the British Queen, the Crown, and Australia - Fwd: ASIO & Palace Letters

[Zenaan]

Unfortunately we do not (and have never had) an actual representative democracy - notwithstanding Switzerland.

Your definition of democracy is quite reasonable, though it fails to recognise that all people are definitely not equal - in fact we have massive differences in each area of capacity, such as cognitive awareness, mental ability, empathy, and of course physical mobility.

Now of course we can vary this definition to rather than speak to equality, to speak to rights - this is a safe area since we are, in the democratic sense at least, each with a "right to have a say in the laws we are called upon to obey."

This is un unchallengeable foundation principle, in any system which has laws.

The anarchist of course would say something like 'feel free to aspire to whatever you might think are political structures and positions in those structures you want to try to fill, just stay the flip away from me and leave me out of your democratic "utopia", I have no need of any 'leader', elected or otherwise, thank you very much!'


Next the issue of Australia's head of state being "a foreigner":

 - Australia is a constitutional monarchy.

 - we were founded as a constitutional monarchy

 - we were founded with a rather reasonable constitution - in the scheme of "democratic constitutions" at least

 - our constitution is one of the best, perhaps because it is one of the youngest and the consequent benefits of hindsight, and perhaps because the crown had had enough of bloody revolutions, and perhaps due to the approach that our forefathers (those involved in the constitutional conventions) took in being diligent, persistent and respectful

 - importantly, our constitution has built in, a section outlining its change (referendum of course) and so is not "permanently fixed in stone" so to speak - but be careful as it's easy to create more problems when trying to fix things

 - when great power is vested in a system, or office/role/person, there exists the possibility of abuse of that power, corruption, and the impulse to collect more power by enslavement, abuse etc

 - due to this potential problem tending to arise in the centralisation of power, in principle when we consider systems and structures of power, it seems prudent to not put 'too much' power in the hands of any one authority - in other words to attempt to create a balance of powers, not a single centralised power

 - on this principle of 'a balance of powers is better than a single centralised power', combined with a benevolent dictator, there may be wisdom in having a (largely titular) head of state who can declare, and more importantly veto, war

 - at Federation, we were and continued to remain, British citizens with the full benefits thereof

 - somehow our bumbling Australian politicians, without referendum, unilaterally gave up (at least nominally) all British citizenship for us, and therefore the benefits and considerations that go with this - this may not be in our (an Australians) interests



You may have noticed, both democracy and republics have glaring problems.

Monarchy is not inherently wrong, though one can certainly argue that in the present era, that it may be sub-optimal.  And the specific issues and nuances re our Australian structure are interesting.

We are not a democratic monarchy, but a constitutional monarchy, and yes we have problems in our political arena.

Bind a monarch or "benevolent dictator" to 'Godly' principles - benevolence - and we have a reasonable start.

Enough for now, good luck.



On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:31:27AM +1000, CARR wrote:
> The monarchy is well past its use-by date, not because it is inherently bad, but it makes a mockery of the principle of democracy. The definition of democracy is the equal franchise for all citizens - the principle that every person is equal and every person can aspire to any political position, INCLUDING head of state.
> 
> In Australia, the current head of state is a foreigner who attained her position by virtue of accident of birth, nothing more. Her ancestors managed to slaughter and defeat their opposition, so the Queen became the latest in a line of monarchs who killed off their opponents to retain those positions of power. This is not a good enough reason to retain the monarchy in the modern era. Just as colonialism was a very acceptable practice only a couple of hundred years ago, but very unacceptable now, the same goes for monarchy.
> 
> Australia touts itself as a democratic monarchy, but that is very far from the truth. Australia is not a democracy, but a "partyocracy", where elected representatives of the people do not listen to the people, but to the dictates of their party leaders and are kept in line by party "whips", who often force those representatives to vote against the demands of their constituencies.
> 
> State governments are nothing more than "kleptocracies" that run money-grabbing rackets to fleece people of their money with revenue-raising scams such as traffic cameras that are incapable of preventing accidents and deaths on our roads. After all, they are just cameras on sticks that are connected to cash registers that generate fines. Not one government minister or police officer has managed to produce one instance of a traffic camera preventing an accident or death, however I can produce a number of photos of vehicles colliding with speed cameras that were incapable of stopping them.
> 
> As for the principle of monarchy disallowing democracy, I am a citizen of Australia, yet I can never attain the position of head of state. That alone tells me that Australia is not a democracy and will never be a democracy until this nation abolishes the monarchy and installs a presidential system where any citizen - such as myself or anybody else who qualifies can be elected.
> 
> I have nothing at all against the Queen - she is a very gracious woman and the Australian system of monarchy has served us well - BUT - it is NOT a democracy in any way. And to me, that is wrong. We are no longer in an era that should tolerate being governed by unelected monarchs, even remotely. Remember that the Queen rubber-stamped the deposing of an elected Australian government, even if it was warranted. In essence a foreigner overthrew the legitimate government of this nation. That is not something that should be tolerated in any truly democratic nation. And I hated Whitlam and his regime with a passion.
> 
> So my point is that if we are to live in a true democracy, it has to be a republic with an elected President who is elected by popular vote. Otherwise whatever we live under may work, but it is not democratic.
> 
> Cheers, Ziggy
> Webmaster, Campaign Against Ripoff Rackets
> info at carr.org.au
> www.carr.org.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zenaan at gmail.com [mailto:zenaan at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Zenaan Harkness
> Sent: Saturday, 6 June 2020 11:05 AM
> To: cypherpunks at lists.cpunks.org
> Subject: the British Queen, the Crown, and Australia - Fwd: ASIO & Palace Letters
> 
> The queen had, and almost certainly still has, interests in Australia
> - as in financial interests, and Whitlam wanted to buy back the farm, and shirt was going down re Vietnam.
> 
> Personally, individuals, including the Queen, have a right to uphold and at least attempt to defend their interests.
> 
> But, speaking as an Australian, when "our" British monarch/ the Queen,
> 
>  a) has been stripped of or has abdicated any relevant political power, and
> 
>  b) is not useful for the protection of basic human freedoms, for a recent example the matter of the Assange case,
> 
> then it's hard not to ask "well what use is the Crown/ the Queen, to us?"
> 
> There's nothing inherently wrong with at least some powers being vested with a Monarch or dictator, just so long as that authority is actually benevolent, and so long as we the people are with sufficient awareness and authority and will to hold any and all such authority to the required standard of benevolence, and with sufficient authority and power to remove such an authority from power should they fail to uphold benevolence, righteous justice, etc.  (Most folks these days can see glaringly devolving and apparently structural compromise in our so called "democratic' system.)
> 
> There is wisdom in having the hierarchy of power and authority be distributed so to speak - a balance of powers, and in our present system technically (though perhaps no longer practically) the Crown holds only one remaining formal power in Australia - the power to declare or veto war. Such power OUGHT be used as a check and balance against the corporations and bankers who lust for the econmic windfalls of war, and when this check and balance no longer exists, then again, on this point, the Crown loses its relevance to the rest of us, the King or Queen of the day little more than an attractively presented financial burden upon us.
> 
> A lot of folks get caught up in envy of the wealth of another, and we must be absolutely diligent in casting aside such base, petty and demeaning (of ourselves no less!) such envy and implied 'negative'
> aspersions (e.g. "that person has a lot of wealth, they must be a bad person").
> 
> What we MUST uphold, is our individual and collective human rights, and dignity. Although the Crown ought in general be held to higher standards of principles, the Queen is no less deserving of dignity than anyone else. That said, the issues surrounding Vietnam, Pine Gap and other matters, may or may not be scandalous - but we the Australian people have the right to make our own assessments of past events such as the sacking of our democratically elected prime minister Gough Whitlam in that Vietnam era.
> 
> With the letters and much of the behind the scenes of the events hopefully to be soon disclosed (see below), we might be able to meaningfully comment further, but as a principle, there's a chance Gough Whitlam missed the JFK memo - it's not a good idea to be the lone hero for all, that just makes you an individual target.
> 
> Instead, better to speak to the people, be public on a daily basis, and stick to fundamental principles of human rights, fairness, and legitimate interests of individuals, groups and especially allies (so far as they are actually allies).
> 
> Allies don't demean, allies don't enslave, allies don't deny justice, most especially that founded in righteousness (Julian Assange is today's prime example).
> 
> Let's aim to (re)build Australia's dignity on the world stage, which for starters demands that we treat all nations, and all people, with dignity and respect.
> 
> And to those who would consider themselves Australia's allies - yes, it can be scary to have to -actually- trust an ally, but surmounting that fear is the price for a truly strong relationship, which can of course never properly exist on a foundation of lack of trust.
> 
> Hopefully our politicians will begin to get the memo.
> 
> 
> 
> ---- Forwarded message from Gil May <gilmay97 at gmail.com> -----
> 
> From: Gil May <gilmay97 at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 08:23:37 +1000
> Subject: Fwd: ASIO & Palace Letters
> 
> *ASIO & Palace Letters:* As you read this remember that Whitlam wanted to bring in a law to prevent foriegn ownership of Australian assets, that all had to be at least 51% Australian owned.  The iportance of this today is very relevent where China and others hold massive investments of our assets.
> 
> He wanted all mineral assets to be Australian, think of the billion$ in opposition that caused, his raid on ASIO and Pine Gap that was opperating without any knowledge of what it's operations were and the US refusal to advise the government of such. IF as we were told Whitlam was a danger to Australia and all the terrible things he was suposed to have done, THEN WHY weren't all his law changed when the LNP came to power???????????? His laws still stand today.
> 
> I told Lionel Murphy, The Attorney General,  to tell Whitlam to call Malcolm Fraser in and tell him if he does not passs the Budget Bill, you will break the 'Book of Pairs' and would have given him a majority of one, and that would be the end of the Westminister sytem of government forever, but Whiltlam a stickler for traditional proceedures would not do it.  GM
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you will remember these events clearly, so the following may interest you.
> 
>  .
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: citizensparty.org.au
> <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3671&email=ricco61@bigpond.com>
> *Will ASIO stop Australians from seeing the  palace letters ?*
> 
> The 29 May High Court judgement that the  palace letters  between Queen Elizabeth II and Governor-General John Kerr in the Whitlam dismissal should not remain secret is a significant step in the fight for Australian sovereignty. It s not a foregone conclusion, however, as the Director-General of the National Archives who has a say in what is released, David Fricker, is a former Deputy Director-General of spy agency ASIO. This is a massive conflict of interests, as ASIO was up to its neck in the intrigues against Whitlam, not least because Whitlam s Attorney-General Lionel Murphy raided the agency he was supposed to be in charge of, but which withheld terrorism-related information from him. ASIO then, as now, operated under what is now known as the  Five Eyes , dominated by US and British intelligence, which regarded Whitlam as a threat; indeed, ASIO is effectively the Australian subsidiary of Britain s Security Service MI5, whose assistant director in the 1970s, Peter Wright revealed in his book *Spycatcher* that MI5 saw its loyalty as to the Queen personally, not to the elected government.
> 
> Monash University historian Professor Jennifer Hocking, who initiated the case to have the letters released, has already indicated she is having trouble in her negotiations with Fricker, and Fricker told ABC News that releasing the palace letters won t be simple, and that some records may not be released as exemptions for things like national security still apply.
>  We are not like a library or a museum , Fricker said.  I am required to diligently go through those things and just make sure that our release of these records is responsible, it s ethical and it complies with the law. 
> 
> This is unacceptable, and Australians should demand their release in full.
> If they are released in full, Australians may soon discover secret details of the Queen s role in the 1975 coup to overthrow Gough Whitlam, a democratically elected Prime Minister. Buckingham Palace has to date intervened to ensure the palace letters remain secret, a clear indicator that much is at stake, including the role of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British Intelligence Services (MI5, SIS and GCHQ), the latter of which have since 2011 been overseen by Prince Charles in his capacity of Royal Patron of the Intelligence Services.
> 
> Prof. Hocking s four-year legal battle to access the palace letters has met enormous resistance. Sir Edward Young, the queen s private secretary, has indicated the release  could damage not only international relations but also the trusting relationship between Her Majesty and her representatives overseas . The 211 palace letters were placed in the custody of Australian Archives on 26 August 1978 by the then Official Secretary to the Governor-General, David Smith. The letters comprise 116 from Kerr to the Queen, mostly through the official secretary; and 95 letters from the Queen, all of them through her private secretary.
> 
> At the time, Smith wrote to the Australian Archives in a letter of deposit:
>  This package contains the *personal* and confidential correspondence between the Right Honourable Sir John Kerr, AK, GCMG, GCVO, K St J, QC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia from 11 April 1974 until
> 8 December 1977, and Her Majesty the Queen.  (Emphasis added.) Smith declared the letters would remain closed until 8 December 2037 and thereafter subject to further caveat at the whim of the British Crown.
> 
> The Australian Archives has continued to argue that the palace letters were  personal correspondence  and therefore should remain private. Prof.
> Hocking explains otherwise.  Before lodging them in the Archives, the letters had been kept by Smith in the Government House  strong room under absolute security  again in an official capacity, which scarcely suggested the letters were  personal  , wrote Hocking in a 1 June article <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3672&email=ricco61@bigpond.com>
> at Pearls and Irritations, the blog run by retired public servant John Menadue, who was head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Whitlam at the time of the dismissal.  It is surely an unusual position for the National Archives, which describes itself as a  pro-disclosure organisation , to contest this action at significant expense initially of almost one million dollars at a time of severe budget and staff cuts , Prof. Hocking wrote. Fortunately for Hocking the High Court has ordered the Australian Archives to pay her legal costs.
> 
> The latest High Court ruling makes clear that the palace letters were not  personal  at all, but  constitute Commonwealth records within the meaning of the *Archives Act 1983* . The court  ordered that a writ of mandamus issue to compel the Director-General of the National Archives of Australia to reconsider Professor Hocking s request for access to the deposited correspondence , and so overruled the previous Federal Court ruling against Prof. Hocking.
> 
> *What is at stake?*
> 
> In a 16 April article
> <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3673&email=ricco61@bigpond.com>
> at Pearls and Irritations, Prof. Hocking had said that the more than two hundred letters is simply a  staggering number , and  should they be released the  Palace letters  will be the most important record of the inner workings of the vice-regal relationship during a time of political crisis that we have ever seen .
> 
> Veteran journalist John Pilger indicated what is at stake in a 1 June article <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3674&email=ricco61@bigpond.com>
> for Consortium News.  There is an historical amnesia among Australia s polite society about the catastrophic events of 1975 , he wrote.  An Anglo-American coup overthrew a democratically elected ally in a demeaning scandal in which sections of the Australian elite colluded. This is largely unmentionable. 
> 
> Pilger explained how the Whitlam government provided significant opposition to Vietnam war crimes and threatened to close the secretive US-run intelligence facility at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs:  Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me,  This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House   a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion.   And the role of British intelligence cannot be
> overstated:  In 1975, Whitlam discovered that MI6 was operating against his government.  The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office , he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me,  We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans . 
> 
> Whitlam s plans to control Australia s mineral wealth for the benefit of all Australians clearly displeased the Queen, who was long the largest individual shareholder of minerals giant Rio Tinto. This plan to  buy back the farm  so Australians would own our nation clearly ran against the British imperial agenda, and the City of London and Wall Street banking interests. Will the released papers convince Australians to abandon the fairy tale that the Queen is above politics and merely plays a ceremonial role? Will we now fight for sovereignty?
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>