Talk:Citizens Electoral Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Citizens Electoral Council is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Laughing so hard that my ass is bleeding
I can't believe that we have those types of idiots in this country. I think that the CEC is realy a mob of drunk conspericyists. There leader must be Australia's dumbist drunken conspericyists. --Durfuhrer121 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] old comments
Edit wars have been largely terminated on the other LaRouche pages, thanks to the mediation of Snowspinner. Please edit this page responsibly. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To say that the Privy Council is a "purely ceremonial body" is specious, given that it was the agency responsible for sacking Gough Whitlam. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Herschel you are wrong. The Governor General of Australia sacked Whitlam, the Privy Council had no role in it. Personally, I think it's a monarchist hangover that should be abolished but it IS a purely ceremonial body and Australia ceased making appointments to it several years ago (see the article Right Honourable) and unlike Canada there is no Australian Privy Council. AndyL 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More specifically, Australia stopped making appointments to the British Privy Council in 1983 and there is no domestic Australian Privy Council. It is absolutely correct to say there is no constitutional link between the "Privy Council" and Australia. AndyL 23:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My mistake; it was the Governor-General, which still strikes me as a shocking colonial intervention by the Brits. Beyond that, it is my understanding that in the British system, a lot of the ways in which political power is exercised might be considered "informal", in line with having an "unwritten constitution." --Herschelkrustofsky 12:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that the Privy Council does not exist in Australia and the claims of the CEC regarding it are patently absurd. AndyL 20:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Privy Council "does not exist" in Australia? --Herschelkrustofsky 22:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. While there is a Queen's Privy Council for Canada there is no such body in Australia. As I said earlier Australian appointments to the British (or Imperial) Privy Council ceased in 1983 when Labor PM Bob Hawke refused to be appointed to the body. The British Privy Council only meets on ceremonial occasions. It's met twice in the past 50 some years, once on the succession of Elizabeth II to the throne and once to give its approval to the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana. I know this doesn't accord with the great role Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy theory gives the body - perhaps this means you should reconsider the veracity of LaRouche's theory. AndyL 01:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It used to be the practice to appoint Australian Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and Governors General to the Privy Council so that they could use the title "Right Honourable". There are six Australians alive who are Privy Council members, the youngest is 74 so within about ten years, chances are, there will be no one left. They are all retired from their positions. That they are members of the Privy Council gives them no more power than, say, someone who has an Order of the British Empire. It's nothing more than a ceremonial title. AndyL 02:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since we seem to be discussing this so amicably, I'll try to summarize LaRouche's views on this (based on some reading that I did years ago, so I may not have every jot and tittle right): under the British system (which they didn't invent -- they inherited it from the Venetians, but the British put it into practice on a rather grand scale)), the official, formal channels of power are not all that important. Think of the popular depiction of the power structure of the Sicilian mafia: the local don is not elected, he has no formal power at all, but in reality, he rules the roost, due to commercial power and other sorts of, shall we say, informal capabilities, which in most cases are transmitted to a successor by primogeniture. In the U.S., it is generally taught that the Queen is strictly a quaint figurehead who plays no political role at all -- which is naive, since the prerogative powers, under which the Governor General sacked Whitlam, emanate from the Crown (the closest I ever got to the British system was a visit to Ottawa, during which I was duly impressed by the fact that the Governor General's mansion is far more impressive than the P.M.'s.) However, the most substantial power of the monarchy -- meaning not just the queen as an individual, but rather her extended family -- is commercial. LaRouche has referred to the British monarchy as the world's largest multinational corporation.
Far the most part, none of these relations are proclaimed to the public, they are just "understood," which is why some people might find it highly desirable to be associated with the monarchy, even through what may be, on paper, an impotent association such as you describe the Australian Privy Council to be. I didn't know it only had six members -- according to the CEC, three of them are on board of the ADC, which suggests to me that the two organizations may have more than a little in common.
If you would like to explore an American's insight into these kinds of relations, I highly recommend a novel written a few hundred years ago by James Fennimore Cooper, entitled The Bravo. It describes not the British system per se, but rather the model upon which it is based, the "serene republic" of Venice. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The "CEC-linked Website" mentions that former Governors-General Zelman Cowan and Ninian Stephen are on the ADC board. Weed Harper 15:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All this shows how little Americans understand the British system, particularly those who are blinded by Anglophobia (a problem not confined to LaRouche, but obviously taken by him to extremes). The fact is that the Queen is "a quaint figurehead who plays no political role at all," although she certainly has some informal political influence in British politics due to her vast personal experience, an influence which she uses mainly to urge caution and moderation.
It is true that the British constitutional system involves a facade which conceals a reality. However LaRouch has the relationship around the wrong way. It is the monarchy, with its apparently unlimited constuitutional power, which is the facade, and parliamentary government, with executive power residing with the Cabinet, which is the reality. This has been the case in Britain since at least the late 19th century and probably since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, although it took a long time for the change to be accepted by all participants.
In Australia the Queen has no influence whatever, and plays no constitutional or political role whatever. It is true that in theory the Governor-General represents "the Crown" (which is a legal entity separate from the Queen's person), but in practice he is an independent ceremonial head of state. Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam was a drama played out entirely in the context of Australian domestic politics, and the Queen knew nothing about it until after the event. Even if she had, she could and would have done nothing about it. She has no independent power to dismiss the Governor-General or tell him what to do or not do.
On the Privy Council. Let me repeat there is no such thing as a Privy Council in Australia. There are six elderly members of the British Privy Council, appointed more than 20 years ago for purely ceremonial reasons, who never meet and who play no role whatever in Australian politics, although Malcolm Fraser still makes political comments now and again.
Cowen and Stephen are both in their 80s and their roles on the ADC board are honorary. The ADC doesn't need advice from Cowen and Stephen to keep a close watch on LaRouche's Australian operations. They do it because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are an anti-Semitic organisation. If you want to prove that you are not, you can start by repudiating LaRouche's Holocaust denial of the 1970s, and stop circulating absurd conspiracy theories about "Zionists." 01:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Adam 01:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As for the sacking of Whitlam that was done by the Governor General. The Queen was not advised or consulted (and personally, I think it should not have happened and I suspect Adam things the same). She was not even informed until after it had happened. Personally, I think, Australia and Canada (and Britain for that matter) should become republics but not for any of the reasons put forward by LaRouchians.
As far as conspiracy theories are concerned the links between Govenor General Kerr and the CIA and Whitlam's decision to close an American communications base in Australia and other examples of "anti-American" actions by the Labor government are far more compelling explanations (see the film The Falcon and the Snowman) than the bizarre and frankly ignorant conspiracy theory regarding the privy council put forward by LaRouchians.AndyL 02:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Synarchy
Herschell removed a statement that LaRouche: "believes that the world is ruled by a secret cabal of financiers based in London, the "Synarchy"".
and a second statement that LaRouche believes the Queen is the head of the synarchy.
Are you saying that LaRouche does not believe that the world is ruled by "the synarchy" or are you just embarassed by this belief?AndyL 23:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I consider the language to be unacceptably POV in the following ways: first, LaRouche does not believe that Synarchism is a "secret cabal." LaRouche attacks them for beliefs and policies they openly espouse. Nor does LaRouche believe that they "rule the world." He believes that as a faction within the financial community they possess enough power to do considerable mischief, and does hold them responsible for promoting fascist governments throughout Europe during the 1930s. Nor does he believe that the Queen is the "head of the synarchy" -- he has said that her "extended family," operating through companies like Rio Tinto Zinc, is a very significant and generally pernicious commercial and political force in the world, but as an individual she is largely just a leech on the poor Brits. If you want to say that he believes these things, I won't object -- the propagandistic quality which I object to, is to exaggerate LaRouche's claims in hopes of making him appear silly. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He is perfectly capable of making himself look silly without any help from us. Adam 13:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good. Then you will have no further need to put words in his mouth. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Undisputed
I am satisfied that the present version of the page is in compliance with Wikipedia NPOV policy and I am prepared to removed the "disputed" tag, if no one objects. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Chuck F and Reithy
It appears that we have an edit war that is more a conflict between two individuals than a reasonable dispute over the article. The section added by 198.81.26.76, on the historical Australian figures that the CEC supports, is consistant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is rebutted in the following paragraph, which represents the opinion of CEC opponents. Therefore, the article is balanced, and the new paragraph is useful information. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced material
[edit] Cultural Basis
The Citizens Electoral Council also has a continuing tradition of holding "Cultural Nights" in which they perform classical music, recite poetry and convey the immortality of Human Creation (Cognition) in the form of speeches.
Like the recent event they held in Coburg to commemorate the Immortality of Prime Minister John Curtin , on the 60th anniversary of his death. Expressing how an Australian could make such a change to the nation (through his break with Britain Midwar, that didn't result in more division within Australia and his personal battles with Alcoholism and depression, that didn't hinder his leadership in the time of need) by offering music of the CEC choir and orchestra and solo performances from its members.
For the Citizens Electoral Council publications (eg. Australian Alert Service) generally write to the effect, "if we do not change the culture of Australia, all of these political changes we incite or perform will not last a day". What is very much an idea borrowed from sister LaRouche Orginisations like the Schiller Institute.
I can't find a mention of this on the CEC website. Does anyone have a source? Thanks, -Willmcw 18:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The source is obviously an Australian LaRouchist editor who attends these bizarre rituals, and who has my deepest sympathy in his/her affliction. The facts as presented are probably true in outline, but they are not very relevant to the article, and are so encrusted in POV language as to be beyond rescue. They should be deleted. Adam 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Check [[1]] I imagined that you actually would check the website when you researched this group. The details inviting everyone to their Commemorative Event celebrating John Curtin is also there. The reason I included it was because of the paradox it seems to raise about the orginisation's motives, don't either of you think it is a better angle to attack rather than just stating they are populists? Sci.notes
-
- I don't see any mention of those events on the website. Remember it is your responsibility to cite your sources. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I can just imagine John Curtin's response at being "celebrated" by these neo-Nazi cultist filth. Adam 07:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still puzzling over the logic of ...to commemorate the Immortality of Prime Minister John Curtin , on the 60th anniversary of his death. Immortal - Dead? aren't those mutually exclusive? Is he a vampire? -Willmcw 07:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't previously heard of LaRouchist seances, but anything is possible. Possibly they are getting ready for when Fuhrer Lyndon drops off (he is 83 I think) and they have to get his latest directives from the Great Loony Bin in the Sky. Adam 08:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] CEC history
The Citizens Electoral Council history (that I used to write the History section), are taken from a campaign DVD that I found produced by the party and sold on the streets by their members. Shane george 01:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
As I said when I reverted your edit, there may be some useful facts in that source, but LaRouche materials are such a farrago of lies and nonsense that it is impossible to tell what is fact and what is fiction. (Just to take one example, Michael Danby has never called for the CEC to be banned). Adam 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- LaRouche sources should not be used for Wikipedia articles. They are not reliable. -Willmcw 04:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move?
Does anyone object to a move to Citizens Electoral Council of Australia as the full name of this organisation? Frickeg 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
