It’s official: Sun will rise in the West!

After countless years of being the last people to see the sunrise, and following a huge grass-roots movement to end the discrimination, a big change is coming for the people of the West (sometimes derogatorily referred to as Westies.)  The government is preparing legislation that will soon see the sun rise in the West.

“This is a small step toward redressing years of discrimination,” said a spokesman for the Westies.

“The consequences of this significant global shift have not yet been adequately considered,” said a spokesman for the Traditional Sunrise Lobby, to widespread jeers and derision.


The Dilemma of the Constitution Writers

Since we didn’t have Australian citizens when the constitution was written the authors framing s44 needed to use the next best method, i.e. definition by exclusion. They couldn’t say ‘Australian-born’, as most prominent people, including themselves, were foreign-born. They could have said ‘British subjects’, but this was a declaration of a new nation and couldn’t be defined in terms of another nation. So they really had no choice but to define those eligible to be elected by excluding ‘foreigners.’ Since the Australian Citizenship Act, 1948, this section of the Constitution has become irrelevant, and the High Court should have ruled that way, since that time.

But the High Court, being vastly intelligent, and therefore capable of reading but apparently incapable of thinking, have decided that because a grandparent brought a person’s parent to Australia as a child and that country has subsequently decided that the grandchild is now eligible to be a citizen of that country, that person is now ineligible to stand for parliament. The High Court seems to think the founding fathers were idiots or nitpickers, determined to confound the democratic process.

The founding fathers would be tearing their hair out with rage. ‘No!’ they would be saying, ‘we didn’t mean that at all!. You’re being silly. Stop it!’

Bite the bullet

The constitutional problem is not going away. This issue will come back again and again. Somebody is going to have to fix it. Let’s do it now.

All we need to do is change part one of section 44 to read that a candidate for the Senate or House of Reps must be an Australian citizen. Full stop.

The act to put this matter to a referendum could simultaneously protect all current members of parliament from challenge. That would tie the hands of the High Court until order is restored. I think this referendum would have overwhelming support and pass easily.

It’s all the High Court’s stupid fault

Don’t blame Malcolm, it’s all the High Court’s fault.

I know that some people say, ‘the law’s the law.’ We know that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’, but there has to be a limit. We have a small constitutional crisis and the High Court recently had a chance to correct the situation but all they could do was to prove that they could read.

Section 44 of the constitution says that one can’t stand for election if one is “is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.” (my emphasis)

The learned judges, being able to read, have decided that anyone who, at the time of their election, could have shot off some application papers, birth certificates, photographs, certified copies of photo ID etc. and thereby gained for themselves a passport of  another country, was not eligible for election and therefore is out.

A seven-year-old could do the same. The role of the judges is supposed to be to interpret the constitution in the light of time and changing circumstances. There’s no point in having them if all they do is repeat what is on the paper without any thought. The principle thing on their minds should be, “What need prompted and what did our founding fathers mean when they wrote those words, and what benefit to Australia derives from that meaning? Therefore, what meaning can we now put upon those words, consistent with the need and the benefit that Australia derives.”

The circumstances that led those who framed the constitution was a fear that foreign governments might urge their subjects to join the parliament and undermine Australia’s independence by acting as agents of influence within the halls of power.

Ironically, now, by the current interpretation, foreign governments are influencing election results by having laws that entitled people to citizenship, whether they sought it or not. This situation is clearly outside the intentions of the framers of the constitution. If the learned judges are to be believed, the purpose of section 44 is to create traps in the election process that can be deployed upon an unwitting MP or Senator by their political opponents. The judges obviously believe that the founding fathers were intent on mischief in order to create chaotic situations whereby governments could fall on the whim of a foreign power handing out citizenship willy-nilly.

If I had been a learned judge on that day I would have used the word entitled to effect. Entitled can have shades of meaning. It can mean something that is in prospect, i.e. not yet established or it can mean something that exists right now. For example, it is true to say that I am entitled to catch a plane to Perth as no one can stop me if that is my intention, but another shade of meaning is more strict. In fact I am actually not entitled to catch a plane to Perth, because I don’t have a ticket. Once I go to an agent or website and complete the application, and provided there is a spare seat, and I complete my booking, print off my e-ticket and go to the airport, then and only then, am I entitled to catch a plane to Perth.

The learned judges have chosen the first interpretation, i.e. that an entitlement includes something that is hidden and completely prospective, like someone being 415th in line for the throne being entitled to be King. They have really done us a disservice and shown what a bunch of fools they are.

If only the founding fathers had framed those words to ensure that politicians or parties could not accept, either directly or indirectly, financial benefits or campaign contributions from foreign powers! Then we would be addressing a real and present danger.

The NBN we had to have

A man with a fleet of ageing taxis had a bold plan to replace the clapped out taxis with new Teslas with all the mod cons. He thought that with such a fleet he would provide Australia with the best taxi service in the world for years to come.

Just when the first new cabs arrived, he was replaced as CEO by a bitter enemy. The new CEO said the plan was all wrong. Australians didn’t need a taxi that was so advanced and besides, they were going to cost a lot of money. He said the old taxis still had some pretty good bits.

The new CEO said that by chopping off the rear of the Teslas and attaching them to the front of the taxis he could save thirty percent of the cost and deliver more quickly, taxis that were quite suitable for Australians, who had become used to sub-standard taxis.

However, when the new pieced-together taxis arrived it was found that, despite the still considerable expense, they were actually slower and less reliable than those they replaced. Now Australia had the worst taxis in the world.

The CEO replied that if someone still wanted a Tesla then they could always go out and buy their own like he had done.

How do I PC my issues?

How does an issue become the subject of Political Correctness?

How can I have people tut-tutting and rolling their eyes, looking aside and shaking their heads about those who commit my pet hates?

Is there a committee? When do they meet? How do they make their decisions?

I’m pretty confused. Take religion, for example. I know that it is perfectly all right to criticise the Catholic Church, even if your argument is based on dodgy information or just plain bias. I understand that bit. Religions that want us to live in the past are fair game. But hold on, I also know that I must stand up for Islam, as people who criticise Islam are racists. I know that sexual harassment is bad. There, at least, there are no arguments. But I also know that I can’t criticise a woman who wears sexy clothes. That’s her prerogative. Actually, I should make no comments at all, that’s much safer. I know that there is no gender anymore, even though scientifically, except for some very rare congenital syndromes, you really can only be one sex or the other, forever. I also know that if someone wants to beat science and become the other sex then I must respect that. It’s only fair. These things I understand. What I don’t understand is why my issues aren’t in the mix.

I want to go to the committee and talk about my matters and see if I can get them on the agenda. Even a hidden agenda would suit me fine.

E.g. I want it to be seen as offensive and bad form for an ageing rock star to boast about his boozy, drug addled youth as if it was a badge of courage. He survived, but how many foolish youths are taken down the same path and didn’t survive following his example. He’s not a hero. (Apologies to B McF.)

I want it to be seen as offensive and politically incorrect to continually run down our country and abuse whoever’s running it while offering no useful alternatives, just slagging off and undermining even the most sincere attempts to resolve issues. By doing so, the naggers and naysayers on both sides have been holding this country back for years.

I want those who continually seek to divide the country by seemingly regretting our very existence, portraying us as illegitimate, racist and intolerant rather than celebrating our great successes, I want them to be held up to ridicule. Roll your eyes at that, why not!

Human nature – demand for the impossible

I think I’ve found what makes humans different from other occupants of this planet. It goes like this:

Imagine something that you know is impossible. Pass the word around and soon there will be some other human imagining how it might actually be possible. Once we know it might be possible then it becomes something that we want. As ‘the impossible’ gets close to becoming ‘possible’ then the ‘want’ becomes a ‘need’. When ‘the impossible’ is now ‘possible’ it becomes more than a need; it becomes a right, and if I can’t have it, right here, right now, I’m taking to the streets, forming a lobby, heading for the United Nations and appearing on morning television until I get justice, equality and my human rights. Anyone standing in my way will get trolled by my Twitter followers and demonised on Facebook. Look out!

That’s human nature and I that’s why they’re called human rights.