The Constitution Con

 

...from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

 

aborigine.girlDo Aborigines want to change the Constitution? What a silly question. But first – who are the Aborigines today? No or no reliable birth certificates, no DNA to tell us… Visitors to Australia are often puzzled, seeing “Aboriginal” spokesmen on TV, and ask – Aren’t the Aborigines supposed to be black? The truthfull answer would be, “Yes, Aborigines usually have dark skin, and no, TV, academic and political ‘Aborigines’ mostly do not”. But thanks to sec 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 and the infamous “Bromberg’s Bolt Ban” (see Fog of Chaos Travails of Bolt and Everything bad is good for something) very few would bother to answer.

Aborigine-ness or the lack of it has nothing to do with the colour of the skin, of course. Only the perpetualy aggrieved try to make it so. Our hypocrites apparently see no contradiction in the apartheid being so bad in South Africa, and so good in Australia. Aborigines, but only those defined and approved by them, should be treated differently from the rest of the population.

How many read the Constitution or at least the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900*? Or better, how many Aborigines can read? “…most damning evidence came from the indigenous Kardu Numida Council (Wadeye). In 1998, it gave the following estimate of its constituents’ literacy and numeracy skills -40 -60-years-olds: good literacy, fair numeracy skills;  25 -40-years-olds: poor literacy, poor numeracy; under 25: nil literacy, nil numeracy.” See Fog of Chaos Aboriginal literacy and its enemies>.

Furthermore, real Aborigines are smarter than their city-based advocates and know that only the parasitic class will benefit.

 If not the Aborigines, perhaps the Aboriginal ‘communities’ will like the change?

 To many observers who understand Aboriginal culture the term “Aboriginal community” is an oxymoron demonstrated by community dysfunction every day.

 What is interesting is not so much how readily the wishful-thinking, white urban elites adopt Eurocentric political forms and project them on to Aborigines, I guess that is to be expected of those ill-informed about traditional Aboriginal culture, but that the Aborigines of the urban elites themselves are so equally ill-informed about their own culture that they do exactly the same thing, fully expecting them to work. Take Warren Mundine’s idea of Aboriginal “nations”. The whole concept of “nationhood” is foreign to the Aboriginal experience and has no parallel in Indigenous culture before it was introduced by white anthropologists in a rush of misguided projection. The fact that there were no “national” structures that British settlers could treat with is demonstrated by the fact that in places where political units capable of signing treaties existed, as in New Zealand, settler governments did actually sign treaties.

 But this is not about the definition of a “nation” — those arguments, and the consequences, will no doubt be covered elsewhere as the constitutional debate gathers more airtime, headlines and opinion columns.

 Since “self-determination”, every remote community has (by an large) systematically and enthusiastically rejected all major aspects of mainstream culture. Mainstream education has declined to the point where grandparents are more likely to be literate than either their children or grand children. – – – Indigenous communities tolerate levels of poor education, poor health outcomes, violence, substance abuse, and child abuse that would not be endured elsewhere.” / Frank Pledge – Traditional culture invented yesterday

It should be clarified – the Abbott’s (in fact joint Gillard/Abbott) proposal is to insert a preamble to The Constitution, which as such has none. It will require a referendum. The draft Preamble is expected in September 2014. Whatever the actual wording, it will do nothing to improve the lot of Aborigines; everybody with a modicum of common sense knows that. So if it doesn’t change anything why bother? Is it just Abbott’s feel-good confidence trick? See Rousseau shouldn’t re-write our Constitution.

 judiciary_logoIn a normal, or rather an ideal system it indeed would not matter and be only yet another empty symbolism (like all those Sorry theatres and Apology histrionics) for the greater inner glow of the coffee latte set. However, our political system is skewed by the rampant judicial activism. We have too many mediocre lawyers as judges – appointed by a political party for purpose of advancing that political party’s agenda. Invariably their mediocrity is covered by overblown egos. They are sure they can do better than the politicians who appointed them (and who made the laws), and the ignorant plebs who voted those politicians in. They do not interpret and apply the laws, they ‘improve’ them in their own, predominantly Left image and even make them. The human rights, aboriginal rights and all other assorted rights lawyers know that any ‘rights’ claim, however fanciful and unprecedented, will get a sympathetic hearing from the activist judges, who comprise at least three quarters of the States and Federal judiciary.

Cui bono? Not the Aborigines.

What possessed Abbott? Is he trying to get lawyers on his side? Is he pandering to the lowest common denominator? See Fog of Chaos Symbolic symbols. I believe the real answer is that he is a pretend conservative, a light pink under the eggshell blue. He is only a politician and never will be a statesman. He is far too insecure and his overwhelming desire to be liked does not bode well for Australia.

Niki Sawa on Abbott: He was not elected Prime Minister to indulge his whims and fancies. If anyone’s whims or fancies warrant humouring, it’s the voters’ …

 

quill.1

 

*/ (Preamble)

 An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. [9th July 1900]

 (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster)

 Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

 And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

 Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–

 1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

 2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

 3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later that one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

 4. The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.

5. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

 6. “The Commonwealth” shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

 “The States” shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called “a State”.

 “Original States” shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

 7. The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, is hereby repealed, but so as not to affect any laws passed by the Federal Council of Australasia and in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

 Any such law may be repealed as to any State by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or as to any colony not being a State by the Parliament thereof.

 8. After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act.

 9. The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:–

 

About Antisthenes

A Greek philosopher, a pupil of Socrates. Led a revolt, with Diogenes, against the demands of the city-state and the sophistication of life. Accepted the interrelation of knowledge, virtue, and happiness; and sought the ideal condition for happiness in return to primitivism and self-sufficiency. Rejected all social distinctions as based on convention, scorned orthodox religion as a fabrication of lies, and studied early legends and animal life in order to arrive at a true understanding of natural law. The individual was free and self-sufficient when he was master of his passions, secure in his intelligence, impervious to social or religious demands, and satisfied with the poverty of a mendicant. Needless to say, a person who on the Fog of Chaos adopted the Athenian philosopher's name has nothing whatsoever in common with him.
This entry was posted in Australia, Liberal Party, Socialism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Constitution Con

  1. Tony Twain says:

    That Abbott must be a great disappointment to you.

  2. O. Wintner says:

    A confidence trick or a devious distraction? Liberals are capable of both.

  3. Maid de Sherwood says:

    Nothing will come out of this; it’s just politicians talking.

  4. Meddling Mum says:

    Abbott will get even worse, I think.

  5. Sue Sang says:

    You voted for him, you got him. If Abbott is a conservative, then Mao was a social democrat.

  6. Nekot says:

    Yes, we are being tricked. Abbott is a fraud, just like Turnbull.

  7. Real madrilleno says:

    If you let the media, MSM, to speak for you, you will get the constitution the media wants…

  8. Floraiene says:

    It is for the benefit of all those carpetbaggers, lawyers, politicians and ab welfare mafia.

  9. Camise Camille says:

    This is a really good read for me, and i must admit that you are one of the best bloggers.

  10. Windomatt says:

    Trust Abbott to f**k up Australia.

  11. pace jamer says:

    It shows how the coalition is stupid.

  12. Michael Dunn says:

    People like Nova Peris do not advance the Aboriginal culture at all, on the contrary. (Brilliant web site you have got here.)

  13. M Stacy says:

    They postponed it, but I still don’t trust them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>