IS PRINCE CHARLES FIT TO BECOME KING?

by Eric D. Butler
It is not surprising that the latest public opinion polls reveal that there has been an increase in support for an Australian republic. These polls were taken following the worldwide damaging publicity concerning Prince Charles. What we are seeing is an international psycho-political war against the institution of the hereditary Constitutional Monarchy. A close study of how this war has been conducted tells us much more about the diabolical nature of those conducting it, than about the alleged moral defects in the character of Prince Charles.

It was the famous Jewish writer and philosopher, Dr. Oscar Levy, who made the profound comment that the ideal was the enemy of the real. Apart from the genuine Republicans, most of them collectivist power lusters, there are the Pharisaical self-righteous who claim that because Prince Charles has not handled his marital problems as well as he might have, he is therefore not fit to become King. The logic of this attitude is that no person is fit to hold public office, unless he is completely perfect. No such person except Christ has yet been born.

The hypocrisy of some of the politicians concerning Prince Charles is breathtaking. The most damaging of the allegations made against Prince Charles is that he did not love Princess Diana when he married her, and that he only did so after being ordered to do so by his father, the Duke of Edinburgh. Those and similar allegations are blatant distortions of what Richard Dimbleby writes in his biography of Prince Charles.

Horrified by the manner in which his biography has been misquoted by the mass media, Dimbleby, in a BBC interview with Sir David Frost, has bluntly said that sections of the media have lied. He challenges them to point out where they will find in his biography any evidence to support, for example, the sensational headline that Prince Charles was forced into a loveless marriage by his father. Not surprisingly, the Murdoch newspapers have been the worst offenders.

Dimbleby makes the revealing statement, based upon two years of following Prince Charles and researching his life, that it was the damaging media coverage, which forced Prince Charles to take the unprecedented step of opening his life to the public. Dimbleby commented, "For many years his life was covered by particular tabloid newspapers on the basis of innuendo, concoction, and frequently downright lies…I think the decision he made was a gamble. But if he had stayed silent forever, he was not just being slowly assassinated he was being killed".

And what does Dimbleby himself think about Prince Charles? "He is a decent, honourable man and I think personally would make a good king."

Those who have actually read the Prince Charles biography agree that it presents a very different picture from that portrayed by what might be described as "the yellow press". Like most marriages, that of Charles and Diana was fraught with problems from the beginning. The man born and trained to be King found himself trying to cope with a young girl who did not share his interests and whom it is now known has had disturbing psychological problems. Neither in his "warts-and-all" television programme with Dimbleby nor elsewhere has Prince Charles tried to apportion blame for the final breakdown of his marriage.

Many royal marriages of the past had major problems, but the institution of Constitutional Monarchy continued to operate successfully as part of a constitutional system, which effectively kept power divided. But, unlike today, the media in the past had a code of ethics, which ensured that the institution was not damaged by the type of campaign being run against Prince Charles. The campaign against Prince Charles is not only a campaign against Constitutional Monarchy; it is a campaign based on the fear that Prince Charles is not content to be a passive royal ornament, that he is what pro-Zionist Gerard Henderson fears, an "interventionist". A study of his speeches and addresses confirm this. Prince Charles as King might well strike a new and constructive note.

Before the modern Pharisees condemn him because of his confession of adultery after his marriage had broken down, they might take out the New Testament and read what Christ had to say on the subject. Perhaps it is an appropriate time to point out that the great Solzhenitsyn has been charged with the responsibility of a failed marriage by his first wife. Every decent person must feel for both Prince Charles and Princess Diana, particularly as the Mortons and others seek to make fortunes out of their miseries. As Dimbleby says, they are like pariahs.

It should be recorded that Prince Charles is allocating his royalties from the Dimbleby biography to charities. Whether or not he made the right decision in "going public", only time will tell. But for the sake of the future of Constitutional Monarchy, it is to be hoped that Truth will eventually triumph. (We are informed that the League of Rights Bookshops are making arrangements to obtain copies of the Dimbleby biography. We will publicise when copies are available.)

LIES DAMNED LIES AND POLITICIANS

by David Thompson
The revelation by former Senator Graham Richardson in his biography Whatever it Takes that he told deliberate lies when he thought they were necessary to promote the interests of the Party would hardly be a surprise to anyone. It was Richardson's unrepentant attitude that irritates the electorate. In addition to this, the implications for Government in general are important.

If the title of his book is to be taken literally (and it appears that it is) then perhaps the Party has been elevated into an end in itself. Any means are justified if the good of the Party is advanced. This, of course, is classical Marxism. To the trained communist, there is no such thing as murder if death happens to be in the interest of the Party; murder becomes execution. Lies become "truth". Black becomes white. Richardson obviously comes out of this mould; anything can be excused if it is for the good of the Party!

Does the electorate, then, wonder what else Richardson and his former colleagues were/are prepared to do for the good of the A.L.P.? Is vote rigging, or electoral roll fraud acceptable? It would almost appear that it is. The old A.L.P. adage "Vote early, and vote often" is not entirely a joke, and not entirely restricted to the A.L.P. Are other means to electoral victory acceptable, like blackmail? Whatever it takes, according to Richardson.

THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM

Perhaps the most damaging Richardson assertion is that lying is compulsory under the Westminster system of government. The "Westminster system" refers to the concept of the division of powers as developed by the British in the Parliament at Westminster. That is, the Executive must account to Parliament for the way in which it governs. This means Ministers must be accountable to
a) the Crown (they're Ministers of the Crown),
b) to the Senate, and
c) to the House of Representatives.

Why is it compulsory to tell lies under this system? If anything, the reverse is the case. A convention has grown into the Australian system that any Minister who misleads the Parliament must resign. The factor that corrupts the Westminster system is, as Independent M.P. Ted Mack points out, the political party. Once the "party line" on any issue is determined in the Party Caucus, every member of the Party is required to espouse this particular position - even those who argued strenuously against it in the Party room. There is no room for the truth in Party politics.

It is not the Westminster system that requires lies, but Party politics. If there is no room for the truth in Party politics, then there is no room for Party politics in the Westminster system. At least the grip on the minds of M.P's. by the Party machine must be broken. Parliament can still work even when no Party has an absolute majority, as has been shown in N.S.W. over the last four years.

FINED IF YOU DO, FINED IF YOU DON'T

In preparation for next March's N.S.W. State Election, the major factor that dominates the political parties in N.S.W. is a severe lack of funds. Both main parties are contemplating going into debt to the banks, borrowing up to $1 million each. Are they concerned by the debt? No, not particularly. The electorate will pay it, although quite involuntarily - even against our will.

Public funding of political parties is to be increased by the Commonwealth: each Party will be paid $1 for every Senate vote, and $1.50 for each House of Representatives vote. Not only do they deliberately lie to us, but they force us to pay them to do so. The immorality of it is momentous. If one refuses to vote at all, the State fines the laggard $50. If you do vote (at least for a Party) they fine you $13.50 (12 Senators as well as a M.P.). The only answer seems to be to vote for someone with no chance of qualifying for public funding!

N.S.W. STATE BANK TO BE FLOGGED OFF

N.S.W. A.L.P. leader Bob Carr is proposing that the lottery be used to raise funds for drought-stricken primary producers. He claims that as much as $10 million could quickly be raised. Premier Mr. Fahey is most derisive and demands that Mr. Carr tackle his 'mate' the Prime Minister, if he really wants to do something for farmers. The Commonwealth should be forced to do more, Fahey claims, than the paltry $164 million offered so far.

As Alfred Deakin once prophesied, the Constitution left the States legally free, but financially bound to the chariot wheels of the central government. State Premiers have been tempted to demand that the Commonwealth exercise functions that the States themselves should be exercising. The problem of drought-relief is within the means of the States to solve. Each State could use its constitutional banking powers to issue primary producers credit on the necessary terms for survival, but will they do it?

In N.S.W. the State Bank has loaned about $770 million to farmers, of which $100 million are regarded as troublesome. Parliament could direct its Bank to accommodate farmers, and alter loan agreements, if this is regarded as socially, economically or politically desirable. But the N.S.W. Government proposes to sell the Bank!

National M.P. Gerry Peacock (Dubbo) is asking for guarantees that new owners of the Bank would not ruthlessly remove farmers regarded as "bad debts". "The Government has guaranteed faulty loans and bad debts, and that could be a trigger for a ruthless new owner to put the squeeze on these people... Very few banks these days understand rural finance, they got rid of the old-style managers who knew their customers well, and now they have kids with degrees and calculators who only look at the bottom line," he said. Each State needs its own independent bank.

THE 'RACIAL HATRED' BILL DESERVES CONDEMNATION

The new Bill that will establish that the Commonwealth Government has the power to send people to jail for saying things that others dislike is receiving plenty of opposition. Again, newspaper editorials and media figures are strongly opposing the racial vilification legislation about to be introduced into Parliament. Why is the A.L.P. introducing such an unpopular bill, when even the press is determined to give them a hiding? The answer begins to emerge from the debate: the powerful Jewish lobby demands it!

Mr. Joe Wakim, Secretary of the Australian Arabic Council rejects the need for the "racial hatred" Bill, saying it is most divisive. He claims that the well-established ethnic lobbies, like the Italian, Chinese and Jewish lobbies, who enjoy full access to the media, are demanding the legislation. In WA. the Editor of The West Australian, Mr. Paul Murray, has been campaigning strongly against the Bill, even addressing meetings on it. Murray, in a feature article in his paper last week, wrote that he had been branded as a racist and anti-Semite by WA. Jewry after running editorials against the original racial vilification Bill.

In his article Murray wrote: "The Jewish community has been whipped into a lather over this issue mainly because the Holocaust generation is dying off, and many survivors are desperate to enshrine their sacrifice in legislation so what happened to them can never happen to those who follow. I can understand their feelings - and I respect them - but they are wrong, they are being manipulated and they will damage our democracy if successful…"

Murray's comment obviously struck a raw nerve, because two days later a correspondent identifying himself as Jewish wrote a searing response accusing Murray of brainlessness, arrogance, bigotry, cowardice, being a supporter of David Irving, and the biggest denier of free speech in W.A. This bitter attack unwittingly highlighted the case for freedom of speech, and exposed the depth of Jewish feeling on the "racial hatred" issue.

25 YEARS ON

from The Australian, November 2nd
Congratulations to Paul Keating on reaching 25 years in the Federal Parliament. Mr. Keating has shown that in the sunburnt country dreams can still be realised. For a quarter of a century he has represented Bankstown while for the most part not residing in the electorate. He owns a house in Sydney (with a multi-million dollar option on another) the likes of which the average Honourable Member can only dream about.

"He is surely a man of great vision; before the nation realised the need he gave us the recession we had to have. As farmers struggled he saw an opening in pigs, entering the industry then getting out with a profit. And despite what Bob Hawke thought, Paul Keating 'knew' he was the right man for the Prime Ministership.

"Mr. Keating has worked long and hard to promote Australia's multicultural future.... he likes his antiques from France, his suits from Italy; heck, he even married a woman from the Netherlands- and wasn't his piggery partner Danish? "At some stage in the next 25 years Mr. Keating will step down from the nation's highest elected office, but we can rest assured he won't be lost to the taxpayer/battler. He will have his Gold Pass (first class air travel), Commonwealth car, office and secretary for life. "Good on ya, Paul." (Grame Gilbert, Geilston Bay, Tasmania)

VILIFICATION OF AN IDEAL

Editorial, Herald-Sun, Melbourne, November 2nd
No fair-minded Australian would disagree with the Attorney General's remark ('No one in this country should have to live in fear because of their ethnic background or the colour of their skin'). But the Racial Hatred Bill, which has been drawn up to reinforce the freedom of all Australians, may turn out to be the biggest destroyer of that most necessary thing in a democracy - freedom of speech. "It is a dangerous piece of legislation which has been prepared by the Keating Cabinet in a misguided bid to eliminate racial intolerance.

"The Bill appears too broad in its application and may have the effect of exacerbating racial differences instead of eliminating vilification. "The Federal Government is trying to achieve by coercion a standard of behaviour already practised by the vast majority of those living here. "It ignores the fact that as a multicultural nation, Australia enjoys the sort of racial harmony many countries can only wish for. The Government has once again responded to minority pressure groups in fixing something that was not broken.

"Only recently the High Court delivered a most important judgment in defence of free speech, easing the fear for the media in publishing material critical of politicians. "Justice Deane noted that defamation actions were being used increasingly to stifle political debate in the judgment brought in the case of Dr. Andrew Theophanous and the Herald & Weekly Times, publishers of this newspaper. "There is a real possibility that the Racial Hatred Bill may impinge on the freedom of the media and others to criticise and communicate information, opinions or ideas.

"The threat of two years jail for wearing a badge or waving a flag which may offend someone's racial sensitivities is treading on dangerous territory. "The Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, said that while religious and racial intolerance were unacceptable, public debate could be stifled out of fear of attracting criminal charges. "Legislation of this type has not worked in Britain or the United States. It is impossible to legislate away racial hatred and aggression. That can only be achieved by a full, fearless and unbridled debate - something this nation has consistently achieved.

"The Racial Hatred Bill should be rejected by the Opposition and the Democrats - and those members of the Australian Labor Party who are prepared to stand up for freedom of speech..."

BILL OF RIGHTS NOT NEEDED

from Herald-Sun, Melbourne, October 22nd
The victory of the Herald-Sun with the High Court ruling in favor of freedom of the press is an important step forward. "But it should be linked with an undertaking to preserve the confidentiality of sources since 'whistleblowers' are often reluctant to step forward in case of a backlash if their cover is blown.

"At the same time, I cannot agree with Chris McLeod's contention (Herald-Sun, October 13) that this is the time for a 'Bill of Rights'. "Freedom requires a limitation of laws to what is necessary, not a legal straitjacket. "Under a Bill of Rights, if the government doesn't specifically grant you a particular 'freedom', then you don't have it. The government giveth, but the government can take away. We have too many laws already.

"We are already threatened with the racial vilification law which denies free speech, and our Constitution has been frequently over ridden by U.N. covenants, imposing international law on our citizens without concern for local conditions and wishes. ''Too many laws are a curse.
(Geoff Muirden, Secretary, Australian Civil Liberties Union)