Tuesday 5th January 1999


This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line DISCUSSION forum] [One Nation Web Site]
HAVE YOU ORDERED:
[MURDER BY MEDIA, DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA]

from an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

Aussie's should be the first to be offered jobs.

Here is an extract from Heather's press release:

It is typical that the Australian Chamber of Commerce determines its principles for immigration intake based solely on economic benefits to select businesses and neglects the social costs said Senator Elect Heather Hill. The principle of "profit before people" is evident in the most recent call from this group who believe they will not be able to fill their anticipated positions over the next few years.

We currently have many skilled and eager Australians unemployed or under employed looking for worthwhile work opportunities. These people also long for the long forgotten words "job security" to match their enthusiasm.

A governments responsibility is to protect its peoples welfare, security, environment, economy, and standard of living - every migrant must be accommodated with food, transport, housing, education, health, jobs, schools, pensions, hospital, water, sewerage, electricity, and all other basics of modern life. Not just a job! We need to provide the infrastructure to support families and their basic social, environmental and economic needs. Something the Government has failed to do in today's society, just check with our aged, infirm or disabled members to name a few who require our support in accessing housing or health facilities.

Murdoch's lacky digs deep in the insult stakes

Terry Sweetman is a senior editor at the paper - such is the appaling state of journalism in Australia... seeing he is so obedient in following the Murdoch line one can only be surprised that he has not yet been elevated to managing editor....

Sweetman's lies and distortions are revealed in on-line references at the end of this article posted by someone overseas.

Here is an extract from the article "Making nooseaville our capital" (The Courier Mail 5th January 1999):

Remember how One Nation was going to show us a better way to go about the business of politics? Not for its tawdry stunts: it was going to get down to the real issues that affect real people.

So how come its pushing for a wearying and pointless debate in the Queensland Parliament on the reintroduction of capital punishment just to drum up a bit of pre-poll publicity for Pauline Hanson's office boy in his quest for a nice little number in the New South Wales Upper House.

Don't take my word for it. David Oldfield has openly said the private member's Bill to force a Queensland referendum on the noose was timed for "national exposure" ahead of the New South Wales poll on March 27.

It seems the timing is all shot, but it's a revealing bit of honesty that One Nation probably could have done without because the death penalty is one blurry bit of policy over which it has been fairly consistent.

Boy wonder Shaun Nelson was rabbiting on about "disposing" of murderers to save us all money only last September.

Orwell and the "Freedom of the Press"

Here is an extract from the unpublished preface of Animal Farm:

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news-things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

Wisdom

In view of the stupid PC fashion of our day to judge our 18th, 19th and even early 20th century ancestors by late 20th century 'standards', the following words of historian, Barbara Tuchman have particular resonance.

In a 1971 address to a National Archives conference she said: 'To truly understand the past we must resist the comforts of retrospective judgment. I try not to refer to anything not known at the time,' she said. 'To understand the choices open to people of another time, one must limit oneself to what they knew: see that past in its own clothes, as it were, not in ours.'

How radiant and rare is such wisdom.

Antonia

Inquiry

What do you know of the $1,000,000 cash that allegedly went from a bank where a man named Packer banked to Neville Wrans Paddington terrace some years ago. It was around the time Lotto or similar was tendered out.

mh

Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy

The traditional proposals for converting Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic have been somewhat ambiguous. It is now time for clarification. Up to this time the terms “Democracy” and “Republic” have not been sufficiently defined as they apply specifically to the citizens of Australia. Therefore, those definitions will follow:

Democracy: No one of voting age is restricted from voting. The vast majority of citizens, who lack knowledge of the specific facts at issue, vote as guided (or misguided) by the media. Hence, the controllers of the media control the vote.

Republic: No one of voting age is restricted from voting as long as they demonstrate a knowledge of the specific facts at issue. As a result fewer citizens vote -- but they cast an informed vote that is guided by their individual conscience and not the media.

Once the terms have been understood, one can reason that Australia is actually a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy, and the United States is not a Republic as some people have thought -- it is a Democracy as well. For example, not only are Americans in general confused about the issues for which they are voting, but U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, in reference to a US$520 Billion spending bill, was quoted as saying: “Do I know what is in the Bill? Are you kidding? Only God knows! If the voters really understood what we were up to they’d vote us out of office.” [courtesy of CNN via (AllPolitics 21 October 1998)]. It is truly a shameful reality that whilst one can not operate a pleasure boat unless they successfully complete a safety exam, they can vote on a US$520 Billion Bill without knowing anything.

Some people have unjustly bashed the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy. This may also be due to a lack of understanding of the term “Constitutional Monarchy” as it applies to Australia. A quick understanding may be accomplished by using the analogy of a family trust. When a family trust is created, the creator of that trust appoints trustees to manage the trust. The creator also has the power to designate a protector. The protector has absolutely no power concerning the management of the trust, but if the protector detects fowl play or activities adverse to the welfare of the trust, the protector may follow appropriate procedures that will result in the removal of the trustee. Since power corrupts and people are easily corrupted, this is a very good and efficient system that has been successfully used for centuries in trust arrangements.

The Australian Constitutional Monarchy follows this same common law form in that the Governor General and State Generals are the protectors of the Australian Trust -- of which the people of Australia are the beneficiaries. There is no doubt that this is a superior system to that of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton would have been removed from office quite early on by the protector if he were the Australian Prime Minister.

What Australia really needs is an end to the frivolous debate between the Constitutional Monarchy supporters and the Republic supporters. There simply needs to be an acknowledgement that Australia is currently a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy, and that it would be beneficial for its citizens to transform it into a Republican Constitutional Monarchy.

The only change Australia would need is a constitutional amendment that would require the Parliament to install integrity in voting (IIIV) -- both within the Parliament itself and within the popular voting system which includes all Australians.

Australia may be the only place on earth where the people as a whole care enough about their welfare and the welfare of their nation to deprive themselves of the privilege of voting if they are not qualified to exercise that privilege. If the Australian people perform their moral duty to assure positive change, they will find themselves prospering in many ways while the less responsible societies such as the United States dwindle in political, economic and moral strength.

Timothy

One Nation's Law and Order Policy

One Nation should be congratulated on listening to the people (as it always has) in framing its Law and Order Policy. This will surely cause embarrassment to the other parties which have served(?!?!?!) us so poorly over the years.

There are three items which I feel would enhance their policy - all of them to do with deterring crime, to prevent crime occurring in the first place.

1) Biblically, it is acknowledged that anyone who sets someone up to "take the fall" when that person is not guilty will pay the penalty the innocent victim would have incurred. Someone who lies will definitely think twice if they face the same penalty for getting caught lying -especially if it is the death penalty.

Perhaps this could also be applied to the Murdoch Press in its treatment of Mr Rappolt?

Deuteronomy 19:16-20:-

16 "If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,
17 "then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.
18 "And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,
19 "then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
20 "And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.

It is important that the death penalty is used correctly and that there should be two or more witnesses to the crime before this penalty can be invoked -of course, these days video evidence or DNA evidence, etc. may come into play. Obviously we want a high degree of certainty if this penalty is used. It also needs to be remembered that murderers have assumed the roles of judge, jury and executioner over the victim AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO JUSTICE OR MERCY! Numbers 35:30:-

30 'Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. 31 'Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.

2) I have never heard of a criminal having to "make good" for the damage or theft they have perpetrated. Rather, the debt seems to fall on the victim or the victim's insurance. The bare minimum penalty for any crime should be to fully reimburse the victim for what they have done -and not at one dollar a week for the next hundred years. Criminals would do well to consider how long it would take them to pay back the amounts they will owe, or that they may lose their own possessions as a consequence of their own actions.

3) The media seem to think our police are there to be targets for criminals. If the police shoot a criminal, all hell breaks loose. If the police get seriously injured the story "blows over" in almost no time. I don't believe our police are cannon fodder - nor are the victims of criminals.

If police show up at an incident, the "trouble maker" should know they submit or risk real force from the police. People may think twice when they know they face serious injury for not submitting to police authority and continue to endanger the lives of others.

The man shot on Bondi Beach about 18 months ago comes to mind -if he knew the police weren't going to "muck around" he may have put down his knife. Police deserve the community's full support. It seems I face greater penalties at work if I endanger or injure my workmates than if I held a knife at someone's throat whilst holding off the police.

Regards,
Chris Fitzgerald

Laura Norder

Who on earth is advising One Nation these days? Or is the problem the fact that nobody is.

One Nation is supposed to stand for the restoration of standards in politics, but David Oldfield's plan to 'use' the Queensland parliament as a forum for a law and order debate while campaigning on the issue in NSW makes a mockery of ON's professed stand. It is an abuse of the parliamentary process and Oldfield should be ashamed of himself.

One Nation needs to develop a set of principles more than it needs detailed policies, and One Nation has to act in accordance with its principles. If this is regarded as being airy-fairy, impractical pie-the-sky stuff, then One Nation supporters may as well give up and return to the Liberal-Labor fold.

Who needs yet another dodgy political party? People are sick and tired of them. People are disgusted by them. Of course One Nation has to develop political strategies, but let them be principled. Using one state's parliament as a platform for another state's election campaign sounds dodgy to me.

Antonia

from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

This Ring Name site is owned by One Nation. Want to join the One Nation ring? [Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

One Nation's Queensland State Conference - 27th to 29th November
Dual Citizenship and politicians- 20th November 1998
Where Prize Turkeys Gather - 17th November 1998
A time with Heather Hill - exclusive interview with One Nation's first Federal Representative - 25th October 1998
A day with Pauline - exclusive interview after the Federal Election - 22nd October 1998
It's YOUR ABC? - 17th October 1998
The Federal Election - 3rd October 1998
One Nation launch - the day the media snapped.- 29th September 1998
Pauline Hanson defeats the politically correct lobby- 28th September 1998
Fairfax on trial- 23rd September 1998
Where the politically correct hang out - 20th September 1998
A brief lunch time controntation with Jeff Kennett- 8th September 1998
One Nation's Primary Industry Policy- 7th September 1998

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.