Constitution

One People - All Australians ARE One People.

Yep, that's all I want to say.

ONE PEOPLE FROM FEDERATION.

All those taxpayer funded bureaucrats in Federal Government being paid as part of the so called " Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio" within the so called " Indigenous Affairs Group" . . . . "Indigenous Employment and Recognition" and "Constitutional Recognition" .
S E R I O U S L Y ?

HAVE THEY ANY CLUE - JUST A CLUE - ABOUT THEIR OWN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION ? It appears the lie and deceit of Australia's enemies are perpetrating this lie and deceit through taxpayer funded resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Government_entities#Parliament_of_Australia">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Government_entities#Parliament_of_Australia

Note they use the term "Indigenous" rather than "Australian Aboriginal" or "Australian Torres Strait Islander".

There is a REASON our enemies use this term.

So what does "Indigenous" mean? Well, let us go back to a time before "Politically Corrected Marxist Speak" intruded .

To be safe let us use the same Dictionary our Australian Founding Fathers used during the Federation and Constitutional Debates in 1890's, the Blacks Law Dictionary (1st Edition, 1891):

"INDIGINA. In old English law. A subject born ; one born within the Realm; or naturalized by act of parliament. Co. Lit. 8a. The opposite of "alienigena," (q.v.)

Well, common sense dictated that it meant the same thing for a VERY long time.

Yet, recent Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries have weaponized the term to mean only SOME people who were born in a Country !

Online Cambridge Dictionary:

" indigenous
adjective
UK /ɪnˈdɪdʒ.ɪ.nəs/ US /ɪnˈdɪdʒ.ə.nəs/

used to refer to, or relating to, the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from somewhere else :
So who are the indigenous people of this land?
The indigenous population has long suffered exclusion and profound injustice.
He studied Mixtec, an indigenous language of Mexico."

THEN THIS:

Online Oxford Dictionary:

"Indigenous
/ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs/ (formal) (also Indigenous) (of people and their culture) coming from a particular place and having lived there for a long time before other people came there; relating to, belonging to or developed by these people synonym native. the indigenous peoples/languages of an area."

So NEXT they will be referring to all 8th generation Australians who had Great -Grandfathers, Grandfathers and Fathers who fought for Australia in World War I and II as " Second Nations Peoples". . . .

I guess if SOME Australians are not "First Nations Peoples" based on skin colour. . . . . Oh dear I digress. . . . let us return to the way that even our own Beloved Australian Aboriginal Brothers and Sisters and our own Beloved Australian Torres Strait Islander Brothers and Sisters are entirely disrespected by this entirely hostile and foreign generic term "First Nations Peoples" later at Part 89!

Is our Constitution “sexist”?  

(This one may make those of you still with a sense of humour laugh.)

You have been told your Australian Constitution is a “misogynist”, “sexist” document. It is true that it was drafted by Men. However, to suggest that it was “misogynistic” or “sexist”, based on the fact women were not initially permitted to vote in elections, presents it in a most contorted light.

It fails to appreciate that a significant minority of our Founding Fathers actually supported the rights of women to vote in 1890. Certainly, our favourite Founding Father Henry Parkes did.

The Founding Fathers knew well that the burden of a Man to direct his Australian Colonial Wife to attend to voting would have been highly disruptive of the household.

The debates handled this aspect very carefully indeed. VERY Carefully.

The burden of the Colonial times household duties fell to the women. This is a historical fact. Many women today could not imagine living with no washing machines, no running water, no modern conveniences whatsoever, a wooden stove which needed to pre-heat and often several small children in their care. Indeed our Favourite Founding Father Henry Parkes had seventeen (17) children.

Few women had the luxury of spare time on their hands to indulge in political matters whatsoever. To force busy women to drop their priorities and interrupt their impossibly busy long days with travelling outside their homes merely to vote was widely thought to be met by a vast majority as a cause for “rightful complaint”.

Few Men of their day looked forward to breaking this to their busy wives.

The words “household harmony” may have been used or simply inferred by the words of our Founding Fathers in the Debates. Certainly, the Founding Fathers went to great efforts to ensure that any possible source of division between the Men and Women of Colonial Australia was to be avoided.

Further, if permitting women to vote would have given cause for men to resent women, it would not have been appropriate at that time to cause division and any risk of public disharmony.

It was envisaged from the Constitution that there was a built in provision for this to change in the future, when the time was appropriate. That time came with the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 (Cth). However, it must be noted that it did not do so by Referendum.

- What is going on with THAT, you may ask?
- Does that mean we can stop Women voting?
- What manner of #&*!! *###ery is this? . . . I hear you ask !

JUST FOR FUN: Many post graduate law students and even Doctors of Law and solicitors that I like to torment are entirely puzzled when I ask them to find the Referendum on this issue. Can anyone work out WHY there was no Federal Referendum to change the Constitution relating to Women’s’ voting rights?
(Yes, it is a little bit cruel, but they are just mere lawyers after all ! )

It is actually REALLY simple.