Earlier this month, Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison announced that his Government had made the surprise unilateral decision to adjust the Australian national anthem by replacing the phrase “for we are young and free,” with “for we are one and free.”
Although Scott Morrison has claimed the adjusted phrasing had the support of the majority of Australians, his claim of majority support doesn’t appear to be backed by any clear formal consultation with Australians.
Breaking the news, The ABC appealed to the overused, ad nauseam click-bait term “historic”, quoting Morrison as saying that the change was about ‘recognising the timeless land of ancient First Nation’s people.’
The 1-billion-dollar taxpayer-funded national broadcaster reported that ‘Indigenous leaders welcomed the new wording’, but (as is easily predicted) others complained that the “for we are one and free” isn’t representative of the socio-cultural fabric of Australia.
As cited by the ABC, Indigenous Australian Composer, Deborah Cheetham, stated that changing the anthem “one word at a time is probably not the right way to go. It may be time to write something that captures the spirit of the nation.”
According to the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, boxer and Indigenous Muslim activist, Anthony Mundine, wasn’t happy either.
Mundine called the change ‘tokenistic.’ Then played the mythological race card, and ranted about how the Australian National Anthem was white supremacy.
So much for the “spirit of unity.”
So much “for we are one and free.”
It appears Cheetham and Mundine were just as surprised by the change, as the majority of Australians who are said to be in “support of the change.”
We see and hear this every Australia Day. Mostly summarised as Black equals sinless, white equals sinner; never the two shall meet, until the sinners have been either obliterated or made subjects of the sinless.
Activists are telling us it’s not enough. They want more.
Which is why the arbitrary anthem change is also one further step towards implementing the myth of race into the Australian constitution – under the label of Indigenous recognition – which would not only codify a protected minority class in law, but segregate citizens, apply preferential treatment, not measured by need or merit (as is currently the case with Abstudy, and a whole range of social outreach programs), but by a man or woman’s shade of melanin or ethnic heritage.
As the somewhat insightful SBS documentary ‘First Australians’ could not avoid concluding, while racism existed, there was no clear-cut white vs. black oppression that fits the narratives of genocide spewed forth every Australia Day.
Indigenous tribes were not a nation. Though tribes congregated, had a degree of similarity in mythological beliefs, they were not an organised, united, advanced entity, or civilisation with towns, roads, common government, and a shared common law.
As clumsy as European settlement was in seeking to live amicably with those tribes, European settlement united those tribes with the birth of the Australian nation.
As SBS’ ‘First Australians’ and atheist Robert Kenny’s ‘The Lamb Enters the Dreaming’ documents, Christian Europeans (although flawed in many ways), were a vanguard for Indigenous languages and survival.
Christians stood with Indigenous communities against the rise of Social Darwinist secularism, which with the rise of the 19th Century’s popular ‘survival of the fittest mantra,’ had relegated Australia’s Indigenous people to extinction, largely through secular humanism’s embrace of evolutionary ethics.
We should be cautiously willing to accept the Prime Minister’s call. Purely on the grounds that “for one and free” from “for young and free” does a lot for national unity.
The caveat to this is highlighted by the outrage from a minority of privileged urban activists, who want to not just rewrite Australia’s national anthem, but rewrite European Australian history with revisionist Cultural Marxist black vs. white, us vs. them, cognitive distortions.
These are often applied using the vicious lens of the Stasi like, Leftist intersectional rubric, which makes McCarthyism, The Inquisitors and the Salem Witch trials look like a day at the fair.
I’m fully aware that my argument here will be lost on many people. I accept this. In fact, I know I’ve lost the argument before even stating it.
Not for lack of good reasoning, but for the fact that like Malcolm Turnbull’s dodgy, 2017 Gay Marriage plebiscite, (one that was used to change the definition of marriage, on the claim that it had majority support, but saw over 2 million Australians abstain from participating in), 2020 has revealed a willingness among Australians to accept what they’re fed, without question; bear false witness against their neighbour, and throw hate on dissent by demonising any reasoning that might form part of a valid opposing viewpoint.
Allowing a change to the National Anthem without first hearing the national voice via a referendum or formal consultation, isn’t the same as the governed leaving the Government to decide on fixing a road, or building a much-needed dam or bridge.
Allowing the Government arbitrary rule over changing items essential to national identity without the voice/debate/approval of the people is civic negligence.
A referendum isn’t a plebiscite. Referendums are the voice of the people. It’s what gives Australians their united voice, and keeps the power of Government at bay. Referendums are a key part of our God-given and constitutionally ratified Democratic rights. The moment we allow bureaucrats to bypass that voice, all is lost.
To quote Professor of Law at the Sheridan Institute, and Caldron Pool contributor, Augusto Zimmerman:
“Regardless of whether you agree with the substantive nature of this change, surely this effectively opens a dangerous precedent for further arbitrary behaviour.”
If we’re going to boot this essential public voice in the name of convenience or financial cost, given the lawfare pandemic against Christians post SSM, and the COVID-19 totalitarian shift towards greater dependence on a nanny state, we may as well boot the word “free” along with the word “young”!
No referendum. No change to the national anthem.
Note: Precedent for referendums being held outside constitutional changes, were held in relation to national identity and national service in 1916 and 1917.
‘Referendums, other than for purposes of constitution alteration, were held in 1916 and 1917. These referendums related to the introduction of compulsory military service and were rejected by the people. The first was authorised by an Act of Parliament[174] and the second was held pursuant to regulations made under the War Precautions Act.[175]‘ (APH.gov.au)
The trend towards plebiscites is the pathway of despots and dictators.
Let us know what you think. Should the change in Australia’s national anthem have been carried out via referendum, or a more formal consultation with the Australian public?
