‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else also, isn’t an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Australian people.’ – Edward Barton, 1907
Below is my response to this quote that was posted on Facebook by a friend along with an image of the Australian flag with an essence of some sort of patriot righteousness. No. This statement is extraordinarily racist and should be identified as that straight up. Australians enjoy over seven and a half kilometers squared of land… It may be a stretch but I think we might have enough room for an Indigenous flag or two.
But what does ‘Australian’ even mean? If you’re talking about the adapted British/American culture the settlers brought with them 300 short years ago, you perhaps shouldn’t adapt the ‘be western or die’ philosophy. Australia is a multicultural country and we should not discriminate against immigrants who are not western because western does not equal Australian. Westerners are immigrants too. This outdated (1907!) statement initially comes across as considerate and honest but is in fact intrinsically racist and reflects the same ideology that allowed the Stolen Generation to happen. It ends here, now, with me.
1. Julia was elected to her position in a completely legitimate way under the Australian system.
2. As was the Labor party, just in the form of a minority Government.
3. The Liberal party also needed the Greens and Independents on their side, but they chose to side with Labor instead! Doesn’t that tell you something!
4. Julia HAS volunteered her whole life in fact, just in a unionised capacity. Abbott only did those things for show any way. Who’s the better politician? One that volunteers just to be seen to volunteer or one who refuses to participate in such political theatre and would rather focus on running the country?
5. She’s a politician, not an economist. Why on earth would Gillard need an economics degree?
6. I don’t know why Gillard’s marital status, lack of children and religious faith is being used against her. Honestly, why don’t we vote for who is actually going to provide the best advancements for the next few years (of which the Liberal Party has scarcely provided) then squabbling over who conforms more readily to right wing’s strict, backward ideals.
7. This image is full of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of facts. Any document that compares ‘wife’ to ‘de-facto’ as if one is better than the other is not worthy of my full attention.
P.S. If all the Liberal Party can do is criticise Gillard for being unmarried, I think it should be obvious which party is the better candidate for office.
Posted in Politics
- Tagged Abbot, australia, election, Gillard, government, Labor, left wing, Liberal, minority government, politics, right wing
Don’t forget to come along to the Rally 4 Democracy this Wednesday and sign our petition.
Another article from the University of Queensland, but this one is a bombshell. Let’s hope we see some action!
We take very seriously all complaints and concerns and have initiated steps to gain further clarity on the governance and processes within the UQ Union.
– Professor Mike McManus, you are my hero.
Click here for the UQU Financial Statement of 2011
- More the 7 million dollars spent on ’employee benefits’
- The principal activities of the Union are to:
– represent the students of the University in matters which may concern them:
– maintain communication between the students and other sections of the University community, and
– provide a range of services to the student body.
Posted in Politics, Student Politics
- Tagged democracy 4 uqu, election, elections, financial statement, FRESH, izzy, student, students, Union, University of Queensland, UQ, UQU
As far as they want it to.
Here’s an email I just received from the Returning Officer, stating how distribution of unapproved publicity material will be prohibited, as one can imagine. Will FRESH disallow any Democracy 4 UQU flyers whatsoever? We will see. This is yet another rule that can be bent to suit the incumbents in a corrupt system.
The sneaky changes made to the Regulations were not done twelve months ago. The changes documented earlier in my blog between the old and new Regulations were done through my own copies, the ‘old’ copy I received on the 27th February 2012. If the changes weren’t made by then, then that’s not 12 months, FRESH. Why would you believe FRESH when they lie about these things? Why would FRESH need to lie if they were telling the truth and were honest politicians? Enjoy the following evidence.
‘Old’ Regulations, received 27-02-12:
‘New’ Regulations, received 20-08-12 after original email conveniently lacked attachment of Regulations, a document all candidates were supposed to recieve, I had to ask the Returning Officer specifically for it:
This is an interview with Graeme Orr. May I summarize some points in case you missed them.
- FRESH ruled in 2010 to remove a university representative from the tribunal
- Why? My only guess is so there is no one with influence at the university to report any misconduct
- The Electoral Tribunal works directly from the Constitution and Regulations. If the rules are rigged, the Electoral Tribunal has no power.
- The Electoral Tribunal has no power to contend morality of decisions.