Australia Day - Shifting the Date

[mighty tiges]

Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia. Under the Australian constitution, her heirs are the future monarchs of Australia.

The Queen of Australia and future monarchs of Australia according to Australian law.

All Members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Queen, as required by the constitution, when sworn-in by the Governor-General as newly elected parliamentarians. The High Court found in 2002 that allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the "fundamental criterion of membership" in the Australian parliament, from a constitutional point of view. The sovereign of Australia, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives, is one of the three components of the Australian parliament.

The Oath of Citizenship does not contain a statement of allegiance to the reigning monarch. It has a pledge of allegiance to "Australia" and its "values".

Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia - a Crown which is legally distinct from that of the United Kingdom. The holder of the Crown of Australia personifies the state. (i.e Australia). By swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia, you are swearing allegiance to Australia. Not to the UK or any of the other fourteen realms the Queen currently heads.

No one believes your spin on this especially that laughable and culture cringe-worthy load of rubbish in bold (oh deary me lol).

You have to swear allegiance to the Queen in name (and her heirs). In any case, she may hold the title "Queen of Australia" as Australia's head of state but she is not and never has been an Australian citizen nor has she ever been a resident of Australia. Only Aussie citizens are Aussies. The ironic 'oath of allegiance' forces us Aussies to humiliatingly swear allegiance to a foreigner as though we're little children or dogs bowing to our (foreign) master .

And to show that bold bit is utter nonsense, in 1994 the oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch was replaced with a pledge of commitment, to Australia and its people, for new Australian citizens. There's rightfully, as it should be, no mention of allegiance to a foreign monarchy.
From this time forward, ([optional] under God),
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

 

[Pessimistic]

There's something forced about celebrating Australia Day that doesnt ring true.

The best days that genuinely celebrate our culture and life are Melb Cup day and GF day

Especially when the cup carnival was rivalling carnival in rio for raunch factor

 

[Fossie 32]

13th Feb?

On 13 February 2008, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd moved a motion of Apology to the Indigenous Australian "Stolen Generation".[4] The apology was the new parliament's first order of business; Kevin Rudd became the first Australian Prime Minister to publicly apologize to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the Australian federal government.

I agree a different day could be good but its annoying that some people seem to be against us having a day to celebrate pride in our country.

 

[Admiral Byng]

That's because the Governor-General under the current system is a non-political office because his powers are vested in the monarch who stands outside politics, because of the hereditary aspect.



As I've said, the hereditary aspect allows the monarch to remain outside of politics especially in a situation where the monarch reigns but does not rule.

The constitutional monarch or prospective monarch is usually trained from birth to fulfill the royal role and indeed often assists the existing monarch to carry out his/her royal duties, until they step into the full role themselves.

If on the odd occasion (and in most modern constitutional monarchies this tends to be rare) the monarch is a minor, not present or debilitated for whatever reason, a regent can be appointed. The Governor-General for example is virtually a regent for the Queen of Australia, because she is usually not present in the country, but normally a suitable adult candidate from the royal family is selected and powers are vested in that person for the duration of the regency. A situation where a regent could be appointed could be written into Australia's constitution.



John Kerr was a former judge wasn't he? Chief Justice of NSW? While Kerr wasn't an ex-politician Whitlam recommended Kerr as Governor-General because he thought that Kerr would be "politically reliable" as he had been a former member of the Labor Party.

And how would that person selected? By election? Or by the Prime Minister of the day?

I think your argument is self-contradictory. The monarch performs the role because of the training, not by some magic property inherited through birth. If it's down to training then other people can be trained too, especially those who have made a career in law or serving in the military. They would understand the role and what duties are required of them just as much as any hereditary monarch.


As for Kerr, I said one notable exception. Kerr was that exception. But once his term expired he was replaced and never heard of again.

 

[Roylion]

I think your argument is self-contradictory. The monarch performs the role because of the training, not by some magic property inherited through birth. If it's down to training then other people can be trained too, especially those who have made a career in law or serving in the military. They would understand the role and what duties are required of them just as much as any hereditary monarch.

Yes, other people can be trained. However in my view not only does the monarch have the advantage of being trained from birth, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy also personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. No politician or former judge or army general can do that. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect reinforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics in order to apply the reserve powers vested in her (and exercised by either herself or her appointed representative). The monarch reigns but does not rule. A person elected as Head of State makes the office a political one. A Constitutional monarch in whom reserve powers are vested in my view can remain outside politics far more readily than an elected head of state.

I don't think there's much disagreement that the Queen has built up remarkable experience over the course of her reign, having reigned through the terms thirteen British Prime Ministers and fourteen Australian Prime Ministers.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yes, other people can be trained. However in my view not only does the monarch have the advantage of being trained from birth, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy also personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. No politician or former judge or army general can do that. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect reinforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics in order to apply the reserve powers vested in her (and exercised by either herself or her appointed representative). The monarch reigns but does not rule. A person elected as Head of State makes the office a political one. A Constitutional monarch in whom reserve powers are vested in my view can remain outside politics far more readily than an elected head of state.

I don't think there's much disagreement that the Queen has built up remarkable experience over the course of her reign, having reigned through the terms thirteen British Prime Ministers and fourteen Australian Prime Ministers.

I think you're building up a sort of mysticism around the role that I just can't subscribe to. I don't want anyone to personify the constitution, just someone with sound judgement and a calm head to do their job. I've just never thought of constitutions as being something that monarchs welcomed or embraced, usually they were forced upon them and accepted reluctantly because it was preferable to having one's head cut off.

I don't favour the HOS being elected, I prefer one appointed by parliament, but with the added new convention that ex-politicians are excluded. Even though politicians are probably well placed to understand the role.

 

[Roylion]

I think you're building up a sort of mysticism around the role that I just can't subscribe to.

The reserve powers embodied in someone outside / above politics is my main reason.

I don't favour the HOS being elected, I prefer one appointed by parliament, but with the added new convention that ex-politicians are excluded. Even though politicians are probably well placed to understand the role.

If there had to be a republic I agree that a HOS appointed by parliament is preferable to one directly elected. Either way though, the office is politicised to a greater degree than it is under the current system.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The reserve powers embodied in someone outside / above politics is my main reason.

I don't think we'll ever agree completely. I agree that someone above politics is critical in the role. But I think we can find that within Australian society without needing a hereditary monarch specially trained from birth to do the job.

I'll leave it there.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I think we should either; 1) erase Jan 26 1788 from our history books and pretend European settlement never happened; 2) make up a whole alternate history pretending nothing good ever come of Australia's settlement - all wear black, play sombre music and outdo each other with articulate platitudes begging forgiveness for the sins carried out in our name; 3) swap it for some sort of indigenous event that kinda ignores the 24,500,00 non aboriginals or; 4) lighten up and enjoy a public holiday celebrating of all things Australia.

There was no invasion, the Aborigines invited us in for punch.

 

[Roylion]

No one believes your spin on this especially that laughable and culture cringe-worthy load of rubbish in bold (oh deary me lol).

As I've said on a number of occasions now, one of the functions of the monarchy is to personify the state. The Queen of Australia ("the Crown" represents the state.

You have to swear allegiance to the Queen in name (and her heirs).

If you're in Parliament you certainly do. As per the Constitution. The Queen is part of the parliamentary process, holds executive reserve powers and the Prime Minister is in fact the Queen's "First Minister".

In any case, she may hold the title "Queen of Australia" as Australia's head of state

Yes she does. As I've said a number of times.

but she is not and never has been an Australian citizen nor has she ever been a resident of Australia.

The Queen is not an Australian citizen. Citizenship is of Australia is defined by statute, not the Constitution, and she does not meet the criteria for Australian citizenship outlined in the Citizenship Act 1948. All Australian citizens are subjects of the Queen, but you can’t be a subject of or to yourself.She doesn't need a passport or a visa to enter the country, unlike other members of the Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth is outside the normal electoral process and has never voted in any election in her life.

There is some countries that she reigns over that the Queen does not need to be a citizen. In a legal sense, the Queen IS the country. However by Canadian law, Elizabeth II of Canada is a Canadian - albeit her legal identity as Sovereign is, simply "Canada" - as are the members of the Canadian Royal Family.

In terms of British Law, the Queen is not a citizen of the United Kingdom either. Only if she were to abdicate would she become a British citizen and automatically receive British nationality (because in this case she would become her son's subject). She could also receive Australian nationality at that time if the Australian government agreed

Only Aussie citizens are Aussies. The ironic 'oath of allegiance' forces us Aussies to humiliatingly swear allegiance to a foreigner as though we're little children or dogs bowing to our (foreign) master .

What parliamentarians do is swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.

I, ____, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, [who is the Queen of Australia] Her heirs and successors according to law.

Only Aussie citizens are Aussies. The ironic 'oath of allegiance' forces us Aussies And to show that bold bit is utter nonsense, in 1994 the oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch was replaced with a pledge of commitment, to Australia and its people, for new Australian citizens. There's rightfully, as it should be, no mention of allegiance to a foreign monarchy.

It's not a foreign monarchy. Parliamentarians are not swearing allegiance to the Queen (in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom). Parliamentarians are swearing allegiance to the Queen (in her capacity as Queen of Australia)

 

[pazza]

These would be the only appropriate days:

1 January
25 April

Or the day we become a republic by a vote of the people.

 

[WA ROO]

April 1

 

[Pessimistic]

Feb 29

 

[mighty tiges]

As I've said on a number of occasions now, one of the functions of the monarchy is to personify the state. The Queen of Australia ("the Crown" represents the state.

Which is a major flaw in the system. The state should be the nation and its people. Not an individual. The latter is undemocratic.

If you're in Parliament you certainly do. As per the Constitution.

Which is a flaw. Our parliamentarians allegiance should be Australia (not an individual) and only Australia and to serve the Australian people and only us.

It is embarrassing and humiliating that Australians still have to do this in the 21st century to someone who is a foreigner and who does nothing for Australia (in fact, she has a conflict of interest by wearing so many 'hats'). An Australian's allegiance should be to Australia and your fellow Australians.

The Queen is part of the parliamentary process, holds executive reserve powers and the Prime Minister is in fact the Queen's "First Minister".

Yes this undemocratic foreign monarch is the head of state and holds executive powers (including the ability to over-rule laws we make). Another major flaw in our current constitution. The GG is only her representative and not THE head of state.

Australia no longer requires an irrelevant undemocratic foreign overlord to protect us from ourselves .

The Queen is not an Australian citizen. Citizenship is of Australia is defined by statute, not the Constitution, and she does not meet the criteria for Australian citizenship outlined in the Citizenship Act 1948. All Australian citizens are subjects of the Queen, but you can’t be a subject of or to yourself. She doesn't need a passport or a visa to enter the country, unlike other members of the Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth is outside the normal electoral process and has never voted in any election in her life.

And all that is damning of the current constitution and the constitutional monarchist system on so many levels. This foreign monarch is above the law. Laws which we all have to abide by as Australian citizens don't apply to this foreign monarch. What a disgrace!

There is some countries that she reigns over that the Queen does not need to be a citizen. In a legal sense, the Queen IS the country. However by Canadian law, Elizabeth II of Canada is a Canadian - albeit her legal identity as Sovereign is, simply "Canada" - as are the members of the Canadian Royal Family.

What Canada do is their business but the part in bold is undemocratic. It is leftover from absolute monarchy ("L'État, c'est moi"). It certainly has no place in modern times and in a democratic Australia.

In terms of British Law, the Queen is not a citizen of the United Kingdom either. Only if she were to abdicate would she become a British citizen and automatically receive British nationality (because in this case she would become her son's subject). She could also receive Australian nationality at that time if the Australian government agreed.

As you said she couldn't receive Australian citizenship because she doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the Citizenship Act 1948. She is a foreigner.

What parliamentarians do is swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.

No they swear allegiance to the Queen in name and her heirs.

It's not a foreign monarchy. Parliamentarians are not swearing allegiance to the Queen (in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom). Parliamentarians are swearing allegiance to the Queen (in her capacity as Queen of Australia)

Yes it is a foreign monarchy. The British monarchy are not and have never been Australian citizens and they don't reside in Australia. No amount of playing semantics can deny this.

 

[Roylion]

Which is a major flaw in the system. The state should be the nation and its people. Not an individual. The latter is undemocratic.

One of the constitutional monarch functions is to personify the state. e.g in a lawsuit against the government ("The Crown vs. X)

The state being defined as "an organized political community living under a single system of government".
"Nation" being defined as a collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them - language. customs etc. etc.

Which is a flaw. Our parliamentarians allegiance should be Australia (not an individual) and only Australia and to serve the Australian people and only us.

The politicians' allegiance is to the tenements of an organised political community which is this case encompasses the people of Australia and personfied by the monarch who herself is subject to the Australian Constitution

It is embarrassing and humiliating that Australians still have to do this in the 21st century to someone who is a foreigner and who does nothing for Australia (in fact, she has a conflict of interest by wearing so many 'hats'). An Australian's allegiance should be to Australia and your fellow Australians.

Allegiance means declaring the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government in this case personified by the monarch.

Yes this undemocratic foreign monarch is the head of state and holds executive powers (including the ability to over-rule laws we make). Another major flaw in our current constitution.

The reserve powers are vested in the monarch of Australia and are exercised by the Governor-General of Australia.

The GG is only her representative and not THE head of state.

Correct. The Governor-General is the representative of the Queen of Australia and exercises the powers vested in her.

Australia no longer requires an irrelevant undemocratic foreign overlord to protect us from ourselves .

I prefer a system where there are significant checks and balances in the wielding of reserve powers. The powers are vested in the Queen of Australia (a legally distinct office from that of Great Britain) but exercisable by the Governor-General as per the Constitution of Australia

And all that is damning of the current constitution and the constitutional monarchist system on so many levels. This foreign monarch is above the law. Laws which we all have to abide by as Australian citizens don't apply to this foreign monarch. What a disgrace!

Laws are made in the Queen's name and as a result she follows those laws made in her name. For example she pays income tax at the highest level. The Queen of Australia is also bound by the Australian Constitution. She cannot act unconstitutionally in the application of her reserve powers.

What Canada do is their business but the part in bold is undemocratic. It is leftover from absolute monarchy ("L'État, c'est moi"). It certainly has no place in modern times and in a democratic Australia.

I've already explained why I think the hereditary aspect is important in terms of making the office of Head of State of Australia as unpolitical as possible. The monarch of Australia is very well-placed to remain outside and above politics and to act as a Constitutional umpire if required.

As you said she couldn't receive Australian citizenship because she doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the Citizenship Act 1948. She is a foreigner.

She is the Head of State. She isn't a citizen of the UK either.

No they swear allegiance to the Queen in name and her heirs.

They do. To the Queen of Australia and the future monarchs of Australia.

Yes it is a foreign monarchy. The British monarchy are not and have never been Australian citizens and they don't reside in Australia. No amount of playing semantics can deny this.

The monarch can't be an Australian citizen for reasons I have already described. Legally the Queen is not a UK citizen either. Prince Charles is a member of the Order of Australia though.

 

[mighty tiges]

One of the constitutional monarch functions is to personify the state. e.g in a lawsuit against the government ("The Crown vs. X)

The state being defined as "an organized political community living under a single system of government".
"Nation" being defined as a collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them - language. customs etc. etc.

You could just as equally have in a lawsuit against the government ("The people vs. X"). "Personification" of the state is archaic and undemocratic. It is a major flaw in the monarchist system.

The politicians' allegiance is to the tenements of an organised political community which is this case encompasses the people of Australia and personfied by the monarch who herself is subject to the Australian Constitution

There's no mention of allegiance to the Australian people in the oath. The allegiance is directed only to the monarch in name and heirs no matter what monarchist spin you are trying to pull. If the allegiance was to Australia and its people then it would say so explicitly, just as the pledge of citizenship (which replaced the oath for new citizens) now does. The oath is a outdated carry over from absolute monarchy times. You're just proving how irrelevant this foreign monarchy is to modern Australia and us Australians.

Allegiance means declaring the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government in this case personified by the monarch.

No way in a democracy should allegiance mean loyalty of a citizen to his/her government or a single individual. Monarchs and governments come and go and can potentially become corrupt. Allegiance should mean loyalty to your country and its people which never change.

I prefer a system where there are significant checks and balances in the wielding of reserve powers. The powers are vested in the Queen of Australia (a legally distinct office from that of Great Britain) but exercisable by the Governor-General as per the Constitution of Australia.

This notion that a foreign monarchy provides checks and balances and stability is a monarchist fairytale. Britain ruled over a quarter of the land mass on Earth at its imperial peak with the monarch head of state of all these lands. Most of these became commonwealth dominions with the current Queen as head of state and a local governor-general. The monarchy didn't prevent political turmoil and coups in Rhodesia, Ceylon, Kenya, South Africa (Queen was head of state when apartheid laws were enacted), Fiji, Solomon Islands, etc. Even in her homeland, we've seen the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and almost saw the UK split into two with 45% of Scots voting to breakaway from the rest of the UK. So much for stability!

Australia is a stable, prosperous, democratic and free nation because we the Australian people, and only us, make it so. It was Australian blood that was sacrificed for this freedom. Yet, every single one of us Australians, irrespective of merit, is barred from birth from becoming the head of state of our own country. The monarchy disrespects us modern Australians in the 21st century and denies us full independence from top to bottom.

Laws are made in the Queen's name and as a result she follows those laws made in her name. For example she pays income tax at the highest level. The Queen of Australia is also bound by the Australian Constitution. She cannot act unconstitutionally in the application of her reserve powers.

This foreign monarch has the constitutional power to oppose laws we make. The monarch is above the law. It is just another major flaw in the monarchist system, as well as showing we are not a fully independent nation.


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 59
Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

I've already explained why I think the hereditary aspect is important in terms of making the office of Head of State of Australia as unpolitical as possible. The monarch of Australia is very well-placed to remain outside and above politics and to act as a Constitutional umpire if required.

Automatic power by some mythical birth right is just a form of nepotism. It is undemocratic, elitist and in the long-term ultimately corruptible and dangerous. You might as well be arguing that we abolish parliament and elections and just have the monarch make all decisions for us so they are "unpolitical" .

The reason democracy is the superior political system is not when things are going right but when things go wrong. Having positions of power where an individual is in power for life and cannot be removed, such as a hereditary monarch, is a fundamental flaw and odds with our Australian democratic and egalitarian values.

She is the Head of State. She isn't a citizen of the UK either.

I couldn't care less what this foreign monarchy is in their homeland. Fact is she isn't Australian, while British citizens aren't required to swear allegiance to a foreigner unlike us Australians.

The monarch can't be an Australian citizen for reasons I have already described. Legally the Queen is not a UK citizen either. Prince Charles is a member of the Order of Australia though.

Still doesn't make Charles an Australian citizen either. We saw the rightful uproar when Abbott ridiculously handed Phillip a knighthood. We're sick of the return of the culture cringers who need foreign validation .

 

[medusala]

Legally the Queen is not a UK citizen either.

Didn't realise that. Is that part of the not being allowed in the House of Commons tradition? Or is that an entirely separate issue?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

well isn't Australia day about celebrating our country and system of government?

It's mostly about celebrating a day off in Summer. With a little bit of celebrating a successful boat trip in 1788.

But, go on ya drongo, why do you think First Australians contributed nothing to our country?

 

[Belnakor]

It's mostly about celebrating a day off in Summer. With a little bit of celebrating a successful boat trip in 1788.

But, go on ya drongo, why do you think First Australians contributed nothing to our country?

we're talking about the country, the nation of Australia. We're not talking about the actual continent of Australia.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

A few ideas since this thread has become a bit focused on the Republic:

Australia Day will now run from Jan 26 to Sorry Day on Feb 13. That length of time is extremely important to show how long it took for the institutional ostracising of Australia's first peoples to (mostly) cease. Therefore all these days will be public holidays. To make up for a feared loss of productivity the new Citizenship Oath will include a suggestion that citizens will try to treat Fridays like every other work day and put a proper shift in. At least until 3:30pm.

The President is still called Governor General, the powers are still the same, but they have to be agreed to by the Junior GG to stop that one person being corruptible. And maybe we legalise the "JohnKer" paradox. Like a bee, you can use your power, but you lose the job immediately once you do.

The choice of GG is up to democratic vote by the people, and whoever finishes 2nd is Junior GG. However, the choices on the ticket are limited by legislation. The rule is you have to have won one of the following 11 competitions ("the Australian XI"?):
• Australian of the Year
• Gold Logie winner
• Highest Australian in the Hottest 100
• Nominees from the following TV/Youtube channels:

◦ Ch 9: Male sportsperson of the year (as decided by a reality show where the Border Medal/Brownlow/Dally M/etc winners battle to be nominee)
◦ Ch 7: Same as the above but it's between all the category winners of regional Ag shows and therefore the reality show runs a lot longer
◦ Ch 10: Female sportsperson of the year (or female sports presenter, if men on the Internet get too annoyed by all the equality)

◦ Foxtel: Rupert Murdoch of the year

◦ ABC: The person with the least annoying tweet that still mentions "#qanda"
◦ SBS: The person with the least annoying thoughts about anglo-Australia who manages to not be anglo themselves (and preferably can cook)​

• Someone smart; I'm sure the smart people can work out who it is amongst themselves
• The NZ celebrity who has done the most to suggest that they are, in fact, Australian

Because the above could lead to a list as long as the Senate ballot, it would be majorly cut down by requiring all nominees to have paid at least 20% tax over the previous four financial years. Except for Rupert, of course.

 

[Slax]

Quite simply, GET F****D

We have a bunch of socialist PC people and some whinging aborigines not liking the current date. The fact is the whinging aborigines don't speak for the majority, the majority see past it and see it as a day to celebrate. So stuff and leave it as is.

 

[Scotland]

Am I alone in thinking that changing the date is a bit pointless?

I mean the Gregorian calendar was only introduced by European settlers so it's not like any particular date in the calendar before 26/1/1788 holds any significance to Aboriginal people.

Any date after 26/1/1788 smacks of shallow white guilt IMO. I mean if it's offensive to mark the date European settlers arrived how is it inoffensive to mark the date that the states the European settlers created decided to federate?

If (when FFS) we become a republic then I think the date that occurs will be the most appropriate. Until then just leave it as is. As unpopular as it is with the SJWs, what we know as Australia today began with the First Fleet landing in 1788. Whites, Aboriginals, TSIs, Asians, Africans - whoever are all part of that now.

 

[CM86]

Am I alone in thinking that changing the date is a bit pointless?

I mean the Gregorian calendar was only introduced by European settlers so it's not like any particular date in the calendar before 26/1/1788 holds any significance to Aboriginal people.

Any date after 26/1/1788 smacks of shallow white guilt IMO. I mean if it's offensive to mark the date European settlers arrived how is it inoffensive to mark the date that the states the European settlers created decided to federate?

If (when FFS) we become a republic then I think the date that occurs will be the most appropriate. Until then just leave it as is. As unpopular as it is with the SJWs, what we know as Australia today began with the First Fleet landing in 1788. Whites, Aboriginals, TSIs, Asians, Africans - whoever are all part of that now.

That is an interesting view.

But I don't think the lack of former knowledge of the Gregorian calendar is what the problem is.
Nor do I think it's only "SJWs" that it is unpopular with.
I think that's a poor statement, and it's just as bad as the 'other side' saying people wanting to keep the date are racist bogans.

I might not be across this as much as you, but I thought that the idea of celebrating Australia was all ok, but it's that it is set on the day that connects it more noticeably, to when the first settlement was formed.

So with that in mind, I can see why some Indigenous Australians don't view it as a celebration of all that we are and all that we have acheived, but more the beginning of their land being taken and the start of them being treated as second class citizens.


So, I don't think it has anything to do with the date recording method, but more the meaning behind that date.

 

[medusala]

So with that in mind, I can see why some Indigenous Australians don't view it as a celebration of all that we are and all that we have acheived, but more the beginning of their land being taken and the start of them being treated as second class citizens.

Some indigenous Australians. So what % roughly of the population? 1% maybe 2% max?

I wonder what % of aborigines actually like living in a modern world as opposed to the stone age? Do their views count?

 

[CM86]

Some indigenous Australians. So what % roughly of the population? 1% maybe 2% max?

I don't know what the population percentage would be. Why do you ask?

I wonder what % of aborigines actually like living in a modern world as opposed to the stone age? Do their views count?

Another strange question.
And it's based on points that not everyone would agree with, I think.

Such as, that Aboriginals were in the stone age, when the first settlers arrived.
I don't agree that they were in the stone age, and I'd assume a high percentage of the Aboriginal population would disagree with your assertion that they were.

On top of that, I can only really compare the two from a Western perspective.
And from a Western perspective, the Western way of life is much better than the Aboriginal way of life.
But.
What if we are incorrect?
What if the Aboriginal way of life is actually the better way?
Before anyone argues about higher life expectancy, education, economics et al. I would agree that I think the Western world kicks butt in those areas in comparison.
But that's because I can only view it from my perspective.
For example, maybe a lower life expectancy would be better?
Haven't you talked about the difficulties of an aging population, Meds?

I'm sure most will read the above as some hippy crap. But I'm not advocating that we live that way.
I think some of it would be very appealing to conservatives in terms of solutions.


/long winded spiel.

Back to your post.

Aboriginals can disagree with the date, without having to go 'back' to the 'stone age'.
Like your problem in the other thread. You're creating a false dilemma. And I think it comes from your genuine belief of superiority.