Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it’s a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.
Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it’s a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.
Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.
“Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights”. Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn’t come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?
Like enshrining the position of head of state as being the next in line for a particular family who are born & live on the other side of the world?
Your words. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.
You’re pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.