout. It was addressed to: The Hon Neil Brown QC Chairman, Consultative Group, Constitutional Change, Legal and Culture Branch, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 3-5 National Circuit, Barton, ACT 2600.

"The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the Government proposals to amend Section 57 of the Australian Constitution to overcome the requirement to go to the People at a Double Dissolution (an election of the full Senate together with the House of Representatives) to resolve a deadlock situation between the two Houses.

'Resolving Deadlocks':
Proposed Amendments to Section 57 of the Australian Constitution.

The Proposals:
"OPTION 1 - JOINT SITTING OF BOTH HOUSES WITHOUT AN ELECTION: This option would allow the Prime Minister to ask the Governor-General to convene a joint sitting of both Houses to consider a bill that has been blocked by the Senate twice during the life of the parliament, with the required three-month interval. If the bill is passed by an absolute majority at the joint sitting, it could receive Royal Assent and become law."
"OPTION 2 - JOINT SITTING FOLLOWING AN ORDINARY ELECTION This option would allow the Prime Minister to ask the Governor-General to convene a joint sitting following an election to consider a bill that has been blocked by the Senate twice in the previous parliament, and is blocked again in the new parliament. If the bill is passed by an absolute majority at the joint sitting, it could receive Royal Assent and become law. Depending on the time the deadlock arose, the election would either be for the House of Representatives only, or for the House of Representatives and half of the Senate."

Tendency to Bias:
It is a matter of concern to the Australian Monarchist League that the booklet "Resolving Deadlocks" produced by the Australian Government as a 'discussion paper' is more a case for change than for discussion. We are furthermore concerned that the Paper does not properly explain certain meanings of constitutional terminology, but tends to fudge its descriptions so that they are more supportive of the Government's proposals for change. We would also point out that, in the eight times the words 'Royal Assent' is mentioned, they have all been in lower case letters.

Whilst the Paper acknowledges that "proportional representation ensures a legitimate voice in the Parliament for a cross-section of interests", it goes on to state: "What this paper does not accept is that there should be a permanent and absolute veto for minority interests. Until such time as there is a more workable and efficient means of resolving deadlocks, the effectiveness of Australian governments will be impaired. Perhaps more significantly, the will of the electorate will remain subject to a veto for which there is no practical resolution. The solution must be to develop a model which more faithfully reflects the will of the people and the intentions of those who drafted the Constitution."

The inference that a severe stale-mate situation between the Government and the Senate is due solely to the minor parties is not correct for their numbers become important only if the Opposition is also opposed to the Government's legislation. No thought has been given in the Discussion Paper that it may well be the specific wish of the people to elect minor party candidates as a check on the major political parties.

Furthermore, we understand that whilst the Senate has passed 1,253 of the Howard Government Bills it has rejected only the following Bills on two occasions:
* National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits - Budget Measures) Bill 2002
* Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No.2) 2002
* Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002
* Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2002 * Workplace Relations Amendment (Secret Ballots for Protected Action) Bill 2002
* Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002

The Viability of Section 57:
The Paper, quite wrongly, infers that with Section 57 being invoked only six times and a joint sitting held only once is proof that it is unworkable. To quote: "On only two occasions did a double dissolution lead to effective passage of the deadlocked bills. Australia's experience since Federation is that section 57, as a practical means of resolving deadlocks between the houses, has been all but unworkable. Unless we accept that a non-government majority in the Senate represents, in the absence of a double dissolution, a permanent veto on the legislative agenda of the government of the day, then we must pursue reform to section 57."

The correct situation regarding the six occasions on which Section 57 was invoked is that:
On the three occasions, following the double dissolution elections of 1914, 1975 and 1983, the government was defeated and the subject Bill not re-introduced.
- In 1951, the government was returned with a majority in both Houses which obviated the necessity for a joint sitting.
- In 1974 the government was returned in the Lower House but not in the Senate necessitating a joint sitting to be held.
- In 1987, following the return of the government after a double dissolution election, although entitled, the government did not pursue a joint sitting.

We are therefore of the opinion that this record is by no means an indication that the Section is obsolete but rather that it is fully functioning. The changes in the Senate from a 'State's' House to a House of Review under party political control together with the alteration of its composition, resulting in the plethora of minor party and independent senators, cannot be blamed on the Constitution and particularly on Section 57, and we submit that amending the Constitution will only serve to transfer power from the hands of the people into that of the government.

It is clear from the discussions held during the Convention of 1897 that every conceivable problem was discussed and every conceivable crisis catered for.

The words of Bernhard Wise are appropriate and that was that the purpose of the Union was to: "enlarge the powers of self government of the people of Australia." It was during that very Convention that Sir Samuel Griffiths said of the Senate "A strong Senate will compel attention to its suggestions; a weak one will not insist on them." Indeed it is clear that the prime purpose of our Founding Fathers was to avoid a concentration of power in the House of Representatives, regrettably the very thing which has occurred under the banner of 'Responsible Government'.

Responsible Government:
We are concerned that the explanation of 'Responsible Government' as printed in the Glossary is not a correct definition and in fact is so biased in favour of the proposals that it is misleading. The Glossary states:

"RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT:
Responsible government is a particular form of government that was inherited from Great Britain. A great deal has been written about responsible government. At its simplest, it means that the government of the day is accountable to the lower house of parliament. The party or parties that win the most seats in the lower house of parliament, or has the support of the majority of members in that house, forms the government of the day. The members of that government, the Prime Minister and ministers, are also members of parliament and are not elected separately. The government remains in office while it has the support or 'confidence' of the majority in the lower house."

We submit that 'Responsible Government' means far more than this:
We submit that that the government of the day is not solely "accountable to the Lower House of Parliament" as this explanation infers, but, under our Constitution, also to the Senate and above all to the people. General terminology referring to modern day Westminster parlance can in no way be made superior to our Constitution. We submit that it is a matter of concern that the Australian Parliament has become subordinate to the Executive with an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister. The same occurrence had emerged in the United Kingdom. It was never the intention of Westminster for this to occur, for it breaks the chain of command in that the Executive should be subordinate to the Parliament and the Parliament to the People, not the other way around.

The basis of the discussions during the debates of 1891 and 1897/8, and indeed throughout all the Conventions held leading up to Federation, was to balance the needs of a federated authority against the needs of the individual States and above all without upsetting the rights of the people. That the framers of the Constitution achieved this fine balance was a masterstroke of ingenuity. It is known from records of the debates that an inordinate amount of time was spent on deliberating the powers of the Senate, which was the first elected Upper House within a Constitutional Monarchy under the Westminster System, and on resolving potential impasses between both Houses. Several solutions were discussed and the process of sending the full Senate together with the House of Representatives to the People in a Double Dissolution was agreed upon as the most appropriate method of resolving any deadlock. Other processes, such as a referendum, were considered to be outside the framework of 'Westminster' or would otherwise result in too great a concentration of power in the Lower House.

The Paper states:
"Why then in 103 years of federation has a double dissolution been used so sparingly? The answer is two-fold - cost and impracticality." We submit that the real reason is that most disputed bills are resolved by negotiation which in itself indicates that the Section is working. Furthermore, the fact that it is often not politically convenient for a Government to go to the People in a Double Dissolution is not an excuse to amend the Constitution as proposed.

The Powers of the Senate:
The Paper 'Resolving Deadlocks' cites an observation by Professor Jack Richardson: "There are no longer other national parliamentary democracies of the Westminster type where popularly elected governments have to face an upper house with powers matching those of the Senate under section 53 of the Constitution." We would counter that there are no other 'parliamentary democracies of the Westminster type' which have remained as free and as democratic as Australia has due specifically to the restraints placed on the Parliament by the Australian Constitution!

To be continued….

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

BOOKS, BOOKS, BOOKS

Vigilance - A Defence of British Liberty by Ashley Mote
Sometimes we can't 'see' what is happening in our own backyard - we are too close to it. But from a distance we can gain a better perspective. Read what has happened to Britain and we will then be able to better judge what is also happening in this country. The book "Vigilance" has had a tremendous impact in Britain, it has exposed the erosion of the peoples' ancient rights, freedoms and customs, due to the sly tactics of their politicians and their membership of the European Union. Those freedoms were bitterly fought for, with much blood spilt, over many generations. In joining the EU, the average citizen thought Britain was entering a free trade area, but they have since found they have joined an unaccountable police state, wherein laws are made behind closed doors. The book is not academic in any sense, but is a clear and horrifying account of what is being done by the EU to erode the national sovereignty and the freedoms of the British people as well as other nations. At last resistance to the 'police state' is taking form and expression; once again proving that 'Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty'. Price $45 posted.

Candle of Light by Thomas L.Fielder
A leading activist all his life, Tom Fielder presents a great example to the younger generation by setting an example of service. His observations of the constant pressure by exponents of global control requires constant vigilance by those who value freedom. The book is a study of history and the political manipulation of mankind to conform to a long mapped-out programme of control. An ex P.O.W. who served with the R.A.F, the author was shot down over Italy in 1944 and was imprisoned in Germany until the end of the war. A 'must read' for the younger generation who want to understand history from the examination of powerful corrupt monopolies and who do value their own freedoms and want to retain them. Price $22 posted.

Fascist Europe Rising by Rodney Atkinson, BA, MSC, MH
Another prominent personality exposes the repression of democratic nations within the European Union. Hitler's plan for an integrated European Union has taken place despite a world war, where sovereign nations rejected the concept by military force. But the EU internationalists have obtained their objective as one further step in the drive for a one-world government. Arnold Toynbee, a noted internationalist and an official in the British Foreign Office, as quoted in the opening page of this book, stated, "We are working discreetly, but with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty, out of the local nation States of the world, and all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands." The book details the techniques used to destroy free nations with 'co-operation' the first step, with internal deceit and propaganda by the European Commission. Already the oppressive laws of the EU have activated great support for writers such as Rodney Atkinson who has contributed two previous books on the subject, and some 80 articles & policy papers & five internationally praised books on political economy. Price $46 posted.