An Australian Republic is about us — not the Queen, not Prince Charles or the world economy. We should do it now, without delay. As Nelson Mandela once said, “ For to be free is not merely to cast off one 's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Until we break our last Constitutional links to the mother country, our nationhood is incomplete. Now after just over 115 years of Federation, Australia must finally join the world of nations as a full equal, unshackled to any other nation. POINT 1 COST: Many anti-republicans argue that the cost of changing to a republic is too high, as where
Surrogacy is an ongoing issue within Australia, as people are seeking alternative methods at an international scale to find loopholes in the Australian Legal System. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Australia, yet legal in other international countries, legal ramifications arise when Australians travel beyond the borders to seek surrogacy arrangements. This reveals the on going dispute on why in a recent article the Chief Justice of the Family court referred to surrogacy arrangements in Australia as a “ticking time bomb.” “Surrogacy is a form of of assisted reproductive technology, where a woman offers to carry a baby through pregnancy on behalf of another person or couple and then return the baby to the intended parents, once it’s born”,
The 1960 's was an extremely dull period for numerous individuals whose race was recognizably unique - different to that of the “white” population. Indigenous Australians, in many states, were denied full citizenship on grounds of their race. Migration laws were set up at every opportunity to support "white" European outsiders to Australia. However, gradual change in people’s perceptions began in the late 1960 's. Racism all through the 1960 's impacted the characters in the way that it improved certain qualities, and got the perusers to additionally comprehend the characters themselves, and in addition feel certain feelings towards them.
As patriotic Australians we pride ourselves to be a nation that accepts and respects the beliefs of all cultures, but on this historical day majority of Australians tend to forget the true meaning behind the celebration. If you ask today’s society, what they did this Australia day mass numbers would respond with “binged on alcohol” and “indulged in a barbecue.” Consequently, this day cannot be called a national celebration when some of our fellow Australians are grieving while others are out celebrating an occasion they know little about. Giving due regard to the indigenous people and their mostly negative perspective on this issue should be a priority. A new date, not the 26th of January should be established, as rather than unite, it seems to divide Australians into different viewpoints. Celebrating Australia day is like holding a party without inviting the hosts.
An opposing piece to this, entitled ‘Advance Australia, fair!’ by Tristan Fairchild was published. In his piece, Fairchild uses his experience as a cultural liaison supervisor to persuade his audience that changing the date of Australia day can only be a good thing. Fairchild employed a authoritative and passionate tone to reason that celebrating a day that is viewed as an invasion is un-Australian and that we should rather be celebrating a rich and extensive culture. Joined to this article was a picture of an Aboriginal flag being raised, rather than the British flag, at Botany Bay by James Cook. Fairchild opened his piece with a play on the wording of the national anthem, using ‘Advance Australia, fair!’ to highlight the irony of how Australians were acting in a manner distinctly unfair to Indigenous Australians.
Society shows interest in the national past and its heroes, which makes the legendary frontier popular. Such myth-making often arises in connection with the lack of information, due to the fact that people simply do not know the history, are unfamiliar with historical facts and sources. Abolition of the liberal constitution of 1824, and most importantly - the abolition of slavery in Mexico in September 1829, were for American settlers, whose economy was an agrarian, unacceptable conditions of
They were sent to missions and institutions all over Australia, often far from their ancestral lands (Legislation, 1905) They were removed because the policy of the time stated that they were ‘at risk’. Government Policy The Aborigines Act 1905 was ‘An Act to make provision for the better protection and care of the Aboriginal inhabitants of Western Australia.‘ In following years other states enacted Acts that had similar and far reaching
“Just because something is traditional is no reason to do it, of course (Snicket, 2004).” This quotation means that the people do not have to conform everything, simply because it is tradition. Lemony Snicket wrote this quote to criticize the people’s blind conformity. The Lottery and The Hunger Games share lots of similarities because these two stories are all about the horrible annual tradition. Although The Lottery and The Hunger Games are similar in their tradition, each of the story differs in many aspects. One similarity between The Lottery and The Hunger Games is the purpose of the annual tradition.
If you take a look at American life 50, 60, and even 70 years ago, its much different from the life that we know today. People of today do not have to constantly watch their backs, or remind their children that they are not allowed to play outside because of one simple factor; skin. Our progress is undoubtedly a positive slope, but as the saying says, there 's surely always room for improvement. The question we should ask ourselves is if we are doing enough to ensure that our past advocates, and philosophers, and supporters did not die in vain because then we would be unworthy of claiming the rights that they fought so hard for. The civil rights movement has always been a major political and civil unrest, but civil rights activists created unrest for their kids, and their grandchildren, to secure equal treatment for everybody.
It does not make sense in the ways the Government excludes one race and ethnicity and yet employs new laws and legislation to protect another. To me, the White Australian Policy was the exclusion of Indigenous Australians and not actually the races outside of Australia.
The Vietnam War proved to be the longest war in both Australian and American history in the 20th century but presented a lot of debate as well as mixed opinions about Australia’s actions and involvement. The USA, who lead the operation and campaign, purely took part in the War to prevent the spread of communism globally, and also to prevent the domino effect from occurring in neighbouring countries in Asia. Furthermore, the Viet Cong were fighting the North Vietnamese government to improve Vietnam, which was under communist rule. However the alliance with America that Australia had, through SEATO and also ANZUS treaties, played a major factor and also a trigger for our involvement. Australia feared communism, and was definitely a key threat which ultimately forced us to contribute to the Vietnam War.
This can therefore be argued as reliable. It can also be argued that the source is unreliable as it shows only ones impression of the battle. Overall, the painting can be considered as reliable as it was created to show the Australian people and families where and how their family and/or relatives fought in the battle and other battles as well as to record the actions of the Australian soldier on the war front. The painting is likely to contain some bias as it was also created to show the atrocities of war but can be considered as more reliable than other sources of the same battle that may have been created a longer time after the battle by those that were not present at the battle or that hold a biased view against the battle and the Turkish
Although most post Second World War alliances with the United states (ANZUS and SEATO defence treaties) played a significant role in Australia going to war, it is only half of the story to just write off the decision as the Australian government blindly following American policy. It is paramount to understand that for latter half of the period preceding full-scale conflict in Vietnam, it was actually Australia who pushed American into further intervention in the region. Reasons as to why Australia would do such a thing are various in nature with the main contributing doctrines regarding communism primarily leading the hearts and minds of the general Australia population. Many Australians had a genuine fear of communism and its ability to, if allowed to, spread incessantly through the Asia-Pacific region and eventually destroy the ‘Australian way of life’. This fear of the ‘red menace’ would eventually culminate into two
Australia’s international relationships had a significant impact in World War 2, and this was because of Australian’s security was threatened by Japan, because Australia was sacred of Britain not doing a great job helping us against Japan, so there was one chance to save them and that was to call America for help. When a number of Australian troops returned from the Middle East after John Curtin ordered them to complete an action in Syria. This led to a bad relationship with the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, because Britain want Australia to help them in the war against Germany. As all Australians knew Britain were the ‘mother country’ they will help them but John Curtin went against the partnership with Britain and want to defend Australia, not send all troops to Britain. Curtin invited the Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, Douglas MacArthur to help out Australia for the Japanese invasion which made drastic change in Australia’s relation with Britain and USA.