17-02-99
Why I will vote 'no' on the republic and the preamble.
The Republic.
Even though I feel that Australia should become a republic, as things
stand at present I will not vote 'yes'.
I have come to this decision not just because of the undemocratic model
being proposed but also because John Howard has become the arbiter of
what we will be 'allowed' to vote on.
He says he is a monarchist and will not campaign but already his
machinations and manipulations have made sure that, either way, he will
be able to claim the credit and bask in the glory. This is a 'fixed'
contest.
Seeing what Australia has become under John Howard, I am afraid I cannot
trust that 'things can be changed later' as Kim Beazley believes. What
John Howard has convinced me of is that, if we are to become a republic,
we must never do so without a Bill of Rights. An Australian republic
will need a Bill of Rights to protect its citizens from its government.
There are those who say we don't have that protection now. This is true,
but tradition has acted as a powerful influence against the worst
excesses. Once we become a republic, that tradition will no longer carry
the weight it did. There will be unscrupulous, cunning people who will
take advantage of this unless we get it right - from the beginning.
Australia is undergoing a redefinition of itself in the attempt to face
the future as its own invention rather than a colonial left-over.
Unfortunately we are doing so with John Howard at the helm. A small,
mean, mediocre helmsman bereft of vision, ethics or compassion - an
autocratic egomaniac. John Howard will corrupt every attempt at creating
a republic that does not fulfil his vision of Australia: white,
christian church affiliated, 'upper-class' businessmen supporting a
stay-at-home wife and private-school-educated children who meet their
obligations to the poor, Indigenous peoples, and immigrants through
charitable but stern 'assistance'. Human rights do not come into it.
I do not want an Australian republic in his image.
The Preamble.
Why, for something so important, so definitive of Australia, is John
Howard allowed to write the words???? Who decided that he would be the
arbiter of Australia's vision of itself? How did he manage this? This is
the man who put Shirley Maclain to sleep! Who is he to decide what will
go in and how it goes in - for posterity?
God
With a third of Australians not believing in either the christian god or
any god or different gods or goddesses, it is the height of arrogance to
insist on putting Australia under Howard's god. (We all know that
Howard's god is money but that is even more reason to complain.)
I was very disappointed in Kim Beazley who just knee jerked and, without
thinking, said that this was a good idea. I believed he had a sense of
justice and fair play but I guess that disappears when childhood
upbringing wins out.
Australia's Constitutional preamble should, instead, affirm that freedom
of religion and worship are guaranteed, with respect for, and acceptance
of, all religions where they do not infringe upon the rights and
well-being of others.
As the founding religions of Australia, and the oldest continuous
religions in the world, Indigenous peoples' religious beliefs should be
accorded the status and respect that entails.
Aboriginal 'prior occupancy'
This is so insulting, it is beyond belief! Even Bob Katter said it was
insulting. Howard wants, for posterity, to leave the impression that
Aboriginal Peoples existed on this land in some form of nomadic
lifestyle without knowledge of ownership rights or laws. It also conveys
Howard's implied vision of Aboriginal Peoples: they died out after
'settlement' and today's Indigenous peoples aren't 'really' Aboriginal.
I suppose, in Howard's eyes, to admit to prior and ongoing ownership in
the absence of conquest would be to admit that we are a nation of
thieves.
I cannot vote for this. We are a better people than that and we can do
much better. We have to leave John Howard behind.
Representative Democracy
This is not what it seems at face value but is the means by which Howard
will cut the Senate down to size. One must look very carefully at the
words Howard uses because they convey his vision of what will be in his
best interest. We've already found out that he doesn't value democracy
or human rights so why is this there? Because it suits Howard.
The preamble carries no legal weight (except where it is used to clarify
a point in the Constitution itself) but it can be used by an
unscrupulous politician as a justification for advancing his own goals
disguised as the 'national interest'.
There is more to come - as soon as John Howard writes it.
For me, there is enough there already to know that, unless there is a
complete overhaul of words and meaning to something we can be proud of,
I cannot in good conscience vote yes. Not to meet a deadline. Not so it
can be changed later.
I think Indigenous Peoples deserve better after 211 years - I think
Australia as a whole deserves better.
In the absence of a Sovereign, sovereignty reverts to the people (even
though it is inherent in the land itself) and we, the people, must
reclaim the initiative and insist on justice for Australia's First
Peoples. Without that, as a first step, the rest of us will never truly
feel, nor truly be, Australian.
Trudy Bray
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
