Tuesday, December 04, 2007

A Letter To The President Prime Minister.

Dear Mr. Rudd,

First of all, congratulations on becoming the latest Prime Minister of Australia.

I am writing to express my concern at you apparently not swearing allegiance to the Crown as a part of your oath.

As the Prime Minister of Australia, I thought it was a part of your constitutional obligation to express your loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second as the head of the Commonwealth.

It appears that I was mistaken.

Please excuse my ire, but as far as I am concerned, we live under a constitutional monarchy and not a republic, and I have not had the opportunity to vote either for or against any change of such magnitude.

I would be grateful to know if this departure from the tradition is actually constitutional and therefore legal, or was this a mere error of form?

If the former, then please enlighten me as to when our constitution did change.

At the ripe old age of forty, I have not participated in any referenda on this issue lately.

If your neglect of Her Majesty was merely forgetfulness, then I would consider an apology to the Crown a necessity.

As a student of the Chinese culture, you would surely be aware that losing face is something to be avoided at all costs.

Your behaviour has caused Australia to lose face in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, and I am at a loss to understand such an appalling breach of etiquette and form from the the leader of our country.

In your acceptance speech you promised to govern for ALL AUSTRALIANS.

Sir, by omitting the Queen and the allegiance you owe her, you are not governing for ALL AUSTRALIANS. I have no idea who you are governing for, and I do not believe it is a promising start to your tenure.

Yours sincerely,

Nilknarf Arbed.

Colour me severely unimpressed. I'm trying to give up swearing, but I don't think I'll be able to hold off the profanity for much longer. I've been so angry and insulted since I read about this before work.

I have no idea as to the legality of Mr Rudd's verbal oathtaking, but it is an outrageous action to take.

For someone who was voted in on the coattails of John Howard's successful policies, he shows an astounding lack of respect for those who felt he offered more of the same (but different) economic success.

I find myself becoming more untrusting of his ability to lead our country with any sort of foresight with such a display of hubris at so solemn an occasion.


At 9:36 PM, Blogger MK said...

As far as i know it's perfectly legal, i heard it's been watered down to a almost worthless stage. I look forward to hearing if he replies.

At 9:44 PM, Anonymous sfw said...

This is ow the rot starts, the little things that Rudd will do to appease the left as he goes on the price will get higher and higher. Just wait till he brings back the list of national living treasures.

Good on yer Nilk.

At 3:05 PM, Anonymous spot_the_dog said...

Until fairly recently, to become an Australian citizen you had to swear loyalty to Queen Elizabeth and "her heirs and successors". The oath used to go:

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen."

It was the ALP who changed that in 1994 to the oath/affirmation I took:

"From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey."

Maybe I have a different perspective, having been born in America and wanting to become a citizen of Australia but not necessarily wanting to swear allegiance to someone I saw as the Queen of England, someone whose forbears made life very difficult for my forbears; but I wouldn't have become a citizen if they hadn't changed the requirement.

I guess it's different for a Prime Minister, who is basically answerable to "the Queen's man" in Australia, but from an immigrant's point of view I'm glad it's no longer a requirement of citizenship.

Having seen what I've seen of Rudd, I doubt he even did it as a "standing on my principles" kind of thing though - more likely it was yet another "empty symbolism" kind of thing.

Just my 2 cents!

At 3:25 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

Spot, question for you now. As a US citizen becoming an aussie, did you have to give up your American citizenship?

I've got dual nationality, which is great for travelling, and also because my two favourite countries are Oz and the States.

Other than that, I prefer being a representative democracy with a monarch living on the other side of the planet because it provides an extra layer of protection from petty dictators like Kevnco.

As we can see, they've jumped into dismantling our nation wholeheartedly, so anything that can check that even a little bit is welcome.

Other than that, I run along the lines of "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

At 4:21 PM, Anonymous spot_the_dog said...

I'm a "If it ain't broke..." kind of person too, which is why I voted "No" in the Republic referendum. I even joke with my American friends that the best kind of head of state is the kind that lives on the other side of the world and more or less leaves you alone unless something drastic comes up.

Australia gave up making new citizens renounce their citizenship of their former country in the 70's, I think. I love Oz but I would have stayed a Permanent Resident; I couldn't have renounced America.

America, on the other hand, makes new citizens renounce all their former national alliances and give up all other citizenship. They also have a much tougher Citizenship test. There are also restrictions on US citizens who take another country's citizenship; for one, I don't think I could serve in Oz's military without the US getting mightily upset.

What other country are you a citizen of?

At 4:35 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

You mean there are other countries to be citizens of?

The USA, of course :)

I was born there, but ancestry-wise (is that a word?) I'm all skippy - back to the First Fleet on my mum's side.

At 5:14 PM, Anonymous spot_the_dog said...

Ah, a First-Fleeter! I am the first & only Aussie in my family; most of my line were religious reffos from England.

Which side of the Mason-Dixon y'all hail from? 'Fess up: redneck or yankee?

At 5:26 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

I'm a damnyankee. Born in Noo Joisey at Fort Monmouth.

And I have all the bits of paper to prove it.

Nothing wrong with religious reffos, although there aren't any in my family tree that I know of.

Miners, settlers and thieves is about it, with at least one great-grandfather being a policeman.

At 5:50 PM, Anonymous spot_the_dog said...

Well, America wouldn't be quite the same if it hadn't been for those bloody religious reffos, you know ;-)

At 5:57 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

Very true. Bloody puritans.

At 7:36 PM, Anonymous spot_the_dog said...

Well, the Greens seem to have taken over the mantle from the Puritans in many respects, now.

"Puritanism: the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun."

Let's see, no V-8s or Hummers; no sports at night under lights; no long hot showers; no air-con permanently set at 22; no watering your roses; no plasma or LCD big-screen TVs; no this, no that...

Yup. Greens are the new Puritans.


Post a Comment

<< Home