|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
24 March 1995. Thought for the Week: "Instead of being self-contained units, we are more and more becoming components of a function, masquerading as 'economics' but accurately described as 'full employment'. Five minutes consideration will convince anyone not mentally infirm that a policy of full employment means and can only mean, direction of labour. Combine that with egalitarianism, and you have the slave state - you cannot possibly have anything else."
C.H. Douglas (1948)
MORE MABO MADNESS
by Eric D. Butler
The High Court's original Mabo decision was criticised by a number of highly respected and responsible authorities. West Australia Labor Member, Graeme Campbell, was one of the most scathing about the High Court's Mabo decision, pointing out that the High Court was not some type of god whose edicts should not be criticised.
But perhaps the most telling criticism came from Australia's most distinguished historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who made the charge, amongst others, that the High Court judges were weak on the subject of history. He made the point that while there was a lot of quiet criticism by lawyers, they were loathe to be too public as one day they might be appearing before the Court. However, he quoted the opinion of Mr. Peter Connolly, for 13 years a Supreme Court judge, who concluded a 27-page analysis of the Mabo judgment by saying that the High Court had indulged "in sheer invention".
Professor Blainey has again rendered traditional Australia an outstanding service by refusing to join in the national campaign against Richard Court. He responded to the High Court's rejection of the Court Government's appeal by warning that Australia could be divided into two separate nations, with Aborigines owning more land than everyone else put together.
No responsible Australian denies that Australians of Aboriginal background have serious health and educational problems, but the Northern Territory provides striking evidence that the ownership of land has not solved this problem. The political activists, most of these only part Aboriginal, have skillfully exploited the situation to their own benefit and to further a long-term political agenda. None of the vast sums of money flowing to these activists is used to build hospitals or schools. Professor Blainey points out that the Native Title Act would not reconcile Aborigines with other Australians.
He could have added that the situation has all the ingredients of a type of civil war, with the rank and file of Aborigines being the main victims of a backlash. Already there is an anti-Aboriginal sentiment developing, particularly in rural Australia, which did not exist in the past.
Well-known activist Pat Dodson has responded to the High Court's rejection of the Court Government's case by lodging a number of claims on behalf of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. These include guaranteed seats in Federal Parliament. The Council also recommended giving official recognition to the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Straits Islander flag, and the shifting of Australia Day because January 26th was not accepted by the Aborigines.
Professor Blainey is right: Australia is on the road to a divided nation. Premier Court of West Australia should be given every support by all Australians who want to prevent the destruction of traditional Australia.
DAVID THOMPSON'S W.A. ITINERARYDate Town Details Friday March 24th: Conservative Speakers' Club (09) 574 6260 "Immigration: The Sleeping Election Issue"
Monday, March 27th: Moora (096) 549 030 Geraldton (099) 251 040
Tuesday, March 28th: Morawa (099) 715 042 Koorda (096) 841 237
Wednesday, March 29th: Katanning (098) 268 055
Thursday, March 30th: Albany (098) 447 389
Friday, March 31st: Northcliffe (098) 268 055 Busselton (097) 522 880
PRESS RELEASE FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA
"University Students Victims of Attack on
HAS THE KEATING GOVERNMENT A LAND CONTROL AGENDA?
David Thompson, National Director of
The Australian League of Rights, will be highlighting the
significance of the recent High Court ruling on the Commonwealth
Native Title legislation in a lecture tour of Western Australia.
The decision has been described by Premier Court as the 'most
significant stripping of power from a State by the Commonwealth
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO SECESSION? These and other questions will be discussed by David Thompson.
Over the years the small Australian National
Socialist Movement has attracted a number of pathological
types who can always be relied upon to damage a basically
sound cause. Last Saturday in Melbourne the National Socialists
staged a public protest against the Federal Government's Race
Hatred legislation, scheduled to be debated in the Senate
this week. Did those responsible for this protest by an estimated
37 people really believe that such a protest would have the
slightest effect on Senators' voting intentions? Or was it
someone's intention to stage such a rally knowing that it
would certainly result in a counter rally by Jewish demonstrators?
If that was the intention, it was highly successful with the
T.V. cameras ready to record a violent confrontation which
large numbers of police were required to control.
* * * * * * * *
A good cartoonist gets an important message across with a minimum of words. "Jeff on Sunday", in the Melbourne Herald-Sun of March 19th, shows a dejected looking Aboriginal couple and their baby responding to the High Court ruling on Mabo: "Well, at least that should eliminate poverty among lawyers...."
* * * * * * * * *
"Budget cuts will be tough," reads the headline to the latest statement by Federal Treasurer Willis. This is all part of the "softening up" tactics of the Keating Government. Eventually it will be seen that the much-publicised "cuts" will not be as horrendous as being suggested.
* * * * * * * * *
The "inevitability" theme is now being
orchestrated on the Monarchy issue. Even National Party leader
Tim Fischer has allowed himself to be placed in the position
where he is joining a false debate concerning whether in a
Republic the President should be directly elected by the people,
or by Federal and State Parliaments. Also caught offside,
Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett has now come back by insisting
that the Liberals are "solid" on the Monarchy. It is simply
not true that there is complete unanimity on the Monarchy
issue in the Liberal Parties. In a tour of country Victoria
last week, Premier Kennett is quoted as having said that while
he remained "fundamentally" a Monarchist it "was inevitable
the republic debate would gather strength and that change
might be appropriate".
SOME CHIEF MINISTERS SHOULD READ THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
The Northern Territory News of March 14th carries a report that the Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, is inviting armed forces from our Asian neighbours to come to the Northern Territory to train independently of Australian armed forces. Mr. Perron is reported as saying that the N.T. facilities available included the existing port, Delemere bombing range near R.A.A.F. Base, Katherine, and land, sea and air space.
The Australian Constitution, part 5,
Section 51, Clause 6, sets down that the (Commonwealth) Parliament
shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws
for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth
with respect to: - "The naval and military defence of the
Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of
the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth."
ULTIMATE POWERfrom The Australian, March 17th
"The 'crucial choice' concerning the future of the Constitution is not, as Professor Winterton argues (The Weekend Australian, 11-12/3) over who or what we decide to call head of state and how that office is to be selected. The crucial choice concerns who or what we decide is the supreme source of political power; before any decision is made over the nature and relationships of the institutions of government and State, the people must decide in a referendum the answer to that question.
"The referendum should decide which of the following should be clearly and unequivocally defined as the supreme source of political power: the Crown; a president; prime minister and cabinet; parliament; the people. "All other constitutional arrangements must then be structured around the referendum's answer on this most vital of moral and constitutional questions. If those who hold the power to put referendums to the people refuse to honour the people's sole rights in this matter, the only conclusion is that they fear democracy and the moral issues which underwrite it."
(Patrick O'Brien, Department of Politics, University of W.A., Nedlands, W.A.)
DRY RUNfrom The Australian, March 17th
"Now that the Prime Minister has received the blessings of the President of France (on an earlier overseas visit), and of the President of Germany (on his recent overseas visit), to the changes he proposes to make to Australia's Constitution and to our system of government, it is heartwarming to think that the Australian people might soon get onto the list of those to be consulted.
"The Prime Minister proposes to press on with his preferred option of having parliament choose the president for us, now that this method has the seal of approval of the German President. This is despite the facts that 92% of those Australians who favour a republic have said that they want to choose the president and that 52% of the republicans would vote against a republic if they were to be denied that choice.
"As the president would merely replace the Governor General, and would carry out the Governor General's constitutional duties and responsibilities, I should like to remind your readers of a proposal which I first raised through your Letters page (8/4/93). The present Governor General was then in his fifth year in office, and I invited the Prime Minister to trial run his preferred option by foregoing his right to nominate the next Governor General. I suggested the Prime Minister should invite Parliament to make the choice, and that he should undertake, in advance, to recommend to the Queen the appointment of the person chosen by Parliament.
"In the event, the matter was resolved by the present Governor General being invited to serve for an additional two years. It is now timely to renew my earlier suggestions."
(Sir David Smith, Mawson, A.C.T.)
FOR HARRY, SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORDfrom The Australian, March 7th
"I was tempted to feel sorry for my former workmate, Harry Brandy, when I read how his challenge to the validity of the enforcement powers of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission had cost me in terms of my health, my reputation and my well-being....It has been a terrible ordeal!" (The Australian, 24/2). Tempted, that is, until I remembered that the incident which caused this mess and to which I was a witness, could have been settled five years ago with a simple apology.
"Although Harry may have suffered in the last 12 months since he made the decision to appeal the HREOC decision, perhaps he should spare a thought for the victim in this matter, John Bell.
"After all, had Harry been forcibly and publicly removed from ATSIC (Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Commission ... O.T.) for psychiatric assessment and then been refused a public acknowledgement that the psychiatrist could find nothing wrong with him? Has Harry been arrested and removed from ATSIC's premises for using an office photocopier when on sick leave? Has Harry had his personnel file opened to others in strict contravention of Public Service and privacy rules, with the result that he was publicly humiliated and threatened?
"No, Harry, these things, which are all on public record (HREOC Determination G998 - 1993, dated 23/12/1993), have not happened to you. But they have happened to John Bell.
This is a classic case of the victim being victimised. Perhaps it is also another example of how ATSIC seems to have misplaced its priorities instead of getting on with the job of delivering services to Aboriginal people."
(Ian Maxwell, Calwell, A.C.T.)
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|