International:

Nyungah Circle of Elders' on-line contact goes for broke!

Yesterday we ran a story on "just who are the Deathwatch" committee in Western Australia. This after their blatantly dishonest report that was sent through the Internet via Left Link to the International community.

Yesterday the "on-line media man" for Bropho and the Nyungah Circle of Elders sent out the following broadcast:

Return-Path: <staffy@omen.com.au>
From: "Jim & Yvonne Duffield" <staffy@omen.com.au>
Organization: Settler for Aboriginal Australia

To: recoznet-l@peg.apc.org, "Acker" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "Democrats" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "Harradine" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "Federal Labor" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "Liberal/National Feds" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "OSP" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "Oz Media" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "World Indigenous Affairs - Oz Base" <staffy@omen.net.au>, "Church" <staffy@omen.net.au>

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:35:00 +0800
X-Distribution: Moderate

Subject: Just who are "Death Watch"?

Reply-to: staffy@omen.net.au
CC: dicwc@omen.net.au, Barbara Ann Romeril <romeril@its.rmit.EDU.AU>,
global@gwb.com.au, rocket@zip.com.au

Priority: urgent
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by ash.mcs.net.au id SAA15829

Friends,

I thought that you might like to peruse this small contribution about the current xenophobe foci of some in our community. I'm rather surprised that my homepage has become the homepage of the Nyungah Circle of Elders, Elder Bropho is similarly surprised. Oh well, lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story shall we?

After perusing this invective, please browse to: http://www.zip.com.au/~rocket/hanson.htm and get a sanity pill from the Rocket.

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 11:04:20 +1100 (EST)

From: Barbara Ann Romeril <romeril@its.rmit.EDU.AU>

To: staffy@omen.com.au

Subject: head.html

The complete news of the day from yesterday was then added to this post which has apparently been sent to all the people on the list above (I haven't checked what is said for accuracy or editing). Of course "staffy" was too yellow to give the URL for the news of the day so that the recipients could see the basis of the argument for themselves....

As an aside you might recall that it was "elder Bropho" who called on Kathy Freeman to pull out of the Sydney 2000 Olympics.

Thanks for the free publicity anyway "staffy" maybe Harradine will learn a few things that will get him going in the right direction the bi-partisan Labor/Coalition are to far gone.

Cheryl Kernot shows her true colours

Appears that going against the sexual norm is very much in Kernot's make-up as more and more of her past life is revealed. A not so secret alleged affair with a student at St Leo's College where she taught English and History came to light last month and then on Friday more "frolicking with a young boy" allegations - just before she successfully stood as Labor's candidate for the Queensland seat of Dickson.

What was interesting was Saturday's News Limited's Courier Mail refused to run what Kernot later called "muck raking" - she should know as apparently she is very good at this.

Yesterday Sydney's Sun Herald ran the story which exposed her extramarital affair with a young man who had just left St Leo's Roman Catholic College.

However, Sydney-based News Limited reporter Piers Ackerman earlier alleged that "close bonding" of sorts took place in 1974 and 1975 apparently while the boy(s) was(were) still (a) student(s) at St Leo's where she taught History and English.....

The Piers Ackerman report tells a slightly different story to that in the Sunday Mail, here is an extract from that report:

"But Cheryl is still number one in the hearts and top of the charts with one group of men in Sydney, those she taught English and History at St Leo's Wahroonga in 1974 and 1975.

"As Cheryl Young, Mrs Kernot apparently captivated a number of young lads and is remembered with great fondness.

"They hope she'll join them for an Old Boy's dinner on November 11 and share some memories of their educational excursions."

Now the dates are quite interesting because apparently Cheryl Young (now Kernot) married a Sydney barrister in 1975 yet Kernot says in today's Sunday Mail report that her affair with the young man referred to in the Sun Herald article, "endured for five and a half years"....

Here is an extract from that Sunday Mail article which is headed, Kernot slams "muckraking".

"Last night she (Kernot) described the report (in the Sun Herald) as a "piece of gossip masquarading as a news story and alleged public interest".

"It speaks volumes that certain sections of the media would find an aspect of my private life 23 years ago in which there is no illegality or impropriety worthy of such sensational treatment," she said.

"It also speaks volumes about the lengths to which my political enemies have gone to throw mud at me.

"I certainly am not haunted by a meaningful relationship that endured for five and a half years 23 years ago.
"The relationship has endured as a friendship for those 23 years and I enjoy a close friendship with him, his wife and his family.

"This is exactly the kind of thing that deters decent Australians from nominating for public life in this country.

"This is muckraking politics at its worst."

The Sunday Mail report says: "Yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald reported some details of Ms Kernot's romance with Mr Sinclair who, the year before, had been at the prestigious Roman Catholic St Leo's College in Wahroonga, on Sydney's North Shore where she was teaching."

Now I wonder which version got it right Ackerman or The Sun Herald?

Political:

You Say:

Subject: Democracy versus Monarchy.  Can "rule by the people" be trusted?

A Catholic Viewpoint: Extracts from a letter by a Catholic Priest. (to stir the pot)

Concerning your question, in my opinion certainly democracy is far from being the best form of government. I think history proves this clearly, although monarchy has had it faults. It is true that a popular vote could outlaw Catholicism, but then again so could a king!

However the theory of the "divine right of kings" is a recent invention dating more or less from the 16th century coming mostly from Louis XIV and James I. This was to try to establish their authority over their subject above the authority of the Church. They claimed that since their authority comes from God they were on the same level as the Church and the pope could not tell them what to do since they had the same authority, which is of course false. These were times when kings meddled in Church affairs like the emperors of old.

On the contrary true Catholic kings understood that their authority came from God through the Church. This was the reason for the crowning ceremonies in which the king or emperor was crowned by the pope or bishop.

In this way the king recognised his dependence and submission to the Church. This was the case with the kings of France, the Holy Roman Emperors, the kings of Hungary etc. In those times when honour was the basis of society kings swore obedience to the pope and the people swore the oath of fealty to the king. But it happened many times that when the king went contrary to the laws of the Church and of God, or when he abused his authority , the pope could and would free the subjects from their oath to the king or emperor. This quickly brought them back to repentance and obedience.

The Church has never said that the people cannot choose their rulers. Some countries like Switzerland have never had kings, they have always been a democracy. Granted not in the modern understanding of the term; for example there was no universal suffrage. Only men, as heads of families, or were landowners could vote because they were responsible for society and expected to have the greatest interest in its well being. Universal suffrage is one of the main downfalls of democracy because individuals without responsibilities considered only self-interest.

The Church has always taught that in a democracy the people must remember that the authority of the rulers does not come from them but from God. They merely designate the one who will exercise the authority. Once elected rulers must govern not according to the will of the people but according to the will of God, even if it is against the will of the people. This is why democracy is so dangerous. The temptation for the leaders to want to be re-elected makes them cater to the people. "Public opinion" is what makes the politicians sing and we all know it is very easy not only to direct public opinion but to make it or invent it.

This is one of the reasons why a monarchy is better. The king does not have to worry about being re-elected, so he rules for the good of the country. He necessarily has an interest since his son will come after him.

There is more stability in government, more continuity. It is more efficient because one person makes the decisions. A wise ruler will surround himself with wise advisers, but there is one who makes the decisions. It is a ridiculous myth to believe that in a democracy Parliament makes the decisions. The prime minister or president is the one who makes the decisions. These men today have more power than any absolute monarch of the 16th and 17th century. Monarchy was also the best guaranty for the true freedom of the people, because the king was bound by the privileges granted by his predecessors. History shows that the monarchy has done more for the advancement of civilisation and religion, although all kings were not saints by any means.

Edited by Philip Madsen.

Subject: CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM

To The Editor,
                      With the soon to be decided make up of the delegates that will put forward the recommendations relating to Australia's future direction,  I believe it is also time for Australian's to commence formulating in their minds what it is that they themselves would want in any new system.

This subject is now gaining momentum because of the recent events which may now lead us into another election.

This possible election I believe has more to do with a Power Struggle between the Major Parties plus a lot of manoeuvring with the approaching Constitutional Convention than it has to do with WIK.

Events leading up to the possible election underline the need for ORDINARY AUSTRALIAN'S to take the decisions on matters such as WIK right out of the hands of the Government. The blundering and outright inability of the Major Parties to manage the situation in a proper unbiased fashion is self evident.

It is quite clear the only way in which this can happen is by REFERENDUM.

This now brings me to my next point which is CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM. This particular subject has been juggled about for quite some time I know,  but it now needs to be looked at in EARNEST.

I will relate some views that I read recently, (buried away in the a Gold Coast Newspaper). The writers name at the end of the item was a Andrew Toal.  It was his comments that struck a cord in my mind. I have used some of his views on Democracy.
Andrew was referring to the WIK issue and gave some very clear interpretations on what he believed TRUE  DEMOCRACY
was,
The essence of  Democracy is Sovereignty of the people,  Not Of Parliament or Governments.

Such sovereignty rests on the rights of every individual within the group,  Not Of The Group.

Its implementation in a true democracy is BY REFERENDUM ONLY.

The notion that democracy is the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number " IS WRONG ".
History shows that the notion of "The Greatest Good" has served as "JUSTIFICATION" for many brutal
displacements and destruction's of races of people. Let events in, Timor, The Middle East, Early Australian Settlement, South Africa and many other places stand as Mute Testimony to this. It is no theory, it is recorded fact.

A REFERENDUM would bypass Governments which might impose a law which is in contravention of the peoples sense of justice,  otherwise this might not be Justice or Democracy but, Power, Force and Oppression.

The Federal Governments actions in forcing the States to accept its views on Gun Laws though winning approval by some, may well fall into this category. A Referendum may have produced a very different outcome and The Government Was Well Aware of that fact. Whatever your reasoning , The Government Forced through legislation without regard to anybody's views using, Power, And Force,  to achieve an outcome The Prime Minister had already made a decision on Without Consultation and Fair discussion.

THIS WAS NOT GOVERNING FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS,  IT WAS DICTATING.  IF IT COULD BE DONE IN THIS CASE,  THEN IT CAN BE DONE IN ANY CASE.

The above is my view and I hope, the reminders ring warning to what could be and  I suspect is happening under our current system.

As the Constitutional Convention prepares to get under way, now is the time to start thinking and lobbying the idea of including a Citizens Initiated Referendum into any proposed changes to the Constitution.

The inclusion of this right into a new Constitution would effectively combat any BACKDOOR attempts by Vested Interests to bring in changes that will only give more rights and powers to the already Over Powerful.

BEWARE.
Too many of the people expecting to be elected to the convention have long records of close political party ties and we can expect their views and voting to reflect these views into any changes to the Constitution.

REMEMBER the PARTIES are made up of minority groups of people  representing views that INFLUENCE ELECTED GOVERNMENTS into making decisions that may not be in the best interests of AUSTRALIAN'S as a whole.

PARTY ROOMS are where Big Business, Political and Narrow Social Views dominate a lot of policy.

THE CONSTITUTION
Here I expect, we will find many changes grouped together, Some Good, Some Bad, But, All IN THE SAME BLOCK. No doubt there will be some Honey there , to entice you.
This is the way to include changes that give Governments more Power and are included with Stealth.

Remember Governments are LOATH to give POWER TO THE PEOPLE. (A JUDGES WORDS NOT MINE)

I would NOT tick any box until I had determined first, if a Citizens Referendum was a choice in the paper,  if not I would not vote for any change to a Republic let alone any change to, THE CONSTITUTION.

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM IS OUR " ONLY "  SAFEGUARD .

Tony Fitzpatrick.

Personal trivia, from the global office:

Yesterday we went for a memorable canoe up the Brisbane River. With a bottle of champagne and a packet of chips we canoed our way up in leisurely style at midday thanks to an abnormally high tide.

All the images below were taken on a short 2000 metre strip between College's Crossing and the small weir upstream - a few hundred metres downstream from the Brisbane Water Board's large weir across the Brisbane River - where the photographs of the "weir" were taken during the 1996 floods. (Note the weir in the photo below is not the main 15 metre high weir seen below water in the flood pics).

During the 1996 floods the water roared 15 metres above the normal river level at this point.

---

Return to Australian National News of the Day #

 

---

Web development, design, and storage by Global Web Builders - Email: global@gwb.com.au

See GLOBE International for other world news.

---

anotd