Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Tuesday, 12 February 2008

The Honourable John Howard to receive Knighthood - The Order of the Garter?

By David Byers Convener of Country NSW ACM

There is increasing speculation that former Australian Prime Minister Mr. John Howard is to Knighted - The Order of the Garter. A vacancy has now come up with the death of Sir Edmund Hillary. We will not know until the 23rd of April this year but I for one very much hope Mr. Howard is chosen, as it would do the Crown good to give such an honor to someone outside the UK, to someone from one of the other realms. What do readers think?


Lewis said...

Not unexpected. Howard is deeply loyal to the Queen.

Marquis Black said...

It would certainly buy the Crown some much needed PR in Australia...

Scott said...

Absolutely! Three cheers!

Kipling said...

Marvelous!!! Another fitting honour would be granting Howard the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, following in the foot steps of the Great Robert Menzies. It's my understanding that the title is held until death - certainly the last few holders have done so. Could an exception be made? Is a peerage out of the question?

Marquis Black said...

Kipling - that would depend on the law of the land. I know Canada doesn't allow peerages anymore, but I don't know if that applies to Australia. If it does, then Howard would have to give up his Australian citizenship and emigrate to the UK in order to receive a peerage.

anonymousterry said...

Hey guys....We no longer accept British Honors. Howard may be deserving of some type of award for his service to this country as Prime Minister, but that type of award went out of fashion along with the Monarchy in the mid 1980's.

You fellas are obviously not familiar with the fact that this country has been a republic, albeit in name, since 1985!

Go and fool with some other country whose inhabitants may be more receptive to your outdated titles. Terry

Viscount Feldon said...

Luckily for you Terry, the Garter isn't a British honour! It's a personal gift of the Queen for citizens of all realms.

Personally, though, the only thing I thought Howard had going for him was his monarchism. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have minded seeing him gone years ago.

And what happened to make Australia a "republic" in 1985?

Splendor Sine Occasu said...

It's too bad we have that silly "Nickel Resolution" here in the Great Northern Dominion that would not allow Canadians to receive such honours.

David Byers said...

Just so readers know what Terry is probably talking about, when he says that Australia has been a republic in all but name since 1985. It might be, and he has got the year wrong, that in 1986 The Queen signed the Australia Act, which in effect meant that the UK parliament could not longer advise the Queen regarding State Laws in Australia (Federal Law did not need this amendment) from 1986 onwards she took advice regarding the Australian States from Her Australian Premiers. I too do not understand why some republicans think this made us a republic in all but name either. Anyway go to the ACM website and look to their articles on The Australia Act 1986.

Marquis Black said...

Terry - Just because you can't find it in yourself to be loyal, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

The Monarchist said...

He is the second longest serving prime minister after Sir Robert Menzies, KT (not KG), so he would be wholly deserving in my opinion. It would be nice if it were true and it was just the catalyst required to bring back knighthoods to the Commonwealth Orders. Nobody - and I mean the MSM here - gives a rats arse for the knightless orders of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's only newsworthy if you get to call yourself a knight or a dame.

And as this proves, even the mere speculation of getting knighted hits the news!

Lord Best said...

I'd like to see an Australian given such a high honour, and I would dearly love to Australia return to knighthoods. But find someone more deserving than Howard. He wasn't even a particularly good Monarchist, he kept on usurping the Governor-Generals role at public events so he could get the attention. It was sickening.

Karen said...

Given the criteria for such a high award - the Order of the Garter - who could posssibly be better than John Howard. John Howard as Prime Minister served Australia with dignity and distinction, putting our nation on the world map. He was an extremely loyal servant of Her Majesty. A major referendum with media, celebrities,lawyers and many politicians backing a republic was resoundingly defeated in favour of the Monarchy- all under John Howard's capable stewardship.Sir John Howard? Bring it on!

Lord Best said...

Someone has been at the absinthe...

Such a high honour should be reserved for people of the very highest merit, and who are recognised as such. Someone of whom half the population wished to kill and consume his flesh is probably not the best option, not until his political legacy dies down a bit. I'd sooner see it go to Mr Fraser, but to be honest I do not think there is an Australian politician alive with the gravitas and statesmanship to warrant it.

Beaverbrook said...

Given the number of Right Honourables in the Order, perhaps they could nudge Howard up from his "Honourable" notch. Australia and New Zealand missed the boat on Rt Hon when they stopped being sworn in to the Privy Council of the UK. Because Canada long ago created its own Queen's Privy Council, prime ministers, chief justices and governors-general countinue the Rt Hon. tradition. Presently the only way for an Antipodean to be so designated is through the UK. As is the case for knighthoods, thanks to our boring egalitarian rhetoric.

Viscount Feldon said...

The only reason they still have "The Right Honourable" in Canada is because they decided just to make it a rule that PM's, GG's, and CJ's get it no matter what. Canadian Privy Counsellors are merely Honourable as well. Until, I believe, the 1960's, Canadians were sworn of the British Privy Council in order to be Righted.

Anonymous said...

Anonymousterry's comments are interesting. Not because they have any merit, of course, but because it is an important reminder of the failure of the Dominion monarchists' tactic of 'patriating' the monarchy in order to diminish republican sentiment.

Simply, banging on about the "Queen of Canada" and "Queen of Australia" has hardly impacted on the tendency for republicans to blacken the monarchy as an exclusively British institution and, therefore, that continuing to acknowledge the Crown means continuing to accept British political influence.

I think it might be better, then, to be honest and admit that one of our principal reasons for supporting the monarchy is that it is the last remaining symbol of the unity of our people, what realm soever we may live in. People who think like that will be monarchists whether the Crown is patriated or not; people who don't see us as one people will be Republicans whether the Crown is patriated or not.

So let's have an honest defence of Personal Union. It coudn't really hurt and might even do some good.


David Byers said...

Lord Best, Give the knighthood to Mr Fraser?! Not only is that man not loyal to the Crown but he was a failure as a Prime Minister.

Lord Best said...

Thats rather my point, Mr Byers. As I said I do not think there is an Australian politician alive who deserves such a high honour. By all means honour Howard, ex-PMs should be recognised, but the Order of the Garter? Too much.

Beaverbrook said...

Bravo, Cato, that's the crux of it alright. Most monarchists have spent their life running scared from any notion of Personal Union, in favour of a fully (i.e., falsely) patriated crown, and for what? So long as we are connected to the British Monarchy, people will see the monarchy as being British, so why pretend otherwise?

If you favour a patriated monarchy, then advocate patriation. If not, do what this blog does and be unabashedly proud of the Crown as a unifying symbol of our cultural (small b) britishness.

David Byers said...

Lord Best what country are you from? Also why on earth should this honour go to yet another bloody Pom!

Kipling said...

The Nickel Belt Resolution:
It was not an Act of the Canadian Parliament and is not universally considered binding on the government. The Resolution was passed in 1919. The Liberal Government of Mackenzie King (1921-1926, 1926-1930, 1935-1948) interpreted the Resolution as banning Canadians from accepting honours.

The Conservative government of R.B. Bennett (1930-1935) took a different view and argued that honours could still be accepted by Canadians. Bennett himself became a Viscount after his stint at PM (albeit in self imposed exile). One could argue that Canadian Citizenship in 1947 (a bad idea, but anyway) might impede the accepting of honours.

In any case all PMs within the Personal Union should be sworn into the UK Privy Council and the longer serving ones, as in Britain, offerred peerages. I also think the Life Peerages Act should be repealed, but now I'm off topic.

As for defending Britishness, I'm all for it. My parents were Portuguese but they chose to move to an English speaking country. It's the British part of this country that makes it work, not British ethnicity or Anglo-Saxons, but British ideals and values. The Personal Union is a symbol of those values. Those who attack the Personal Union seem keen in other ways to take us down the road to the Banana Republics of Latin America. The only Republics with any track record of good government are Switzerland, Finland and the United States. Surely a hint.

anonymousterry said...

Hey Guys and Gals.....I see that I have stirred up a little interest which has generated some less than favorable comments.

To Mr. Byers...The Privy Council was the last legal link that this country had with the UK. This link was abolished in favor of the High Court which is now the last legal avenue in this country. We therefore are not subject to ANY outside interference constitutionally or legally, therefore we are in effect an 'invisible republic' which unfortunately has still to sign off on a British Monarch.

Viscount Feldon....why is it lucky for me that the Garter is not a British Honor. If it originated in Britain it is in my opinion of British origin. Regardless of whom the title originated from it is a British Honor!

Marquis Black.....whom must I be loyal to! Surely not to the English Queen who resides 12,000 miles away and has her own countrys best interest at heart. If she were a chief executive officer ruling over several companies, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest! It may surprise you to know that I am loyal to Australia only.

To anonymous....if my arguments have no merit then why have you been moved to comment? The monarchy in this country no matter how much you argue for it is dead. Main stream society is not interested in it as an Australian institution. Just check out the regular polls that are conducted regarding this. The majority of Australians want a declared republic, that is an undeniable fact!

Karen.....the republican referendum was not soundly defeated. The result was hardly what anyone could call a convincing win. Howards input into the question sealed the referendum in favor of the status quo. If this is malarky then how do you account for the majority now wanting a republic. cannot accuse those who would rather have a republic than a constitutional monarchy, of being 5th columnists. I consider myself a very loyal Australian who does not happen to agree with your sentimentalities that is all. Is that being traitorous?

Hey Lord Best....I've saved you for last! There has only ever been ONE politician which has rightfully deserved high praise for his efforts as Prime Minister of this country, and that person is John Curtin. He was Australia's Churchill. This was a man who galvanised the public with his orations and gave his heart in defence of this land. No living Australian politician is deserving of what you guys are pushing. Terry

David Byers said...

Terry, you have not shown that Australia is a type of de-facto republic at all. The Queen’s role change in regards to her state governments in Australia but her relationship with her federal Australia government remains the same. In fact the 1986 Australia Act made the Queen even more our Queen than before, for she cannot take advice from her British minister in regards to our state governments.

You also cling to the republican myth that the 1999 referendum was somehow unfair that is not true; the republicans put the model forward, the best model that could come up with, they had all the media on side including most of our politicians, celebrities, trade unions etc. and guess what they lost and now people like you are trying to con people into supporting a republic and do not even have a fully written constitution for people to look at.


Pablo the Scot said...

I personally think John Howard would be a good choice to fill the vacancy in the Knights of the Garter. What better candidate can be offered at the moment? If not he, who supports the Monarchy, Gordon Brown will suggest some Socialist hanger on to the Queen to show how inclusive she is.

I don't buy terry's wishful thinking about Australia having turned itself into a Republic in the 1980s. Wishful thinking is not reality. The Australian constitution still has the Queen as Head of State, doesn't it? Unless you republicans have elected Zorg from the Planet Zanussi to be your president?

Neil Welton said...

Even though I completely disagree with our dear Terry, he does make some very interesting points - especially concerning the Australian opinion polls on Monarchy.

As for Mr John Howard.

I'm for the Queen deciding rather than the masses.

David Byers said...

Neil, at it again with you passive-aggressive remarks. Anyway, yes it is up to the Queen but we can express how disappointed we would be he in Australia, if it just went yet again to someone in the UK.

Neil having a backhanded remark about opinion polls in Australia show how little he knows about opinion polls. Questions can be asked to get the answer the person asking the question wants, add to this that all the media in Australia strongly support a republic, as do most of out politicians and you get the idea.

Thank God Mr Howard save us from the PC crowd for 11 1/2 year.

Anonymous said...

Mr Terry said: "To anonymous....if my arguments have no merit then why have you been moved to comment?"

Well, for the reasons I mentioned. Your comments are wrong bt widespread. Kind of like astrology: what's interesting is not all the nonsense about Leo and suchlike, but that fact that millions of people buy this stuff.

He also said, "Main stream society is not interested in it as an Australian institution."

I also agreed with you on this point. It is a pan-Commonwealth institution or it is nothing. The Queen is not Canadian or Australian. The mistake which you republicans make is therefore to assume, through a sort of process of elimination, that she must be British, which she is also not. Monarchists across the Commonwealth believe what they do because they don't really care about the superficial distinctions between Britishness, Canadianness, Australianness etc. If you do care (as many Aussies do, including my own Aussie friends), then your republicanis makes some sense.


Neil Welton said...

Good grief, dare I speak?

Like me, even Cato agrees with Terry.

Now that is a sight to behold!

Opinion polls in Wales are around 70% to 80% - no matter how the question is asked by the pollsters.

"I'm for the Queen deciding rather than the masses." I've always believed that. That is my point of view.

Younghusband said...

It would be most welcome indeed for another salutary reminder of the links that bind our far-flung realms.
In further honour of Australia, I want to add something to the debate about the Archbishop of Canterbury treasonous act of appeasement in advocating different laws for different peoples in Britain. In response to his disastrous comments (that only further reduce the CofE to irrelevancy), the Australian government has unequivocally ruled out the introduction of Islamic courts in Australia (the Howard government declared as well back in April 2005).
"The Rudd Government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of sharia law into the Australian legal system." Its Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, agreed, declaring that everyone who came to Australia should accept the existing laws. "The idea that in some way you would change your basic values, culture and law to accommodate some people who feel that they don't want to see themselves as Australians first, above all else - under no circumstances would I support that." Bravo!

Beaverbrook said...

You're absolutely correct, Kipling. The Nickle Resolution is a dead letter, and no government can be bound by it. Governments can cite it, as Chretien did to block Lord Black's peerage, but another government might as well have cited it to approve of his peerage.

Neil Welton said...

David - don't reply to me here.

After posting this comment I will not be revisiting this particular blog entry again.

Any problems, or questions, e-mail me privately.

anonymousterry said...

Hey Mr. Byers......'a state in which the supreme power rests in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly.'

I believe that description of 'republic' fits this country pretty well at the moment.

It is now very obvious to anyone who wishes to see the trees in the forest that the system of constitutional monarchy is now all but over in this country.

Also, the hijacking of the republic referendum is not a myth as you say it is. Howard worded the question so ambiguously that it confused a lot of the voters into voting for the status quo. That was the subject of media discussion at the time. I remember it well!

How am I conning anyone when the facts are there for anyone to see that the majority of voters now want a republic! There have been very few times in our history that the pre polling opinions have not reflected the actual election result. History will judge Howard as the Prime Minister who unnecessarily delayed the inevitable.

Are you aware that little Kevvy Rudd will hold a plebiscite during this term of office?

Are you also aware that in this day and age you are now as a monarchist having to defend your views? Terry

Lord Best said...

Are you aware that little Kevvy Rudd will hold a plebiscite during this term of office?

Outdated information. He has said that no plebiscite, let alone referendum, will be held in his first term "if at all". That was an election promise too, and so far he seems keen to avoid breaking his promises.

David Byers said...

Terry, where is your fully written new constitution for us to look at? You see it is not enough just to pour scorn on our existing system without a replacement that people can examine. Sadly I get the feeling from the tone of your post that you believe people should not be loyal to what they believe in. Regardless of what opinion polls might say I am entitled to by Loyal to the Queen of this nation.

Also many people have called Constitutional Monarchy a "Crown Republic" that was the whole idea of it. But a republic with out the problems of a President.

As for the referendum question it was the republicans who wanted two words removed and those two words were: “Republic” and “President”, I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

Hey Lord Best...good to hear from you. Apparently the plebiscite is back on the agenda since the weekend when Ruddy promised to fulfil ALL his election promises. Terry

Hey Mr. Byers...I'm like Malcolm Turnbull, a minimalist republican. There is only one thing wrong with our written constitution and that is it does not go far enough in protecting us as a White Anglo Saxon society. We need a Bill of Rights added to the constitution to protect us all from the mulitculti and PC crowd.

Are you denying Howard influenced the outcome of the 1999 referendum?

Having read some of the comments which my input has generated it may surprise some of your commenters, that I am not anti British as some have suggested nor do I harbor any ill will toward the Queen.

Nations evolve over time to suit the conditions and the times. Her Majesty has served this country well in the past but it is now time to move on, that is all.

To anonymous....there was a time not so long ago, when anyone who said 'republic' would have been lambasted. The subject may have been a topic of conversation amongst intellectuals but never would it have been heard being discussed amongst Mr. and Mrs. Average. Queen Elizabeth was our monarch and that was it!

Times have changed. Mr. and Mrs. Average are now a little more sophisicated in thier thinking. The event of the Second World War made us all introspective. No longer could we rely on Britain for succour. The world had changed and slowly so did the population of this country. There may have been a surge of popularity for everything British and the Monarchy directly after the war, which lasted into the sixties but by the seventies we as a nation had became more Australian and less British in our outlook. The White Australia policy was slowly termited and might I add, without electoral consent, by successive federal governments and eventually any legal or constitutional ties with Britain was vetoed.

This is our nations evolution and in time should be appreciated for what it will eventually instill in all of us that believe we are Australian. Patriotism! Terry

Viscount Feldon said...

How would any credible bill of rights protect a "white, anglo-saxon" society. I would hope that a bill of rights wouldn't do anything to promote people with one genetic marker over another.

David Byers said...

Terry, we still await to see your new constitution for us to consider.

Lord Best said...

I have not been able to find any references to plans for plebiscites since his statement that they would not occur in his first term, which was in an interview with The Australian a few days before the election. Can you provide a source? None of the dozen news sites, monarchist sites and republican sites I checked had anything about it that I could find.

Matt said...

I do not know enough about Mr. Howard to have an opinion on whether or not he should be a knight of the Garter, but I think the idea of knighting a person from one of the Queen's other realms is the right idea.

Stauffenberg said...

Very good, Matt. To give the KG that seems vacant after Sir Edmund Hillary’s passing to someone worthy from any of the Realms would be a good idea in terms of Commonwealth and Anglosphere links. I cannot really comment on John Howard’s merits, either, but the debate certainly illustrates the validity of the author’s point in the „Australian“ of 26 Jan regarding knighthoods (AK and otherwise) that you can find on top of this page. If the Garter is not plausible right now, an AK in the Birthday’s Honours this year and the KG at a later opportunity might be an answer.

Anonymousterry said...

Hey Lord Best..... I read a total of six newspapers over the weekend I cannot remember which of them had that story.

Hey Mr. Byers....there is only one thing wrong with the present constitution. It is open to interpretation. Hence the option for constitutional lawyers to argue over trivialities when plain commmon sense would prevail. The ambiguities need to be closed up!

The constitution, as it is written, does not protect main stream Australian society from the ravages of the PC and Multiculti crowd. Our founding fathers were not silly. That is why the White Australia Policy came into existence. Looking around the world at that time they could see that the white people in this land would in time need protection from the 'undersirables'. Did this make them racist? And is it a racist act to want to protect your own people from a multicultural mindset that would see the white people in time, vanish from this land?

We need a Bill of Rights for our own protection. How that should be worded I would leave to the lawyers. But I say this, if we do not push for and get a Bill of Rights then we as the majority white population in this country are doomed to follow the same path as Europe and Britain.

We will be doomed to a future civil war as the white population is pushed further and further out of society.

The survivors of that civil war would then be doomed to live in a third world country.

If you and your readers wish to continue to pass comments to each other regarding what you may consider to be important you must be prepared to fight for that privilege. I am prepared to fight for my country and what I hold dear. I have joined the Australian Protectionist Party in order to do so.

There is only one way to deal with the traitors in Canberra and that is to play them at thier own game. Will any of you join me? Terry

Viscount Feldon said...

What makes the "white population" so special? It's a difference in chromosomes and nothing more. Or do you believe that something sets aside people based on the amount of melanin produced by their bodes? I understand the bad parts of multiculturalism, but turning into a "white people" vs. everyone else battle sets you up to appear as an extremely racist bigot.

I'm glad you're a republican.

Anonymousterry said...

Hey Viscount Feldon....'what makes the white people so special?'

Read my comment again please, I have not alluded to that!

You seem to miss the point I have made. We have to protect ourselves if we as a White Society are to survive. Pure and simple logic there and nothing racial about it as I have mentioned no specific races, only undersirables. Make of that what you will.

Can you not see that all Western Societies are under attack from within by the Multiculti and PC policies that have been foisted onto us by ignorant politicians?

Would you rather be living in a neighborhood where a walk down the street takes you to many parts of the world along with all the undesirable trappings? Or would you rather be comfortable in an all white homogenous neighborhood where the only surprise to your person from time to time, maybe some white kids playing ball in the street? Its your choice!

And please do not forget that it was Monarchists who initiated the White Australia Policy! Terry

Viscount Feldon said...

What is "white society" anyways? And you have mentioned specific races, unless "white society" means something radically different from what I understand it to mean.

Pitting whites as "desirable" and all others as "undesirable" is a horrific mistake.

I don't care what genetic markers my neighbors have. People are made by more than that. My immediate neighbors include two all white families, two multiracial families, and a southeast Asian family. Their children all play ball together.

David Byers said...

Dear Terry, by all mean address different people on the blog but can you stop putting “Hey” before our names?

You right in some of what you say regarding the PC mob that will be the ruination of our Country, and think about this; if our constitution was placed on the table to be rewritten as a republic do you really believe it would be people like you and I that would be writing it?!? NO it would be that trendy PC crowd who would have their hands all over the bloody thing!

My person fear is not about race but some belief systems such as Islam, that I believe poses a big threat to our way of life.

Anonymousterry said...

Hey Viscount Feldon....I disagree with you when you say that I have mentioned specific races. All I have done is to champion my own race. I have not done this at the expense of other specific races.

White Society is Western Civilization brought to you by the white people of the world. The Caucasian race of people have been the most successful civilisation the world has yet seen. Do you dispute this?

White society has brought many benefits to ALL mankind especially in medicine and science. Do you dispute this?

Do you not agree that white society in general has a lot to be proud of and is worth preserving?

Western Civilization being white society by definition, is in this day and age, slowly being eradicated due to diverse multicultural policies inflicted on us by dictatorial government.

Multiculturalism does not work and a prime example of this is Britain which now has a lot of undesirable people residing there. The emigration from white Britons to other lands has skyrocketed. Why do you think this is?

Multiracial society does work but only when the immigrants make an effort to assimilate. Any immigrant race which embraces the culture of the host nation is therefore a citizen of that culture and if the culture is white by definition then they belong in a white society or in the more generic term, Western civilization.

It is good that you are able to walk in your neighborhood and do not feel a stranger in your own land. This is a real problem here in south west Sydney and some parts of Melbourne which have been settled by undesirables who have formed enclaves which have now become 'no go' areas for white Australians.

There are many races of man which have a very bloated view of themselves and thier history. The white man can no longer be counted among them due to very discriminating political agendas by thier own kind.

If you still believe I am a racist bigot then I will wear that tag with pride because I will not sit idly by while my country goes down the gurgler to the most discriminatory political bullshit that this country has ever experienced. Terry

Unfortunately this policy does not affect those undersirable races which now look down on us poor white people. Indeed whenever it suits them they cry 'racist' at thier perceived detractors, which usually carries the day.

Anonymousterry said...

Dear David....I've stopped! It is not only the Islamo-fascists that we have to be aware of, which by the way encompasses a wide range of races. Let me remind you that there are several other undesirable peoples who have come to our shores and have formed thier little enclaves. I say undesirable here because any race who chooses not to assimilate, in my opinion is incompatible with our society and is therefore undesirable.

Let me also mention here that the recent coups in our pacific area have all been racially motivated due to immigrants choosing not to assimilate into those island nations. This snubbing of thier society had the effect of producing wide spread resentment amongst the native population which gradually snowballed as the new arrivals took control of busnesses, instutions and government offices. Most people have a breaking point when it comes to being pushed aside in thier own land.

I have read most of your blog and it amazes me the number of commenters who are still naive regarding the threat from Islam.

David tell me, which parts of the constitution would need to be rewritten in the event of a republic? Terry

Viscount Feldon said...

Why do you "champion" a people based on their genetics? Do you not see that as slightly faulty? You may as well champion people based on the colour of their eyes or hair or how many freckles they have on their faces. Do you really think you're better than those "undesirables" (whatever that means, apparently it means "people who don't look like me") because you happen to have certain differences in your DNA? That's all the colour of skin (which is different from race, anyways) is.

And it's just as bad to say that all other races are "undesirable" as it is to say that just one other race is "undesirable."

I think you're confusing western culture, which can be partaken in by all if they so choose, with "white society."

And in the event of a republic, sections 1-4 at the minimum would need to be rewritten. That's just from a very, very cursory glance.

Anonymousterry said...

Viscount Feldon...I believe I have explained myself fairly well. If you choose to ignore the obvious to what is happening in our country than that is your choice. Terry

Lord Best said...

You just lost any respect I might have had for you by using the term Islamofascism, which makes about as much sense as Republican-Monarchist.

Anonymousterry said...

Lord Best....I don't leave comments on blogs to win respect. I leave comments to make people think. That is how a democracy operates! I have read some of your comments on this blog regarding the Islamic ideology.

You are very naive in matters of Islam.

I would suggest that you study Islamic history and the Koran and affiliated Hadiths to gain a proper insight into this very backward religious/political/social system which now threatens the world.

And I suggest that you get used to the term Islamo-fascist because, these two words very accurately describe exactly what they are! Terry

David Byers said...

Terry, as for what needs to be changed to create a republic; you could just remove the words Governor-General and Queen and replace them with the word President, however without the conventions that go with the Crown this would be a very poor system of government – something even republicans now agree with us on. Or one could scrap the whole thing and start again, but remember what I said with regards to the PC types that would be the ones doing the new constitution!

Like you I am amazed just how naive many on this blog are about the killing cult of Islam. The Monarchy is not only a good system to deliver a non-party political head of the nation; it also celebrates our British heritage that should not be abandoned because some people chose not to be a full part of this nation.

Anonymousterry said...

David...I understand your sentiment but not your logic. I will fall back on the fact that it is the written and common laws ie constitution that guides a nation through its government, not the system of government.

We already have a good constitution which only needs to be less ambiguous in its meanings and tightened up with a Bill of Rights. If you read the constitution most of the sections are very open ended and over the years have been the subject of various interpretations through the High Court. Mabo springs to mind here!

If a Bill of Rights had been part of our constitution and the protection of white main stream society(White Australia Policy) was enacted as one of those rights then we would not be in the pickle that we now find ourselves in.

Remember this, the White Australia Policy was dismantled by a bureaucrat with Whitlams blessing without 99% of the population at the time knowing this. The current constitution was not able to protect us from that act of treachery and has not been able to protect us from the multiculti and PC crowd!

Regardless of the system that we will have in ten years time we desperately need a Bill of Rights and none of the main stream parties will consider this. I wonder why! Terry

David Byers said...

Terry, our system is by no means perfect, the Crown is not perfect. The problem I have with a bill of rights is that it might limit rights, not preserve them and again think about all this again, you and I won’t have a say in it! How come you cannot seem to grasp the fact that the main people pushing for a bill of rights are the loony left!!!

I do not believe in a political “head of state” with a separate mandate form the government of the day. By just existing the Crown at least stops that. For me the Crown is not negotiable but I am interested in hearing your other ideas that you have obviously put a great deal of thought into.

Viscount Feldon said...

The only "obvious" thing I see here, Terry, is you declaring people "undesirable" based on how they compare to paint samples at the hardware store.

Lord Best said...

You can call me naive and I can call you stupid all day long, but Islam is not what I'm talking about at the moment. It is the term Islamofascism. It is an oxymoron. Whether you believe Islam is evil or not, Islamifascism makes no sense whatsoever and is the resort of morons who think anything bad=fascism. I blame all those Atheistcatholics.

Anonymousterry said...

Good to see you back Viscount Feldon....I have made plain my argument re 'undesirables'. But you have not grasped my meaning so let me put it another way.

Prior to the 1970's the only Western country to lay claim to a multiracial makeup was the United States. So far, it has been very successful in assimilating the immigrant population.

Now all Western countries have a multicultural makeup which is damaging their societies to the extent that it may be irrepairable.

So what went wrong?

Multiculturalism has replaced multiracialism which used to be the norm for immigrants prior to 1970. What is the difference you ask? Multiracialism compels the immigrants to assimilate without a great deal of assistance from the host society. Multiculturalism fosters the differences between cultures and provides assistance through legislation and policies. These policies allow those immigrants under that policy to not only form enclaves at the exclusion of the host societies native population but also permits those immigrants belonging to a minority to discriminate against the hosts population without recourse or redress. The biggest abusers of this type of system are the tribal peoples of the world.

Therefore my definintion of 'undesirables' are those people who are tribal in nature and rely on a caste system to maintain the hierarchy of that society. This system has the effect of excluding the local natives from the picture in thier own land. There have been some recent examples of this in our own pacific area. eg Solomon Islands, Fiji and New Caledonia. All of these island nations have seen uprisings by the indigenous populations against the immigrants. And this will continue until the immigrants either, include the natives in thier hierarchy or the immigrants are expelled. This is now happening to all our countries. What are you going to do about it? Terry

Hello David...I will respond to your comment later because I have a beer in my hand at the moment and a big thirst. Terry

Marquis Black said...

Wow. I believe this argument's gone so far from Mr. Howard that it might just be another blog entry of itself regarding eugenics.

However, I found the following passage to be particularly amusing:

"Therefore my definintion of 'undesirables' are those people who are tribal in nature and rely on a caste system to maintain the hierarchy of that society. This system has the effect of excluding the local natives from the picture in thier own land."

Due to your definition, every single single society on this planet is undesirable, short of the Inuits of the Artic, and that one tribe in the Himalayas that promotes inter-tribal sexual promiscuity.

After all, every Western society is based upon an inherently tribal hierarchy. To use an example I'm more familiar with, I'll go with Panama.

Panama is a republic, and has been since 1903, when we separated from Colombia. Since then, and even before, we have systematically taken land away from natives or forced them into areas where the central government can control them. Only recently have we begun to give them autonomous areas, and this has generally resulted in widespread degradation of political order.

However, to use a more recognized, republican exercise in tribal hierarchy, let us focus on the United States of America. Anyone with half a brain and the desire to open a history book will tell you that during the early years of the Republic, the American government systematically drove nearly every native tribe in the US out of their territories, most famously enshrined in the Trail of Tears--courtesy of President Andrew Jackson.

Yes, the British Crown has also had anti-native actions under its belt, namely in India and the Oceanic lands, but given the sheer magnitude of each example, I'd say Republican prejudice against natives has gone farther and more extreme than the actions taken by the Crown. In fact, unless I'm much mistaken, it was the European monarchies who first took up the misguided "White Man's burden" to "civilize" the savages around the world. While certainly an exercise in failure and prejudice, it nonetheless demonstrated a social conscience of other peoples.

In present day, multicultural republics, however, I'm well aware that blatant racism is still the norm. After all, every time I have to go through the US, I feel the need to dress up, so that when they see my Panamanian passport in Immigration, they don't pick me out for random checks and the like (the one time I failed to dress up, I was, sure enough, picked at "random")

Basically, a multicultural society is hardly a bad thing. It promotes integration of different ideas and synchretism. The British culture itself is an exercise in multicultural integration of English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Canadian, Indian, Australian, South African, New Zealander, and Caribbean traditions and ideas.

Rather, the problem only arises when the government mismanages the integration, and allows freedom to override order. This leaves republicans, then, in an uncomfortable position. In order to promote social order, liberty must be cut back. But how do you justify this to an electorate you promised you wouldn't? The answer, these governments have found, is still elusive.

That's why I love the government I advocate. There's no question there: Order before freedom. You are free so long as you keep the order, which is set up for the protection of your person and that of others.

Marquis Black said...

Oh dear. It seems that, in my sleeplessness-induced daze, I forgot several points.

Right, then.

Regarding Panamanian tribal hierarchy:

Well, I can tell you right now, from personal experience, that Panamanian society is divided amongst a caste-like system. The oligarchs (who are a title shy from being full blown aristocrats) rule from the shadows, the middle class bows its head and goes about its lives, and the poorer classes simply try to live day by day. No matter what you say or do, short of a revolution, this is how Panamanian society will remain for years to come.

Now, regarding US hierarchical societies:

Well, if you look at the upper class, these families have, for the most part, remained at the top for well over two generations. Most of these have very firm roots in the social ground that is American society, and will boast of these roots quite openly.

Meanwhile, you have a middle class who, while conscious of the political situation, have no desire to really shake things up in their favour, as they've been brainwashed into believing that under the current system, they too could be one of the top dogs with a lot of hard work, which disregards the natural disdain that established families have for the nouveau riche. Then, you have the poorer classes, which tend to stay poor for generations, unless they suddenly manage to bear a prodigious or extremely hard working child.

Due to these circumstances, then, could you classify the American societies as nothing less than tribally hierarchical? Not really, unless you're willing to ignore everything I've just said.



Anonymousterry said...

Hello Lord Best.....The term Islamo-fascism was thought up by people more aware of this issue than you are. If you wish to play 'Nero' while the world crashes and burns around you that is your prerogative.

Did you know that to date there have been 10,559 terrorist attacks around the planet since 9/11?

Did you know that 99% of those attacks have been perpetrated by radical Muslims from the religion of peace?

I strongly urge that you study what I have recommended and stop trying to sidestep the issue by targetting concepts that you really have no idea about.Terry

Anonymousterry said...

Hello again Lord Best....I forgot to give you this little snippet of info....I remember you mentioning in an earlier comment about the issue of pedophilia being a sore point within Islam. Please google MUFA KHATHAT. If this doesn't turn your stomach nothing will. Terry

Anonymousterry said...

Hello David....I disagree with you that the 'loony left' are the ones pushing for a Bill of Rights. You'll never get a Bill of Rights from these people!

These are the people who have foisted onto us the multiculti and PC policies that have been indoctrinating us since the 1970's.

I don't know why you would disagree with the enshrinement of basic human rights and I point out those that are not statute.

1. The right to silence.

2. The right to defend your person, your family and your property.

3. The right to bear arms.(this one will stir the proverbial hornets nest)

4. The right to practice the religion of choice providing that the practice of those religious beliefs do not conflict with Australian laws and values.

5. The right to freely express yourself.

6. Freedom of the media to express itself.

7. The right to a fair trial.

8. Australian Laws and Customs and History and Heritage is to be upheld by all immigrant races

And whatever else one could see a benefit in adding. Now I know that most of the above occur already in our society, but these 'freedoms' come from the common law which is not statute and can be twisted to suit an agenda. The Multiculti set (Loony Left) have successfully circumvented common law and have established thier very restrictive legislation which now discriminates against the host society.

Personally I don't see a problem in two thirds of parliament electing a president who would retain the same powers as the Governor General. Back to you David.Terry

David Byers said...

The Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs often argued against a Bill of Rights and I agree with his arguments and it is an issue I am no longer interested in talking about.

As for Parliament electing a President by two thirds of its members, this would give a president a mandate to speek out on issues that might bring him/her into conflict with the government of the day. The Crown is the best because it relies upon the accident of birth, keeps it out of an elected mandate from mere man.

Lord Best said...

I'm talking about the word Islamofascism, not the behaviour of Muslims you fool.
Fascism elevates obedience to the state/government above all else, and that the state/government is the sole source of authority. Islam states that the sole authority is Allah, and through him, the religious authority of the umma, and is utterly incompatible with fascism. It has nothing to do with what Islamic fundamentalists do, I'm talking about definitions. The worst Islamic governments, such as Saudi Arabia or the Taliban, are/were not fascist, because they are theocratic. Islamofascism is a term invented by idiots to try and compare Islamic terrorists to Nazi Germany.

Lord Best said...

Oh, I googled mufa'khathat, guess what I found? It only exists in the minds of insane bigots. It is an invented word that is a corruption of the Arabic word for thigh and developed out of some anti-Islamic pornographic films. It has no basis in fact except in the minds of fools. God help the West if this is the calibre of our loyal soldiers. Well done Terry, I see why you keep yourself anonymous.
The actual issue comes from the fact that Islam fixes the legal age for intercourse at the time of sexual development, ie onset of puberty. This is usually around 12-13 but can be younger. Now, the age of consent in Japan is 13 yet we dont go around saying all Japanese are pedophiles.

I fail to see how Islamic marriage practises are an existential threat to Western culture. Perhaps if you could produce some real evidence instead of relying on distateseful aspects of the religion you might have more success.
In the same vein, lets examine terrorist, shall we. Around 4000 Western civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks, compared with 50,000 Iraqi civilians killed by terrorist attacks, and several hundred thousand more killed as a result of the invasion. Under 1% of terrorist attacks have been committed in the West, and just over 10% have targetted Western civilians in other countries. These figures do not equate into an existential threat. So I have no doubt you will ignore them because you do not agree with them.
As to Islam in the West, they can only do what we allow them to do. If we can purge all this PC nonsense and force them to accept Western values, then thre will be no problem. If they do not accept those values, pack them off home.

For once, please, can we think about fixing our internal problems instead of whining about Islam please? I'm not going to post about Islam in this Howard topic again.

Anonymousterry said...

David there are times when the crown or the president as elected by two third majority parliament would need to speak out.

Such a time is upon Britain now and the Queen, whom I realise is very savvy politically, knows what is happening to her realm but we are yet to hear from her.

It is not because she likes doing the job she is doing that she has not abdicated in favor of her son Charles. She is aware of the implications if he ever takes the throne.

Mark my words, if the Queen decides that enough is enough and starts to call a spade a spade then her words will be heard around the world. Terry

Anonymousterry said...

Lord Best you are a lost cause with a cast iron gut.Terry

Anonymousterry said...

Marquis spent a lot of time composing your two comments. They have been interesting reading and have raised some points which I will not respond to as it would require me to write a book.

Suffice it to say that Multiculturalism does not work and the thinkers of the world now realise this.

Western society and the world in general is now facing the biggest threat to its existence since the Cold War.

We are in effect already in the Third World War which no Western government will admit to. It doesn't matter one iota what type of system that a country operates under we are all equally threatened.

If our Western governments continually refuse to get to know their enemy which maaquerades as the religion of peace, then we as a Western society are doomed. Terry

David Byers said...

Terry, many of the important issues you bring to this are important regardless of what system one supports and that is true, but I fear how we would go if our own systems were not as good.

I am with you regarding the treat of Islam. Do keep posting on this website, you get us all thinking!

Anonymousterry said...

Thankyou would be my pleasure to contribute to your site. Terry

John Murney said...

I don't think a man who is an obvious bigot and racist should be so honoured.

Anonymous said...

Oh, all you funny old fools living in an irrelevant fantasy world!

WHY does Australia need a Queen? Is there a single, sensible reason?

The average Australian today has no interest whatsoever in the monarchy - why would they?

And many of them are like me - we are not British, nor are of British origin. Little big-headed Britain means nothing to us. It's the distant past.