Welcome to iServ

On the 26th January, 1788 two ships of the Royal Navy; HMS Sirius and HMS Supply; plus nine chartered vessels; Alexander, Borrowdale, Charlotte, Fishburn, Friendship, Golden Grove, Lady Penrhyn, Prince of Wales and Scarborough; sailed into Port Jackson, New South Wales and dropped anchor in what is known today as Circular Quay. The Commanding Officer, Captain Arthur Phillip, RN, disembarked and witnessed the raising of the Union Flag at a location that is now situated alongside Customs House. To this day, the Union Flag still flies as a symbol that this day in 1788 became the birthday of a modern nation. Happy Birthday Australia.

The Forum

This will not happen on iServ - ever

The South Australian Government has passed a law that will require anyone who comments on the upcoming South Australian general elections in an online forum to include their full name and postcode in any posts they make. Additionally, it will be the responsibility of any online forum administrator to collect the full name and residential address of anyone commenting on the elections and keep these records for a period of six months.

Due to the inability of iServ's administrators to verify any supplied personal information, assuming that such information would get supplied in the first place, iServ will not take part in this activity and anyone commenting on the South Australian elections may do so without fear that their identities can be traced.

To facilitate this, iServ's logging processes that record a visitor's IP address and other similar generic information will be disabled from the time that the first thread relevant to the South Australian elections is posted to the day after the elections have been staged, that being the 21st March, 2010.

Please read this article for further information on this act of bastardry on the part of the South Australian Government.

I suppose that this, and copycat acts on other websites, will become a test for those governments in democracies like Australia who want to test the water with nazi-like censorship regimes. The stark reality is that this measure by the South Australian Government is far worse than the proposed Internet filter being pushed down our throats by the Commonwealth Government.

It is a national disgrace that Big Brother's frontiers are stretching to breaking point and whilst the South Australian Constitution does not grant the right to free speech it doesn't deny free speech either.

The punishment for refusing or failing to provide any personal information on demand to the South Australian Electoral Commission carries a $5,000.00 fine. Again, this is a national disgrace and a completely barbaric law that takes away a person's choice to privacy and their ability to speak freely about the failings of their government.

Written at 18:31 on 2 February 2010 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Politics section. Comments: 2 · Chat Live ·

Weak at the knees

A sign that some republicans are going weak at the knees is becoming apparent according to some comments made today in The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney's most left-wing newspaper. Before continuing I would like to note that in late 2009 Fairfax resurrected the name of their former national newspaper, The National Times, which for its brief existance competed head on with News Limited's The Australian by relaunching their commentary section by the same name, National Times. What Fairfax wants to achieve by this, aside from becoming more left-wing than The Daily Telegraph is something I am yet to work out.

Anyway, back to the republic issue, Mr Shaun Carney, who wasted no time declaring himself a republican, came to terms with the whole debate, seemingly resigned to the idea that Australia will probably never be a republic in our lifetime. In fact, Mr Carney mentions this more than once in his article. As one of the most anti-republican people around, I am glad to have read these comments and I find them comforting and encouraging to the anti-republican/pro-monarchy cause.

Mr Carney's article can be found here. Regardless of Mr Carney's opinion, his comments make sense. Support for a republic has not increased since the last referendum and support for a new national flag is at rock-bottom. The reason for both is this: those advocating a republic and a new flag have failed dismally to put a decent alternative on the table.

The biggest problem with the debates surrounding Australia's flag and system of government is that both agendas are aimed at getting rid of the Monarchy and getting rid of the Flag. Apart from some bitter and personally vindictive infighting from the republicans and new flag brigade, nothing has been put on the table to demonstrate what the loss of the Monarchy and the Flag would be replaced with.

How can these groups of people launch a campaign based on hatred and negative outcomes and expect the rest of us to kowtow to their whims? It's just not going to happen. There have been 44 referendum questions staged by the Commonwealth Government since Federation in 1901. Eight questions were declared in the affirmative. These eight questions were also the only ones to receive bipartisan support in Parliament. These include Senate elections in 1906, State debts in 1910, State debts in 1928, Social services in 1946, The ability for the Commonwealth to make laws relating to the Aboriginal race in 1967 and Senate causal vacancies, Referendums & Retirement of judges in 1977. A ninth question in 1977 related to Australia's national anthem but this was a plebiscite and not a full-blown referendum.

With a history of failed referendums and why they failed it is easy to see why the 1999 referendum on the republic didn't even score a majority in a single state.

For some fast facts on a republic I urge everyone to read this. Not a truer word has ever been spoken.

Written at 20:17 on 28 January 2010 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 0 · Chat Live ·

Flagging fortunes

Journalist, Ray Martin, has called for the Australian Flag to be changed and in doing so he points to his part Irish and part Aboriginal heritage as reasons for his view that Australia should have something different.

Federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has a different point of view. Mr Abbott says he likes the Australian Flag the way it is and he's not alone. I also want the Australian Flag to remain as is - there is no justification what-so-ever to alter the flag that has represented this nation so well for around 100 years. I'll also point out at this time that the flag was voted for, not forced upon us by a socialist government inspired by an illegitimate republican movement gasping on its last breaths of oxygen.

It is also important to point out that people like Mr Martin who come out of the woodwork on Australia Day, Anzac Day and the Queen's Birthday long weekend and heap crap on our system of government and our national symbols, never manage to either offer their own alternatives or promote debate to establish a widespread desire for these needless changes - instead they just come out and say that a change is necessary.

There is no need to change the Australian Flag.
There is no need to change the Coat of Arms.
There is no need to become a republic.

Recent opinion polls show that people are eager to hang on to the Australian Flag and this puts Mr Martin in a minority. Support for a republic also languishes at 44%, one percentage point below that of the 1999 referendum that gave republicans their best chance to invoke change.

Written at 11:31 on 25 January 2010 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 4 · Chat Live ·

More academics bleat about the monarchy

In an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, Professor George Williams has spoken out about the "objectionable" state of Australia's system of government as it allows a hereditary monarch to reign in and "otherwise democratic and egalitarian system". Professor Williams also addresses the tacky issue of who a monarch can marry - given that it is a big no-no for a king or queen to marry a Catholic as they double up as head of the Church of England.

What's the problem? These days more people are declaring themselves non-denominational, regardless of the faith they were baptised into. All churches are shrinking in size, apart from Islam and I doubt if Australia will ever have an Islamic monarch despite the attempts if the radical side of Islam to try and make that happen.

Prince William's arrival yesterday reminds us of our constitutional future. After his father, he will be our king. William will ascend to the pinnacle of our democracy not on the basis of his fitness for office or by winning the support of the people, but due solely to the good fortune of his birth.

Yep, so be it. I've no problem with that. After all, the monarch does not rule over us. The monarch reigns and there's a big difference. Perhaps Professor Williams would like to look up those two words in a dictionary sometime. One thing I do ask of Professor Williams - Does he believe that Prince William is not fit to be King of Australia? The Prince has been subject to a life in the headlines and the premature death of his mother due to media harassment. No-one can say he hasn't been adequately prepared for the role that he doesn't have much of a choice in either. It's a case of give and take.

Professor Williams also takes a swipe at the Constitution.

Nor is being a monarchy a certain recipe for constitutional stability. That depends much more on the character of a nation's people and the quality of their leaders. Nations with better drafted constitutions than ours, both republics and monarchies, have seen governments disintegrate through revolution or the unscrupulous exercise of power.

There isn't another nation with a better drafted constitution than that of Australia. The constitution is there to govern the government and nothing more. As for revolution, no constitution can prevent that. If people are that desperate to overthrow their government then they'll do it regardless of what the constitution says. The closest that Australia has come to revolution was during the Rum Rebellion of the 26th January, 1808 when Major George Johnston, with the support of sheep farmer, John Macarthur, lead a military coup against Governor of New South Wales, Captain William Bligh. The reason that Australia has not been subject to this sort of action since is due to the desire of her people to respect the ideal of democratic government. This is the same reason we have the Constitution. The Constitution was voted for, unlike most other countries where it was fought for or against with the shedding of flesh and blood.

Now that the proximity to Australia Day has brought the republicans out of the woodwork I can say that I am not surprised that a left-wing rag like the Herald has printed this garbage written by Professor Williams. I think this country's national day is not the place or time to discuss a republic or other issues of contention such as reconciliation, gay marriage or the like.

We have yet to assert our full powers of self-government by bringing about a sound and stable republican structure of government that better represents our aspirations and values. The power to cut Australia's ties to the monarchy and its ancient inequities lies solely within our hands. It is past time that we exercised it.

Self-Government is exactly that, self-government. It's something most of the states have enjoyed since 1855 and something that a federated Australia has enjoyed since 1901. Since the monarch is not part of the legislature I fail to see why Professor Williams has a problem with the present arrangement.

Let's celebrate the nation that we are, not what we'd end up being with a dictator instead of a monarch.

Written at 01:34 on 21 January 2010 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 0 · Chat Live ·

Indian racism accusation is without foundation

Deep resentment on the sub-continent of attacks on Indian students on the basis of race are unfounded according to Indian High Commissioner, Peter Varghese.

I agree with this. Whilst there has been a concentration of attacks on Indians in Melbourne in the last few months, when this is put together with the overall number of people who are bashed and killed in Australia's capital cities all of a sudden the attacks on people of Indian origin drop markedly.

What I don't find easy to support is the move by Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when she calls an Indian cartoon of a Victorian police officer dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan racist. It's no more racist than a recent advertisement made by Kentucky Fried Chicken showing black people eating chook - I just don't see the connection myself, being an anglo-saxon who does enjoy the occasional serving of chook.

It is all too easy for people to tag others as racist simply because they have a weak stomach or take offence to any comment or action between people of different colours. It always seems to come down to skin colour, yet nothing ever seems to happen because of eye colour, hair colour, whether someone is fat or thin or because they smell. These idiots who chant the race tag all the time need to grow up and this includes Ms Gillard just as much as it includes the people of India.

It is a fact of life that people get bashed and murdered but equally a fact that race rarely becomes a motive for it. I don't believe the recent bashing of Indians is based on their race, nor do I believe the cartoon in an Indian newspaper is racist. What it is though is stupid act committed by an Indian cartoomist with extremist views.

By the way Julia... When's Kev going to be back in the country?

Written at 09:15 on 9 January 2010 by Lord Watchdog.
Posted in the Society section. Comments: 2 · Chat Live ·