The official BOS 'Pro-Constitutional Monarchy' thread (1 Viewer)

bassistx

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
985
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
withoutaface said:
As opposed to under Rudd where if we buy land we have to pay tax back in remunerations to the Widgeridoonah tribe.
As we should. The British never admitted they STOLE, not discovered the land. They own the land, it's not fair to rip it off them like that. I don't think the Queen needs the funds, tbh. Let's look at the state of the indigenous here first.

KEVIN07.
 

bassistx

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
985
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
veloc1ty said:
I'm pretty sure the British land tax was abolished a few decades ago... :|
Oh? Inform me. My parents aren't exactly "updated".
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
bassistx said:
As we should. The British never admitted they STOLE, not discovered the land. They own the land, it's not fair to rip it off them like that. I don't think the Queen needs the funds, tbh. Let's look at the state of the indigenous here first.

KEVIN07.
According to Aboriginal culture they didn't 'own' the land either.

I think you need to read up on some Aboriginal culture before you make baseless claims like 'they own the land'. They don't and they didn't.

Also google the word 'nomadic'
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
hahahaha. yeh they didn't declare ownership of the land in a way that fit in with the British legal system, therefore it was okay to disposses them of it.
Do you want me to answer that for you?

Yes, it was. :)
 

bassistx

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
985
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
katie_tully said:
According to Aboriginal culture they didn't 'own' the land either.

I think you need to read up on some Aboriginal culture before you make baseless claims like 'they own the land'. They don't and they didn't.

Also google the word 'nomadic'
I know nomads...

I know they don't consider that they own the land. But it's hard to explain what I mean. Argh. Hmmmm... If they don't own it, why are we paying other people who say they own it instead of improving their communities?
I seriously can't explain this. It's too hard and I can't find the right words.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Why don't we thank the traditional owner of the land, God, as well the Gaminbangabul Tribe, at various occasions?

I mean, if it's discriminatory not to recognise the apparent ownership of the land by the Aboriginals, then surely it's discriminatory to those of Christian, Islamic or Judaism faiths (to name a few) not to recognise that it was created, and hence owned by their God?
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
bassistx said:
Errors on the page, doesn't appear.
Be smarter and look at the left hand side, it should look a little something like this -
Contents
1956 - 26


Related information

Long Title

Part 1 Preliminary


1 Name of Act
2 Construction
3 Definitions
3A Special trust—meaning
3B Concessional trust—meaning
Part 2 Administration


4 Taxation Administration Act 1996
4A–6 (Repealed)
Part 3 Land tax


7 Land tax on taxable value of land
8 Date of ownership for purposes of land tax
9 Taxable value
9AA Average value of land
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
So if I choose to define ownership in a way that is different to you, it would be okay to take your stuff by force?
Just because you find what they did in 1788 as morally reprehensible by todays definition, doesn't mean what they did wasn't legal.
I don't care how you define ownership, there is a clear law on what constitutes land ownership now so I don't get your point.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
zimmerman8k said:
So if I choose to define ownership in a way that is different to you, it would be okay to take your stuff by force?
Why do people continually attempt to assess the actions of the British in the imperialist era, in the context of the 21st century?
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
Yeh 200 years ago they didnt have technology to tell them the murdering people and taking their land was wrong.
Dude you're doing it again.
We've established that by todays standards what they did was morally reprehensible. By their standards it wasn't.
Imperial Britain, thats what they did. They found and conquered land. There was nothing morally reprehensible about it in the 1700s, when your mother country had become a putrid pile of disease and poverty.

I'm guessing that even if they had todays technology, with their standards and values what they did still wouldn't have been seen as wrong.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
katie_tully said:
Dude you're doing it again.
We've established that by todays standards what they did was morally reprehensible. By their standards it wasn't.
Imperial Britain, thats what they did. They found and conquered land. There was nothing morally reprehensible about it in the 1700s, when your mother country had become a putrid pile of disease and poverty.
Captain Cook disobeyed direct orders from the British Navy to either a) greet the native people and formalise a deal or b) buy the land.

He did neither and declared terra nullius.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
zimmerman8k said:
Yeh 200 years ago they didnt have technology to tell them the murdering people and taking their land was wrong.
It is not a matter of technology.

You're making an assessment of the actions of the British in a time of imperial endeavour when the superpowers of the world were expanding their empires, based upon the values and beliefs we have now.

The expansion of the Roman Empire, the Fall of Pharoah rule in Egypt, the Battle of Hastings and all other forms of conquest throughout history reflected the ideas and sentiments of the times.

With the benefit of hindsight we are able to make a 'values based assessement' of what occurred, however I don't believe that such assessments should make us responsible for the actions of people acting in a vastly different context.
 
Last edited:

HalcyonSky

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
1,187
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
katie_tully said:
Dude you're doing it again.
We've established that by todays standards what they did was morally reprehensible. By their standards it wasn't.
Imperial Britain, thats what they did. They found and conquered land. There was nothing morally reprehensible about it in the 1700s, when your mother country had become a putrid pile of disease and poverty.

I'm guessing that even if they had todays technology, with their standards and values what they did still wouldn't have been seen as wrong.
QFT. judging any other time period using our current values just doesnt work. Its hard to say whether our morality is entirely inbuilt or how heavily its influenced by context, but putting that aside, the imperialists actions were commonplace in that time and i doubt their apparent instinctive morality would've been phased by what they did
 
Last edited:

yourfacehere!

New Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The only connection modern Australia as a whole has to the British monarchy is the arrival of the First Fleet. Britain founded "Australia" as a place to send their excess convicts. Their respect for the country was minimal, most didn't know it existed. By no means did the British monarchy intend Australia to grow into the fantastic nation it has become, entirely absent of assistance from 'Mother England'.

Today, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants make up only 18% of all Australians, according to the 2006 census. While most would consider me a 'typical Australian' - fair skin, blonde hair - I have absolutely zero connection with England. My ancestors came to Australia as free settlers rom Ireland, while an enormous proportion of the initial convicts that helped establish the Australian identity were from Ireland, or other British colonies. Migration has from all corners of the globe, especially since 1960, has been a huige driver of Australia's population growth, and today we pride ourselves on being a multicultural nation. Why then should thew Union Jack, so remote from the modern Australian identity, fly on our flag?

I don't dislike the Queen, I'm sure she'd be fine for a chat over a cup of tea, nor do i dislike British people in general. But I, as do most others, identify myself as Australian not British. Not half-Australian, half-British, either. Not even a little bit British. Australia has moved on from British affairs driving Australian affairs. There is no logical reason to continue the system of constitutional monarchy, apart from the obvious "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" arguement, which is really just simple laziness.

Becoming a republic provides great opportunity for Australia. While most agree the current system of government works well, redefining the system provides the opportunity to clear out the kinks (e.g not actually choosing our PM and Head of State). No longer do we hold trade obligations to the Commonwealth, and we can properly develop a multicultural identity free of the Union Jack. And don't worry, we are still invited to murder the Commonwealth Games and Ashes.

Beyond simple nostalgia for a simpler time, led by single-minded Anglophiles like Gerard Henderson, John Howard and our good friend Felix, there is no good reason to keep the Queen as our Head of State. The vast majority of Australians have no direct connection with the Queen, and yet she (and soon Charles) stares up at us from the two-dollar coin.

It's time to get up and move out of home.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
jb_nc said:
Captain Cook disobeyed direct orders from the British Navy to either a) greet the native people and formalise a deal or b) buy the land.

He did neither and declared terra nullius.
You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in
the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take
Possession for his
I'm not reading anything about buying the land. What is a convenient situation?

For other interested peoples;
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw1_doc_1768.pdf
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
katie_tully said:
I'm not reading anything about buying the land. What is a convenient situation?

For other interested peoples;
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw1_doc_1768.pdf
Buy the land means the same thing as with the consent of the natives.

Pretty sure "Convenient Situations" just means valuable land/resources.

Cook didn't find the land uninhabited, he saw Aboriginals many times when he was in Botany Bay and as he journeyed up the coast.
 
Last edited:
K

katie_tully

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
I disagee. Simply because they defined their moral boundaries in a way that allowed them to conquer whatever they wanted doesn't mean it wasn't morally reprehensible. I dont believe they were blissfully ignorant about what they did, I believe they knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
We're talking about a completely different time, maybe you'd like to think they had higher levels of intelligence or benevolence, but I don't think so.

Penalties increased and at the end of the century there were two hundred offences on the statute book which were punishable with death
222 crimes were punishable by death in Britain, including stealing, cutting down a tree, and robbing a rabbit warren
In 1713 Great Britain was awarded the contract (asiento) to import slaves
By the 1780s, when Britain shipped a third of a million slaves to the New World, the national economy depended on the trade.
I mean yeah, Britain in the 18th Century was charming
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K

katie_tully

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
They had the same intelligence as us. The fact that they were greedy and not benevolent demonstrates my point that they understood what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway.
Alright then, but thats where we'll just disagree. I don't think they thought what they were doing was as reprehensible as we consider it to be.
But meh.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top