With regard the discussion on the Australian National Flag - I found the following - the Blue Ensign was made the national flag in 1901, but it was not official until the Flag Act 1954 - which Elizabeth signed herself. In 1973, Whitlam used the Statute Law Revision Act 1973, to remove of the Cth from that specific act. Yet, in 1996, the Governor-General OF THE CTH OF AUST, in the CTH OF AUST Gazette - declared Sept 3 to be National Flag Day. And in 2001, the GG OF THE CTH OF AUST, in the CTH OF AUST Gazette - gave permission to the GovernmentS (note the S) of Australia to use the Centenary Flag on special occasions. It is very, very clear that OUR Commonwealth still exists and can be used whenever govt deem it necessary. Yet we cannot take the laws of OUR Commonwealth into court. So this flag business is very interesting and here is the questions I am asking myself. The Blue Ensign, as the national flag, was accepted and used from 1901. We had 3 monarchs between then and Elizabeth. The Flag Act 1953, was not signed by the then GG, but held over for Elizabeths signature, which was in February 1954. (I have also learned that in 1953, Menzies created an act allowing foreign corporations operating in Australia, to NOT pay tax in Australia, but to pay all tax to their home country. Nice little loss we all took on that one eh!) So, while everyone was in a nice tizzie over the new young queen, things were being gotten away with it appears. Now this flag is the same flag the army uses, so in essence, it is a military flag. From what I have found that means that where it flies, is designated as a military building. And I am going to assume that could mean military law is the operating jurisdiction. In 1973, Gough enacted massive changes in all our constitutional laws through the Statute Law Revision Act 1973. With reference the Flag Act 1953, the following sections were amended. Original section 2: This Act extends to all the Territories of the Commonwealth. Changed section 2: This Act extends to all the Territories. Original section 7: The Governor-General may make, or cause to be published, rules for the guidance of persons in connection with the flying, or use of flags referred to in, or appointed under, this Act. Changed section 7: The Governor-General may make, or cause to be published, rules for the guidance of persons in connection with the flying, or use of flags or ensigns referred to in, or appointed under, this Act. Now as the original act only refers to flags, a flag and an ensign must be 2 different things. And note, the act is called the Flag Act - not the Flags and Ensigns Act. So my thought is this. By adding the word ensign, something has changed about the flag. It now has some added use, meaning or intention. And it is also now used by the Australian government specifically, who also brought admiralty law into our courts through the Submerged Lands & Seas Act. I am not sure where I am going with this - but there is something that needs to be understood as I think it might help establish the govt we are dealing with. Anyone who understand flag etiquette out there?
Posted on: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 14:20:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015