Saturday, 18 April 2009

Lots of media action, but no republic

The Age’s excitement sparkles from every word: “A year ago tomorrow, more than 1000 of the nation's best and brightest gathered, enthusiastic and idealistic, for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's 2020 talkfest.” (in: The Age, 18th April 2009)

Participants were less enthusiastic and recalled the obvious "guidance" by the government. Ted Evans, former Treasury secretary and now chairman of Westpac, who was in the economics group, called the agenda “managed”, "including in the group reporting, which was vetted by the Government" added The Age.

I was about to comment “the summit's overwhelming support for a republic” as The Age put it uncritically, but the whole thing is such a joke that it's not worth adding anything else to The Age's reporting, which speaks volumes about the summit's credibility. Who can be surprised they got a nearly 100 percent result for “a” republic, when no Monarchists were invited to take part in the discussion?

But fortunately it is the Australian people who decide on the Monarchy and NOT politicians or their handpicked summitteers.

Greg Craven, vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, would like to see "a commitment to the start of a process" to prepare another referendum on “a” republic in Australia, but accepts "the process will take time".

That will give The Age many more opportunities to complain about Her Majesty’s mild reign over Her Commonwealth of Australia and the royal symbols in Australia.

The Duke of Edinburgh
And at the same time The Age can publish more articles on the Australian Royal Family, like the one published also in today’s edition on Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who opened the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, a fact which Aussie republicans may like to wipe out of the history books.

At least today’s article mentioned that the Prince, who will celebrate his 88th brthday in June, averages 370 functions a year beside The Queen — more than 18,500 since he became the Prince Consort. The Prince does not consider retirement nor a superannuation bonus which is granted to ex-politicians. He does not even get a salary, neither from the Australian taxpayer nor from the British.

1 comment:

MadMonarchist said...

It certainly helps when the liberal revolutionaries control the media. Reminds me of when Ireland voted down the Treaty of Lisbon. The proverbial ink was barely dry when the pro-EU crowd was already pushing to vote again. In the US the liberal media bias in the last election was worse than I, or anyone else I know, have ever seen it. If the republican revolutionaries in Australia control the media they will be able to keep the republican issue on the table as long as they like and the more they ask the question the more people will consider it and some will be swayed. Personally I think it is also a result of higher education being totally in the grip of revolutionary ideology; thus their ilk become the ruling elites of society.

I note your use of the phrase "Australian Royal Family" which is absolutely correct. However, I would venture to guess that, as is often the case in Canada, the Australian media always refers to them as the "British Royal Family". Both are technically correct, but the latter is simply a devious effort to bring up negative conotations in the minds of the viewing public.

In any event I congratulate the formers of the Australian government for ensuring that constitutional changes require a popular vote. Otherwise the republic might already be in place.