The Governor General Australia publically comes out and supports Australia being a republic, Monarch - Polidicks

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963793]I'm basing it off flag dog saying you're in the US. Could be wrong. US has the eagle as a symbol, can be considered by some to be oppressive, you suggest the symbol of oppression in the UK should be removed, why not too the one in the US. Eg. the US government. I live in my own world of humour. Leave me be a whacko.[/QUOTE] the idea that eagle's shit on people doesn't seem to be particularly indicative of oppression. although i think, if it's true that eagles shit on people, that it makes it a much more fitting symbol for the united states government.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42963812]the idea that eagle's shit on people doesn't seem to be particularly indicative of oppression. although i think, if it's true that eagles shit on people, that it makes it a much more fitting symbol for the united states government.[/QUOTE] Nononono. I just mean the US does and they are represented by the eagle. I see where I went wrong in my now absolutely failed attempt at humour. I laughed at my own joke to begin with so that was probably a good sign it was terrible.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963793]I'm basing it off flag dog saying you're in the US. Could be wrong. US has the eagle as a symbol, can be considered by some to be oppressive, you suggest the symbol of oppression in the UK should be removed, why not too the one in the US. Eg. the US government. I live in my own world of humour. Leave me be a whacko.[/QUOTE] How is the eagle repressive though? If you honestly don't see how a monarchy is a symbol of oppression then you don't have any historical understanding.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42963581]it isn't tourism i'm talking about. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/media] i used to be against the monarchy purely on principle, but now i find it sorta fitting how the monarchy is basically exploited by a representative government to continually profit that government(and the people to an extent)[/QUOTE] I seem to recall someone going over this video and finding it to be both condescending and disingenuous: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw[/media] The idea that the monarch agreed to 'sell' land back to the public that he himself violently conquered is a preposterous notion.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42963886]How is the eagle repressive though? If you honestly don't see how a monarchy is a symbol of oppression then you don't have any historical understanding.[/QUOTE] Let's not get into an argument over what I have already admitted is a failed joke :v: But it isn't the eagle being oppressive it is the US government, and I just realised it was a tiger and not a lion you were talking about and the symbol for monarchs is often a lion (and is in the case of Britain, at least half anyway). So that is where I first started to go wrong. I now stand firmly by the fact lion should have been used originally instead of tiger though!!!1!! Let's drop it now, I'm clearly insane. All my arguments are therefore totally flawed and we should all pretend I never said anything.

[QUOTE=Megafan;42963922]I seem to recall someone going over this video and finding it to be both condescending and disingenuous: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw[/media] The idea that the monarch agreed to 'sell' land back to the public that he himself violently conquered is a preposterous notion.[/QUOTE] well you learn something new every day

[QUOTE=Megafan;42963922]I seem to recall someone going over this video and finding it to be both condescending and disingenuous: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw[/media] The idea that the monarch agreed to 'sell' land back to the public that he himself violently conquered is a preposterous notion.[/QUOTE] There are still numerous assumptions made in the response video that are also just as misleading as the first. For example, as great as Charles Darwin is he would never have been President of the UK or hold any political position, on account of him doing some science all the time. Politicians aren't much more deserving than the Queen in that regard as to get anywhere of power you actually have to be quite a scheming bastard. No matter how awesome you are (There is a series of interviews with Paul Keating, a former Australian Prime Minister, and as awesome a Prime Minister he was, he still did some pretty bad things to the politicians he was supposed to be working with in order to ensure his position as Prime Minister). Additionally, for separation of church and state, it is a little ridiculous to point to that as a negative of a monarchy when religion is generally influential in numerous republics around the world.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963577]Not because I think they don't know what is good for themselves but I think that they don't deserve to have to spend their time analysing political status critically. People deserve to be able to get on with their life and not have to sift through political rhetoric and spin. Governor General is above all that and so our head of state should be. A Republic may keep the status quo, but it is a gamble and can just as easily become negative as it can become positive, it all depends on who is given charge for drawing up the republic structure. Yes [I]if[/I] you did it this way and [I]if[/I] you did it that way it'd be great and perfect. I agree. But those if's are very unlikely to all get through when devising the republic. There are only a handful of Australians I would trust with making that structure. If I was going to support a republic I would like to see [I]exactly[/I] the republic I am voting for. And the nature of such a vote (because it is a referendum matter) is that in order to win support they have to be ambiguous about it to a certain extent because as is with most things (and the reason the coalition was very clever not to release its policy until the last second) if you have the exact detail in front of you it will get torn apart by your opponents no matter how high quality it is. The ability to send stuff to the supreme court should be left in the hands of all Australians which it currently is, challenges of constitutionality can be made by organisations if they have enough funding and they generally do. Additionally the Prime Minister can make the challenge as well without completely blocking it from ever being challenged again. It is unnecessary for that power to be given to one person. It is pretty bad.[/QUOTE] I definitely understand your hesitation with becoming a republic, because there are really shit ways it could be implemented where the executive can be given too much power. The proposed structure in the 1999 referendum was alright, not great since the president was appointed rather than elected, but it functioned pretty much in the same way as the GG. That's really no reason not to do it though, it really comes down to me believing that we deserve better than a monarchy however well it has functioned thus far. I don't like your point about people deserving to be disconnected to politics, any healthy democracy needs the maximum amount of political involvement (which is why compulsory voting owns bones)

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42964033]There are still numerous assumptions made in the response video that are also just as misleading as the first. For example, as great as Charles Darwin is he would never have been President of the UK or hold any political position, on account of him doing some science all the time. Politicians aren't much more deserving than the Queen in that regard as to get anywhere of power you actually have to be quite a scheming bastard. No matter how awesome you are (There is a series of interviews with Paul Keating, a former Australian Prime Minister, and as awesome a Prime Minister he was, he still did some pretty bad things to the politicians he was supposed to be working with in order to ensure his position as Prime Minister). Additionally, for separation of church and state, it is a little ridiculous to point to that as a negative of a monarchy when religion is generally influential in numerous republics around the world.[/QUOTE] For one thing he wasn't suggesting that Charles Darwin should have been the 'president' of the UK, he was saying that he's on the note because of his achievements while the queen is on the note because she was born into a certain family. And yes, I would say having a state religion is not a positive thing. Even in cases like Norway where it is innocuous, it is just that, innocuous. Neutral. But the fact that there are spiritual lords in the House of Lords is rather egregious, regardless of whatever 'real power' you'd like to argue they do or do not have. The fact that religion is generally influential in republics is not the same as it being an integral part of the public institutions designed to represent the country.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42963581]it isn't tourism i'm talking about. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/media] i used to be against the monarchy purely on principle, but now i find it sorta fitting how the monarchy is basically exploited by a representative government to continually profit that government(and the people to an extent)[/QUOTE] The video is dishonest. This common misconception about the relationship between the Windsors, the monarchy, the Crown, the state and the government. It’s a misconception fueled by the confusing way in which the government and the royal household describe the various property and ownership arrangements. The tourism explanation is overstepping it as well, while the annual ritual of the Queen “surrendering” the money to parliament is nothing more than a formality - Crown Estate argument is redundant as the land is property of the nation. The land isn't even private property, and all income always goes to the government treasury. The trustees of the estate are ultimately subject to the will of parliament. Monarchy legitimacy claims of the land is about as strong as the City of Londons ceremony to recognize its independence from the rest of London and allowing the monarchy/mayor of London to enter. If monarchy tried to take back the land from parliament they would be overruled (not that its even allowed to anyway). This act is just a traditionalist law that has no real leg to stand on in today's democratic society. This monarchy handing over 'their' land doesn't really have any legitimate claim anymore, if she decided to take back the land the Queen would be forced to start shelling out for half the cost of running the government (the reason the whole process was set up as it almost bankrupted King George). Crown Estate is owned by the Queen ‘in right of the Crown’. She no more owns the Crown Estate personally than David Cameron owns the flat above 10 Downing Street. If she ceased to be Queen she ceases to ‘own’ the Crown Estate. The same is true of the royal palaces and the art collection, although in a slightly different way, of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. They are only the property of the Queen and the heir respectively so long as those individuals are Queen and heir. We cannot continue to actually calculate how much the monarchy costs properly because the government will not respond to the freedom of information request on the subject of Royal security costs, though again that is also estimated to be £101m (Prince Andrew taxed 1 million out of the public alone for his personal protection and the rest of the family can go into the tens of millions). Such groups like Republicans are actually saying the cost is far more, roughly £200 million more. When you actually add up the other costs including other small grants from government, the money spent by local councils on accommodating royal visits, the cost of security, and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The cost of royal protection officers etc is impossible to calculate, as government won’t respond to freedom of information requests on the subject of security. the land is not private property of the monarchy, it cannot be sold by monarchy, the revenues it takes does not belong to the monarchy. Because of these points they don't really have any control over it and the "surrendering" of land to government/parliament is again - formality and tradition. The Crown does not ‘belong’ to the Queen. It is an institution of state and it belongs to the nation. Since 1689 parliament has had complete authority over who the Crown passes to and how its powers will be exercised. The problem with the argument is - as I said earlier - British laws and traditions are very complicated and confusing; it is parliament that has control over the Crown, not the government, this difference between parliament and government is often lost in this country because parliament is so often controlled by government. Parliament decides who the Crowned head of state is and whoever that person is ‘owns’ the property mentioned above only so long as they are in that official position. They have no personal claim to it were they to leave office. What happens if we abolish the monarchy? Parliament declares the throne to be vacant and passes the Crown to the people. The people’s parliament then has complete authority to determine what to do with all its assets and property. The monarch who is removed from office has no claim to any of the property as it was never theirs in the first place. The nation keeps the palaces, the art, the jewels and the land.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42964033]There are still numerous assumptions made in the response video that are also just as misleading as the first. For example, as great as Charles Darwin is he would never have been President of the UK or hold any political position, on account of him doing some science all the time. Politicians aren't much more deserving than the Queen in that regard as to get anywhere of power you actually have to be quite a scheming bastard. No matter how awesome you are (There is a series of interviews with Paul Keating, a former Australian Prime Minister, and as awesome a Prime Minister he was, he still did some pretty bad things to the politicians he was supposed to be working with in order to ensure his position as Prime Minister).[/quote] The fuck are you talking about? [quote]Additionally, for separation of church and state, it is a little ridiculous to point to that as a negative of a monarchy when religion is generally influential in numerous republics around the world.[/QUOTE] Yeah except in most republics there aren't codified statues that ensure a state religion. It's a completely valid criticism.

[QUOTE=Megafan;42964204]For one thing he wasn't suggesting that Charles Darwin should have been the 'president' of the UK, he was saying that he's on the note because of his achievements while the queen is on the note because she was born into a certain family.[/QUOTE] But also any politician you put on a note is just as likely to be a pretty terrible power hungry person, whereas at least getting someone on the basis of birth means it isn't just whoever happened to be better at seizing power and backstabbing people. You are equally as likely to get a wonderful person as a monarch as you are a terrible person because of the birth selection. Whereas with a popularly elected president it's whoever has the most cunning, which self selects into generally pretty ugly personalities. I won't comment on the religious matter further as it is pretty irrelevant in Australia (as far as I am aware). But the less religion involved in the state the better. [QUOTE=Lonestriper;42964090]I definitely understand your hesitation with becoming a republic, because there are really shit ways it could be implemented where the executive can be given too much power. The proposed structure in the 1999 referendum was alright, not great since the president was appointed rather than elected, but it functioned pretty much in the same way as the GG. That's really no reason not to do it though, it really comes down to me believing that we deserve better than a monarchy however well it has functioned thus far. I don't like your point about people deserving to be disconnected to politics, any healthy democracy needs the maximum amount of political involvement (which is why compulsory voting owns bones)[/QUOTE] Compulsory voting I agree is wonderful. The way a democracy should work though is that because people can't be bothered with politics (the reality of many people anyway), they should rely on their representatives in politics (whether the incumbent or a opposing member) based on trust that they are doing the best for their electorate. When it comes to a popular election of a president as I have said to Megafan, to get to the point of standing a strong chance in that kind of a race you have to have a pretty ugly personality, an unhealthy obsession with power. You look at any contender to a leadership position in Australia and their history is rife with cunning and often vile political moves and backstabbing, Kevin and Julia did not invent the backstab in Australia. I like the idea of appointing a president and making them literally exactly the same as the Governor General. That I would be in favour of if we had to get rid of the monarchy, I quite like the idea of a monarchy though so I'd still want to be allowed to have British Citizenship and Australian Citizenship if it happened. Deserve better than a monarchy? I don't understand that. The monarchy isn't some shameful position, and it doesn't regularly embarrass us or anything. I mean perhaps the history of the monarchy is concerning but that's the same as the history of the Australian government with White Australia policy etc., it can be apologised for and people are working toward that for things like the return of land etc. I can't see much further than this concept that the reason people think we shouldn't have a monarchy is on the off chance that they happen to get rich enough (possibly born to a rich family who has had presidents before who inherited most of the contacts and money that sets a person up to get that kind of position) to run for president. I mean, just as one could dream to be president, one could also dream to marry a prince/princess. It isn't implausible to say an Australian will never be the head of state as it stands. They removed the barrier to female inheritance, they can remove any clause relating to being a sole citizen of the UK. A monarch is if not equally likely, less likely than a popularly elected president to be an ugly sort of person. Because they are born in line to the monarch not because they backstabbed and plotted and power played their way to power (except for a couple hundred years ago when they set up the whole system, but they're dead now). [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;42964273]Yeah except in most republics there aren't codified statues that ensure a state religion. It's a completely valid criticism.[/QUOTE] I agree it is a a valid criticism but it is also a valid criticism of many republics. Again the nature of the British Monarchy is that these people want to maintain that status so they aren't significantly active and don't exercise their full power. Whereas they start getting very vicious and sneaky when they have no power other than their right to practice the religion in the nation. British people [I]know[/I] there is religious influence of some kind on their government and as a result have careful scrutiny over those religions. Other nations without can be very ambiguous until it's too late about the influence of a religion on their government. I'll admit I am a bit out of my depth on the religious issue. I don't fully understand it and do not at all support it. So yes the state religion is dumb, but anything religion is dumb and republics do religious stuff all the time.

A monarchy does more harm than good as it creates two arbitrary classes, nobility and commoner, and gives one of those classes hereditary privileges and power that the other does not have. There isn't any true equality under a monarchy and that is what makes it counter-intuitive in a democracy. In a Republic the only official restriction to power is being a citizen, rather than being restricted by birth. You could have the nicest sovereign ever who personally had tea with every person in the kingdom but they would still be explicitly a 'greater' person to the common person. Also when Australia becomes a republic (its only a matter of time imo) I doubt you'll be offered a british citizenship, sorry.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42964501]A monarchy does more harm than good as it creates two arbitrary classes, nobility and commoner, and gives one of those classes hereditary privileges and power that the other does not have. There isn't any true equality under a monarchy and that is what makes it counter-intuitive in a democracy. In a Republic the only official restriction to power is being a citizen, rather than being restricted by birth. You could have the nicest sovereign ever who personally had tea with every person in the kingdom but they would still be explicitly a 'greater' person to the common person. Also when Australia becomes a republic (its only a matter of time imo) I doubt you'll be offered a british citizenship, sorry.[/QUOTE] I still argue that the chances of being born into a position of inheritance of royalty is just as likely as the chances of becoming a popularly elected president. And you are disillusioned if you think that a republic somehow removes that divide of class. The only restriction to power is not citizenship, though it is the only one written on paper. At least in a Monarchy the odds of becoming monarch are understood realistically by the people and [I]are[/I] all written on paper. In a republic they are misunderstood, not everyone could be president, not by a mile. A president has far more privilege than a citizen. And anyone in position to become president also has far more privilege than a citizen. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;42964501]Also when Australia becomes a republic (its only a matter of time imo) I doubt you'll be offered a british citizenship, sorry.[/QUOTE] I'm going to write to the British embassy anyway. See what kind of response I get.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42964536]I still argue that the chances of being born into a position of inheritance of royalty is just as likely as the chances of becoming a popularly elected president. And you are disillusioned if you think that a republic somehow removes that divide of class. The only restriction to power is not citizenship, though it is the only one written on paper. At least in a Monarchy the odds of becoming monarch are understood realistically by the people and [I]are[/I] all written on paper. In a republic they are misunderstood, not everyone could be president, not by a mile. A president has far more privilege than a citizen. And anyone in position to become president also has far more privilege than a citizen.[/QUOTE] Except that you're talking about two different types of 'chances'. No one can move up from being a commoner to being the monarch, but you can move from a commoner to the presidency, though it may be unlikely and difficult. Now if you're talking about the "chances" of being born into a certain type of family, no one has any control over that, let alone the person themselves who might aspire to be the monarch or president.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42964397]I agree it is a a valid criticism but it is also a valid criticism of many republics. Again the nature of the British Monarchy is that these people want to maintain that status so they aren't significantly active and don't exercise their full power. Whereas they start getting very vicious and sneaky when they have no power other than their right to practice the religion in the nation. British people [I]know[/I] there is religious influence of some kind on their government and as a result have careful scrutiny over those religions. Other nations without can be very ambiguous until it's too late about the influence of a religion on their government. I'll admit I am a bit out of my depth on the religious issue. I don't fully understand it and do not at all support it. So yes the state religion is dumb, but anything religion is dumb and republics do religious stuff all the time.[/QUOTE] How is it a valid criticism if most republics [b]don't[/b] have official state religions? And you claims about "sneakiness" are completely unfounded. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] You can't say "both are bad because they have religion hurr" and then not recognize that monarchies with established state religions are worse.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42964536]I still argue that the chances of being born into a position of inheritance of royalty is just as likely as the chances of becoming a popularly elected president. And you are disillusioned if you think that a republic somehow removes that divide of class. The only restriction to power is not citizenship, though it is the only one written on paper. At least in a Monarchy the odds of becoming monarch are understood realistically by the people and [I]are[/I] all written on paper. In a republic they are misunderstood, not everyone could be president, not by a mile. A president has far more privilege than a citizen. And anyone in position to become president also has far more privilege than a citizen. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] I'm going to write to the British embassy anyway. See what kind of response I get.[/QUOTE] Oh I'm under no illusion that there wouldn't be unofficial restrictions based upon classes in the traditional sense (proletariat to bourgeoisie and all in-between), it's just that instead of the official restriction being - 'citizen' & 'born into the right family' it becomes only - 'citizen'. Also I am a British/Australian dual citizen as well, due to a birthright inherited from my parents. Funny how it works out :v:

[QUOTE=Megafan;42964611]Except that you're talking about two different types of 'chances'. No one can move up from being a commoner to being the monarch, but you can move from a commoner to the presidency, though it may be unlikely and difficult. Now if you're talking about the "chances" of being born into a certain type of family, no one has any control over that, let alone the person themselves who might aspire to be the monarch or president.[/QUOTE] You can marry into the monarchy. And people do. Princess Diana for example. [QUOTE=Explosions;42964612]How is it a valid criticism if most republics [b]don't[/b] have official state religions? And you claims about "sneakiness" are completely unfounded. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] You can't say "both are bad because they have religion hurr" and then not recognize that monarchies with established state religions are worse.[/QUOTE] Sneakiness claims aren't unfounded. If it is written into your constitution that there is a state religion, more people [I]know[/I] that there is a possibility of religious influence. If it is political representatives being supported and funded by religious institutions people very well may not hear about it until their influence is called into question. I am reluctant to say they are worse in the case of Britain, because people will be watching the state religion for any chance for evidence that it is out dated and foolish. But I guess I must also consider there are lobby groups for other religions that could impact the political operation as well. So yes I must concede that the state religion in the UK Monarchy has the potential to be worse. But that can be removed without removing the monarchy. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;42964657]Oh I'm under no illusion that there wouldn't be unofficial restrictions based upon classes in the traditional sense (proletariat to bourgeoisie and all in-between), it's just that instead of the official restriction being - 'citizen' & 'born into the right family' it becomes only - 'citizen'. Also I am a British/Australian dual citizen as well, due to a birthright inherited from my parents. Funny how it works out :v:[/QUOTE] If I were you I'd be demanding access to geo blocked british websites like top gear! :v: I dunno, I guess I kinda like the idea of inheritance stuff like that. To be able to aspire to be the head of state of a country I think is an unnecessary thing as long as it doesn't extend to being unable to aspire to Prime Minister or Governor General. It really is just a form of nationalism to want that ability and be upset because someone was born into the position.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42964669]You can marry into the monarchy. And people do. Princess Diana for example.[/QUOTE] Diana was already of noble blood before she married into the Royal Family. Nobles marry other nobles. Historically it is extremely uncommon for a commoner to marry a noble.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42963581] i used to be against the monarchy purely on principle, but now i find it sorta fitting how the monarchy is basically exploited by a representative government to continually profit that government(and the people to an extent)[/QUOTE] It also has one other nice benefit, even if its not really a thing and just looks like it: They add an extra layer of checks and balances. Admittedly all(nearly all?) royal ascent is done by delegation as a matter of formality the ability to refuse it still exists. Oh and in [I]theory[/I] if the government ever decided to go crazy and like attempt to become a dictatorship or something the army technically has allegiance to the Queen and not the government. (But at the same time that is probably a bad thing..)

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42964703]Diana was already of noble blood before she married into the Royal Family. Nobles marry other nobles. Historically it is extremely uncommon for a commoner to marry a noble.[/QUOTE] Okay then: Kate Middleton. No royal ancestry at all, is the daughter of two former flight attendants who built a business from scratch and set up a company now worth several million dollars, they started from almost nothing though. Kate is married to the second in line to the throne. I genuinely thought Diana's story was roughly the same. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] Also historically it's extremely uncommon for someone to become a president.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42963256]You happily deem people lesser people based on intelligence, wealth or power and call me irrational when I say I want to be equal to my fellow countryman in an autonomous, self-governing republic?[/quote] I think those people have, or should have equal rights and responsibilities, but I accept that this will never happen. On the fictional, unmeasurable meter of worth, attainment and self pride, yes, I think it can be determined that some of them may rank above us; to attempt to communicate to you in a language you understand. You are in a self-governing democracy. The Queen is no more significant in politics than the Australian flag piercing the sky at the top of your parliament. You are equal on paper to all the other citizens of this country. Some people bend the rules, they got caught, or they don't, but you can do fuck all about that, and that will never, ever change. The Queen gains a few trivial advantages here and there because she holds what is seen as an important position because she is a piece of history, and while I practically would cheer to see those privileges revoked It honestly doesn't bother me at all. And besides, she's hardly murdering children, wouldn't you agree? So since things won't change, and since the Queen does more good than harm, while enriching our own culture and providing a source of happiness for many, what is the point in getting rid of her? Oh right, your fictional meter of self worth, attainment and pride. [quote]If we were ancient Spartans, perfectly happy to murder children for wincing at a drink of wine a few hours after birth and I came along say thats fucking retarded would you pull the same nonsense as this and say "oh its our culture, stop hurting our identity"? Probably not.[/quote] The difference being we are not even remotely like ancient Spartans, making this analogy completely idiotic?

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;42963070]In a strange way I hope this republican sentiment catches on in Australia, if they left the commnonwealth I hope it would make people take a more in depth look about how having a Monarchy affects people in the UK.[/QUOTE] By... giving us money? Not really seeing the downside here. They're an institution with no political power, and they generate money through tourism and their taxable crown estates (Which wouldn't be taxable if they were public commons) I don't like the monarchy as much as the next person (I'm a sodding Scottish Independent), but I can't deny that they're nothing but a boon for the UK

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;42967731]So since things won't change, and since the Queen does more good than harm, while [b]enriching our own culture[/b] and providing a source of happiness for many, what is the point in getting rid of her?[/QUOTE] ha

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;42967731]I think those people have, or should have equal rights and responsibilities, but I accept that this will never happen. On the fictional, unmeasurable meter of worth, attainment and self pride, yes, I think it can be determined that some of them may rank above us; to attempt to communicate to you in a language you understand. You are in a self-governing democracy. The Queen is no more significant in politics than the Australian flag piercing the sky at the top of your parliament. You are equal on paper to all the other citizens of this country. Some people bend the rules, they got caught, or they don't, but you can do fuck all about that, and that will never, ever change. The Queen gains a few trivial advantages here and there because she holds what is seen as an important position because she is a piece of history, and while I practically would cheer to see those privileges revoked It honestly doesn't bother me at all. And besides, she's hardly murdering children, wouldn't you agree? So since things won't change, and since the Queen does more good than harm, while enriching our own culture and providing a source of happiness for many, what is the point in getting rid of her? Oh right, your fictional meter of self worth, attainment and pride. The difference being we are not even remotely like ancient Spartans, making this analogy completely idiotic?[/QUOTE] We're all equal, except when were not. The Queen has the final power to accept who is the head of Australia, while GG can be appointed by the prime minister they have to be vetted by the sovereign. There isn't particularly any document in Australia that explicitly outlines our rights (i.e: a bill of rights) since its always been implicit what we can and cant do. I find that an oversight. But hey, whatever. It seems you're happy to hierarchise society based on arbitrary metrics and too lazy to change it because you don't feel threatened by it. Is it that you thank god there is people who rank above us because they're frankly 'better' than us? Do you often see yourself dressed in an ermine coat in the House of Lords masturbating over how the plebeians will never get on your level?

Didn't the Queen once go to Australia and fire all of their congress when they had forced an artificial government shutdown?

[QUOTE=Reshy;42973066]Didn't the Queen once go to Australia and fire all of their congress when they had forced an artificial government shutdown?[/QUOTE] Are you referring to the 1970's Gough Whitlam incident when the Government shut down and the Governor General booted the Prime Minister