| User | Comment |
|---|
| Dino | | posted 10-Jul-2002 7:38am |
All and everyone should remove that flag. We Brits won't mind honest. In fact I can't think of one single Brit who would object. Its nice to see countries have their own flag. |
| grmbrand | | posted 10-Jul-2002 7:56am |
I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, given its historical significance, I'd say to keep it. |
Wicksy  | | posted 10-Jul-2002 9:47am |
Keep it |
Enheduanna  | | posted 10-Jul-2002 10:08am |
They should do whatever the majority of the country wants to do. |
| darkshadowsseeker | | posted 10-Jul-2002 10:53am |
This should be a decision made by all of the citizens of each of these countries. Nobody else but them should have a voice in this matter, so I have no opinion. |
| Jemmy | | posted 10-Jul-2002 10:53am |
*shrugs* If they want to. Canada removed it from the flag. |
| confetti | | posted 10-Jul-2002 11:56am |
I don't fudging care. |
Frostbrand  | | posted 10-Jul-2002 2:01pm |
It's really none of my business. However it's worth pointing out that no one I know finds that symbol all that relevant anymore, so it could probably stay on the flags forever and no one would give a crap. |
| kaleb777 | | posted 10-Jul-2002 3:57pm |
They should both keep the Union Jack. It's part of the history of the country. I'm sick of the politically correct trying to change everything to appease new immigrants. They are changing the very things that made Australia and New Zealand the types of countries where people want to settle. Even if the UK changed their flag I believe we should keep ours the way it is. People fought and died for freedom under it. The Union Jack is part of every Australian and New Zealander's history no matter what their ancestry since these two countries were established as nations due to British colonisation. As nations all who live under the respective flags are one people. Having the Union Jack as part of our flags today does not mean we are British any more than the red stripes on the US flag means Americans are communist. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Dino) posted 10-Jul-2002 3:58pm |
We have our own flag. |
| natsim | | posted 10-Jul-2002 6:41pm |
I don't think it's a matter of "should"....
I, personally, would prefer our flag (I'm Australian) to exist without the Union Jack on it, but I think this is a decision that should have a referendum and (if the referendum was a fair and honest one) I would respect the views of my country's citizens. I think we should be willing to let our flag change as our country changes...
Unfortunately, the alternative flags that have been proposed are not great... |
| natsim | | posted 10-Jul-2002 8:39pm |
|
| natsim | | posted 10-Jul-2002 8:45pm |
|
| mandy | | posted 10-Jul-2002 8:53pm |
I don't give a flying fudge, actually. |
Irene007  | | posted 12-Jul-2002 10:36pm |
I think all commonwealth countries should remove the Union Jack from their flag.
We don't have it in Canada. I think a maple leaf is a better representation of this country. Strangely, we are part of the commonwealth but have no allegiance to the Queen. She is just a quaint tourist attraction of the "English" whose family was somewhat part of our history. But now Canada, as New Zealand and Australia, has become a country of its own. With all of the immigrants here, not just protestant or catholic, we don't identify with England (nor do we with France, for that matter). I went to visit England and I was a foreigner there as they are when they visit here... Why should their country's flag be part of ours?
|
| Irene007 | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 12-Jul-2002 10:43pm |
Sometimes, I really wish that you were my neighbour! We could drink and belch and fume over each others different opinions and have a grand old time!!! Darn it... |
| SueBee | | posted 13-Jul-2002 2:34am |
It's none of my business or concern since I live on the other side of the planet, but both flags are very nice looking the way they are, for whatever that's worth. |
| SueBee | | (reply to natsim) posted 13-Jul-2002 2:48am |
 That cartoon is great!! I'm especially tickled by the part about demonstrators not being able to burn it, after discussions in that other survey. I love the flag with the kangaroo. That really says "Australia" to anyone, I would think. The blue one with the white stars is pretty, but I'm not sure how unique it is. I remember looking in the encyclopedia at flags of the world when I was a kid and thinking how so many of them looked similar it would be difficult to remember which was which. That aboriginal flag falls into that category. It seems like there are lots of flags that are yellow, red and black. The kangaroo really stands out. Which one do you like? |
| SueBee | | (reply to mandy) posted 13-Jul-2002 2:49am |
Sassy!! |
| Biggles | | posted 13-Jul-2002 2:35pm |
They have the Union Flag not the Union Jack......
If they're part of the Commonwealth, I think that they should keep it. If they leave, getting rid of the Queen then they should remove it. |
| Zang | | posted 13-Jul-2002 4:44pm |
I don't care personally. This strikes me as something which should be decided by referendum, or at least by polling, if there seems to be overwhelming support.
Canada got rid of the old flag, with the Union Jack in the upper left-hand corner, way back in the sixties. I don't have a clear recollection of it being in use. I do remember in the early days of the new flag, the old one was popular, for use as curtains, among hippies. |
| natsim | | (reply to SueBee) posted 14-Jul-2002 9:26pm |
I'm not sure... I really like ones that have the Southern Cross in them. Most of the variations with the Southern Cross appeal to me; I really missed seeing the Southern Cross in the sky when I lived on the other side of the sky (!). It's nice too, that both Australia and New Zealand have a Southern Cross, because we are like "sister-countries" in a lot of ways.
The kangaroo is a good Australian symbol, but I'm worried that if we put it on the flag, no-one will let us eat them any more! |
| natsim | | (reply to Biggles) posted 14-Jul-2002 9:29pm |
There's not really any neccessary connection between leaving the Commonwealth and having the Queen as Head of State. A number of Commonwealth countries do not have the Queen.
What's the difference between the Union Flag and the Union Jack? |
| SueBee | | (reply to natsim) posted 14-Jul-2002 11:27pm |
So, the Southern Cross is a constellation, and visible only from the southern hemisphere? I hate to admit my ignorance, but I don't know a darn thing about astronomy, and I had no idea what significance that pattern of stars on the flags had. Do you really like kangaroo meat, or are you being facetious? Eating kangaroo makes sense to me, as long as it tastes good. It's the logical thing to do when they're so abundant. I'm surprised it's not exported more. (Or maybe it is, but I just haven't seen it around here?) Ostrich and emu meat was popular around here for awhile. There were actually people raising them locally for meat, but I haven't heard much about it lately. I think it was sort of a fad. I was curious and did a web search. I can hardly believe that there is so much opposition to kangaroos being hunted! Aren't they pretty much taking over the continent? I don't condone animal cruelty, but sometimes I think animal rights activists go a little overboard. I found a really cute article that you might find amusing. |
| natsim | | (reply to SueBee) posted 14-Jul-2002 11:54pm |
Cute article! Yep, the Southern Cross is a constellation visible only in the Southern hemisphere. You an always use it to find North if you're lost, and if you can remember how! :-$ I really really do like kangaroo meat. It tastes a bit like venison, and is very popular here (our supermarket keeps running out). It's low in fat, and a good source of iron for people like me who hardly ever eat meat. I actually think it's quite good from a philosophical point of view, because they're better for the land (softer feet) and are a pest, so from an environmental point of view, kangaroo is free-range red meat! I'm not sure why people get so "het up" (as my grandmother would say) over kangaroo culls. They are very tightly controlled by government legislation (see http://www.ogme.com/kangaroo/fieldpro.htm). Part of the reason is that kangaroo has only been licenced for human consumption in some Australian states within the last 10 years so I think people are still getting used to it. In South Australia, where I come from, it's been legal for ages... |
| natsim | | (reply to SueBee) posted 14-Jul-2002 11:55pm |
|
| Biggles | | (reply to natsim) posted 15-Jul-2002 8:16pm |
It's the same flag but it's only called the Union Jack when it's flown by a ship. On land it should be called the Union Flag. Apparently......  I've always called it the Union Jack!  |
| natsim | | (reply to Biggles) posted 15-Jul-2002 8:47pm |
How strange.... you learn something every day, huh? |
| Biggles | | (reply to natsim) posted 15-Jul-2002 8:49pm |
All the time  |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Irene007) posted 16-Jul-2002 4:30pm |
Yeah! People need to be more opinionated God dammit! Sometimes I sound like a 70 year old man who's seen too much pussy-footing around by do-gooders who are always trying to change things for the sake of change. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 16-Jul-2002 4:37pm |
Good cartoon . If we put the southern cross on a new flag, how long do you think it would be before non-Christians would demand it's removal? Maybe we should adopt the crescent and hammer to appease the Muslims and socialists at the same time. |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 16-Jul-2002 6:24pm |
Gosh! I'd never thought of the Southern Cross being a Christian thing (and I'm a Christian, so you might think that I WOULD try to appropriate it!)... it's just stars that look like a cross. I think you're being a little sarcastic there about the hammer and crescent.
|
| SueBee | | (reply to natsim) posted 16-Jul-2002 10:51pm |
That was an interesting website! Are some people maybe upset about the way the kangaroos are "harvested"? Or like you said they just aren't used to it, and if they consider kangaroos pests, maybe they think the meat is only fit to be used as dog food. How does the cost compare to beef, pork, and/or chicken? (Am I correct in assuming those are the three most popular meats in your markets like they are here?) |
| natsim | | (reply to SueBee) posted 17-Jul-2002 12:04am |
The most popular meats here are chicken, lamb and beef, and pork is up there too. Lamb is much more popular in Australia than in the USA (of course, the US tariffs on Australian / New Zealand lamb have been partly responsible for that, but that's another story...). I think there is a mix of reactions to kangaroo meat. In part, people don't like the way they're hunted and some of that is due to misinformation (reports of kangaroos being slowly bludgeoned to death...  ) but some is just what people think. And, as you suggested, some people still think it's only fit for pet consumption. The only problem is that the animal rights activists are working very hard to stop stores from stocking kangaroo meat. I don't mind if they choose not to eat it themselves, but I would like to be able to buy it conveniently! |
| SueBee | | (reply to natsim) posted 17-Jul-2002 12:09am |
That whole issue of animals not being killed humanely is a tough one. |
| natsim | | (reply to SueBee) posted 17-Jul-2002 12:30am |
It is. I grew up on a farm, and I found it very difficult to buy meat when I moved out of home because I didn't know how it had been killed. It's so hard to find out all this stuff! When you're removed from the land, and removed from primary production, it's hard to know how anything gets to the store you buy from... I get frustrated about it... |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 17-Jul-2002 1:42am |
The stars only look like a cross because Christians noticed it. I doesn't really look like anything else to people who aren't used to seeing the shape of the crucifix. It may be sarcastic with the hammer and crescent, but I've heard similar things from the politically correct that sound equally as mad. Look at the reasons why people want to get rid of the Union Flag. It's not all about having another flag in the corner, it's about what that flag represents, or is perceived to represent to certain people. Many people would find a cross on the flag offensive too. This kind of thing happens when the majority try to appease every single minority religion, race, creed, belief and language. It's impossible to please everyone, that's why the majority should that this is Australia as is. If you don't like it, why come here? If you came here, it must have been better than where you came from. Why are you trying to change it? |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 17-Jul-2002 2:07am |
Everyone wants their country to be better than it is. There's nothing wrong with trying to improve it. Why do you think it's bad to want to make the world better? I would rather have a country that looks at the way it lives and tries to improve it rather than being stagnant. I find it hard to believe that you are against change.
Of course, I understand that we disagree on some things about what would make Australia a better place, but I'm really surprised to hear you arguing that Australia should not change at all....
|
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 17-Jul-2002 2:22am |
I'm not against change, only against change for the worse or for no good reason. Changing the flag does nothing to solve any real problems we have here. It's all window dressing and designed to make the left feel self righteous by doing something they feel is going to make immigrants feel more welcome. If I was to move to the US and they decided to put a bloody kangaroo on their flag to make me feel welcome I'd be disappointed and a little bewildered. I certainly wouldn't demand that they change their flag. I don't believe immigrants are stupid enough to want to change the country they choose to move to to be more like the places they chose to leave. |
| Irene007 | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 17-Jul-2002 7:09am |
Dang right! Freakin' do-gooders! Here, have another beer!! *slides a mug across the counter*  |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Irene007) posted 17-Jul-2002 4:08pm |
....and another thing..... |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 17-Jul-2002 7:13pm |
You're putting a lot of words into other people's mouths there. |
| Oscar | | posted 17-Jul-2002 7:58pm |
Why |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 18-Jul-2002 3:52pm |
Where? I thought I was saying what I feel, like you were. The people who put words in people's mouths are those who claim to speak for immigrants and Aboriginal people - many of who have nothing to do with either group. |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 18-Jul-2002 7:47pm |
"It's all window dressing and designed to make the left feel self righteous by doing something they feel is going to make immigrants feel more welcome."
How do you know that "the left" (whoever they are) want to change the flag to make immigrants feel welcome? It's not my opinion. It's not your opinion. Whose opinion is it? |
| Irene007 | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 19-Jul-2002 7:50am |
|
| anonymous | | posted 19-Jul-2002 4:44pm |
I think that this is a really dumb survey because the union jack is a symbol to Queen Elizabeth 2 |
| footprintigger | | posted 19-Jul-2002 4:46pm |
Natism,
That is an awesome drawing! |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 20-Jul-2002 4:59am |
What I said was my opinion, but it is based on what I see and hear being said by the left. I know 'the left' (and yes, there is a definite 'left' way of thinking) are those who supported the flawed republican model AND the change in the flag. The two things go hand in hand. Although not everyone who voted for the republic also want to change the flag, more people who did vote for the republic want to change the flag than those who voted to keep the Queen as head of state. I know that not everyone who believes CO2 is pollution, for example, also believes in all the policies of the Greens, but there is a definite left way of thinking and a definite right way of thinking. If there wasn't, these terms wouldn't still be in widespread use. Perhaps if you consulted a political dictionary you might learn what the general beliefs of left and right politics are. It has been stated in numerous debates that one of the main reasons for removing the Union Jack is that Australia is a multicultural country and the Union Jack does not represent most 'new Australians'. That is trying to appease immigrants by changing aspects of Australian culture - a left wing policy. Most people with politics which I would consider right-wing, treat immigrants as other Australians. They don't try to treat them differently because of where they come from and they don't change the place they chose to come to because they think they will feel more welcome. Did anyone ask them anyway? In my experience, most moves to help migrants or Aboriginals by left-wing politicians actually create more problems for the people that are supposed to be helped. It is the left, with the Greens fitting this side of politics, who seek to treat people differently according to their race and sex. What if the Australian flag had Aboriginal patterns on it? Would you support the removal of these patterns because they were not representative of the people who arrived after 1788? I doubt it very much. That's why I say that left wingers apply different standards to different races. Most people from "the left" are racist and don't even know it. Some are proud of their hatred of things 'white'. It's Ok in their minds to attack the majority, their culture, religion and beliefs, but to do the same to anyone else is racism and bigotry. The flag was part of British culture when they arrived here, no matter what was on the flag. The flag we have now is representative of the culture that brought this continent together as a single nation. Anyone who says the Aboriginal people had a single country before federation are liars.
The way the majority culture in this country is attacked by the left makes me sick. Natasha Stott-Despoja, who I consider to be the leader of another left-wing party, stated when Peter Hollingworth was chosen as the GG, that being a white male Anglican, he was not representative of a multicultural society!!. This same logic is behind saying the flag which incorporates the flag of the culture that founded the Australian nation is not representative of the people who live in Australia. |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 22-Jul-2002 7:29pm |
And there is no-one on the right who supports the republic? There is no-one on the right who wants to change the flag? Your definition of left and right still confuses me.
And don't patronisingly talk to me about consulting a dictionary, I know perfectly well what classic left and right wing idealogies are, the thing is that the neat little boxes of left and right don't always fit. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 23-Jul-2002 5:26am |
Of course there are people on the right who support the replublic. That's not what I said. There are more incidences of skin cancer with white people but that doesn't mean there are no incidences with other races.
If you do know what the classic left and right wing ideologies are, why have you been trying to force me to explain? My definition is no different to what any political dictionary would give. I don't know how it can be confusing to you. It's true that left and right don't always fit in boxes, but what does? Someone with predominantly right wing ideology may still think everyone who lands in a boat should be allowed to walk around the streets without question, but on most issues they follow right wing ideology. There is no person with total left or total right ideology. There isn't many issues where people are entirely of one viewpoint, but in politics it is easy to see whether a person is a predominant left or right wing thinker. Why have you argued that left and right don't exist in past replies? Is it because you had been told One Nation followers were all racists and I have shown that I believe all people are the same and should be treated as such - an ideology the left believes is theirs alone? |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 23-Jul-2002 6:12pm |
I argue that left and right don't exist anymore because I firmly believe that the old definitions of left and right are not accurate anymore. I don't find them to be helpful definitions because they divide people who have other ideologies in common. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 24-Jul-2002 4:50pm |
You believe left and right labels divide. How do you define what a person believes in? Isn't the phrase "green politics" the same thing? what about liberal and conservative? How exactly do you talk about politics without using such labels. How exactly have the old definitions of left and right changed.
Frankly I find it frustrating to have a follower of the Greens telling me you don't find the definitions of left and right helpful because they divide people with other common ideologies. The Greens wasted no time jumping on the ALP bandwagon painting all One Nation supporters with the label of "right wing extremists". The more you tell me of your beliefs the more surprised I am that you follow the Greens. Do you actually believe in what they say? You said you believe people should be treated equally, yet that goes against all Green policy. You say you find the labels left and right divisive but the party you vote for uses these terms all the time. I was just as confused when radical socialist groups attacked One Nation when One Nation agreed with their stands on many issues. I'm starting to think the left are simply out for a fight for their own gratification and don't really know what they are fighting for or against. |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 24-Jul-2002 7:10pm |
I don't define what others believe in - that's for them to do. If I want to know what someone believes, I ask them. It takes longer to talk about people's politics that way, but I think I get a better picture of what people think. And no, I don't find the liberal and conservative labels very helpful either....
Why do I vote for the Greens? Because I agree with more of their policies than anyone elses. I'm not a "follower of the Greens"; I'm someone who voted for them. |
Strider  | | (reply to Irene007) posted 24-Jul-2002 11:44pm |
You should check agian on your info about the Queen. She is the Queen of Canada too, and therefore our head of state. |
| natsim |
Hey, thanks.... Michael Leunig is my favourite cartoonist; he does a lot of drawings for the newspapers here in Australia.
|
| kaleb777 | | (reply to natsim) posted 25-Jul-2002 3:56pm |
You've never defined what One Nation followers believe in? I think the labels liberal, conservative, left and right are very helpful. I think most people do. I find it useful when people refer to their politics as left or liberal because I get a general idea of what they believe. Take this away and you would have to ask a person what they feel about every issue, and once you begin, you can usually determine that a person is a liberal or is conservative or centre anyway and don't really need to continue asking about every policy issue. If someone says they are Muslim you get a basic idea of what they believe, but that person might believe women need not cover themselves while another Muslim might believe they should. There are going to be differences, but without labels you resort to 20 questions (or more like 200 questions) to determine what type of politics a person follows and it gets silly. |
| natsim | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 26-Jul-2002 12:33am |
I can't say I ever have defined what One Nation followers believe in. It's not something I really talk about, although I have had conversations about what their elected members say in parliament.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether labels are useful! |
| Irene007 | | (reply to Strider) posted 31-Jul-2002 10:06am |
What info? She has no power here, she may sign a document or two to make them official but she has no real decision power. Our heads of state make the decisions, not her. Being part of the commonwealth means something else to Canadians and means nothing to Quebecers. We have no Queen just a quaint personage who is part of our history. Besides, who does the Queen really rule over? Her country has a government too and it seems to me that Thatcher decided to take action in the Falklands, not the Queen. I know enough about English history to say that King and Queen used to rule, but not anymore.
Anyway, I do prefer the maple lead; it's much more representative of this country. |
| Strider | | (reply to Irene007) posted 1-Aug-2002 12:47am |
True she has no power but she does apoint the Govenor- General on the advice of the prime minister. |
| Strider | | (reply to Irene007) posted 1-Aug-2002 12:55am |
Also you seam to have the typical bull crap attitude of Quebeckers, why don't you guys just separate and take your half of the national debt and go beg some other country to help you. Vive le Canada! |
| NthenSome |
I have no opinion, but I remember Confetti saying that a lot of Australians were dissatisfied with their flag. I bumped into Confetti shortly afterwards, at a flamethrower's convention.
(haha) |
| Irene007 | | (reply to Strider) posted 5-Aug-2002 8:16am |
"she does apoint the Govenor- General on the advice of the prime minister"
She wouldn't know who to appoint without his input, she is obviously a quaint figure head from past traditions; a puppet - where politics are concerned anyway... |
| Irene007 | | (reply to Strider) posted 5-Aug-2002 8:31am |
 From what did you deduce that I seemed to have the same bullcrap attitude of Quebekers? I did write; "I do prefer the maple leaf; it's much more representative of this country." Not; "I do prefer the fleur de lys ; it's much more representative of this {country}."... Do you love the Queen? I, personally, think she is a wonderful, interesting person and I have much respect for her. I can't say that I love her; as far as being part of this country, she may come, she may go - it really makes no difference to me. What would it change politically? How would it affect us? So in the end, I ask: Why should I fly her country's flag? I think the idea of it is quite "passé", what makes this country today is more than just the English. Although, many here speak English, their origins are from all over the world and not many feel that close to the Queen. This place has evolved beyond the Union Jack, let England fly her flag and we shall fly ours. |
