Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Enslave Tibet! Sheepy the awkward protester at the Canberra torch relay. *Video*

TheHunters 29 April 2008 52

Sheepy of the hunters takes on the Chinese rent-a-crowd at the Beijing torch relay in Canberra! Armed with a camera and an “Enslave Tibet” sign, Sheepy sets out on a solo mission to express his undying love for the motherland, CHINA!

[ED – Anyone who has no idea what this video is about have a look at this comment here in the Torch relay thread by TroyWilliams. The video’s poster, TheHunters, even goes so far as quote Troy & the-RiotACT to describe their Chaser style prank. Well Done TheHunter, Sheepy, et al!]


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
52 Responses to
Enslave Tibet! Sheepy the awkward protester at the Canberra torch relay. *Video*
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
ant 11:40 am 01 May 08

The committee to set up the working group will ultimately have to show how inventing a pigeon rat will help Working Families before funding can be allocated to set up a working group to appoint a committee to investigate the feasibility of inventing a pigeon rat.

Thumper 11:40 am 01 May 08

But seriously, so far all we have seen from Rudd is populist and symbolic.

So my observation is built upon facts, albeit, over a relatively short period..

And you did ask me, so I told you, and therefore you can’t complain.

Maybe he will change, let us see.

Thumper 11:33 am 01 May 08

I’m sure that, if anyone is going to invent a pigeon rat, Mr Rudd can do it.

And if not he’ll wax lyrical about “setting up committees and working groups to investigate the possibilities of an interspecies cogenical pairing under ethical nonmisgivings to forward the ultimate cause and objective with the aim being that they, the pigeons, and others non human entity partnerships, that would be, one suspects, the rats in question, will not be misunderstood within the polymonic tangents of unheralded study in the basis of, but not to the exclusion of, joining two such creatures together for the fulfilment and utter enjoyment of bipartisan parties, notwithstanding that under these new synthesises one must ensure and be sure that the ethical position of those investigating these possibilites be scrutinised and placed under a transparent and translucent process in which the bonding of the two is transmogrified to a greater plain whereby learning can be supplemented and indeed …”

Ahhh… what was I saying, I lost it…

tap 11:21 am 01 May 08

I’d say you pre-judged the K-Rudd, you may be right, but we don’t know yet.

Pigeon rat. Ah the simpsons. 🙂

ant 11:20 am 01 May 08

I’m sure that, if anyone is going to invent a pigeon rat, Mr Rudd can do it.

Thumper 11:05 am 01 May 08

Maybe I have misjudged Mr Rudd.

just maybe he really does want to invent a pigeon rat…

tap 11:02 am 01 May 08

But considering he hasnt had time to prove himself one way or another, it follows that your opinion is without base and you should really reserve judgements like that until some evidence surfaces one way or another.

Thumper 10:57 am 01 May 08

Hehehehe…

ant 10:55 am 01 May 08

thumper said:

Thumper said :

… and ensuring that he (Rudd) goes down in history as the greatest of all ALP leaders 😉

If he manages to invent a pigeon rat, that is assured.

Thumper 10:45 am 01 May 08

Here you go.

In my opinion he is self aggrandising and populist. Therefore, the advent of a republic under his prime ministership would perfectly fit in with these character traits thus usurping Whitlam from that lofty pillar and ensuring that he (Rudd) goes down in history as the greatest of all ALP leaders 😉

tap 10:36 am 01 May 08

I dont agree to that.

Nah kidding, just cant pass up an opportunity for a simpsons quote. Agreeing to disagree is fine.

You didn’t answer why you think he is pushing for a republic for self serving purposes, just why you think he is pushing for a republic. But whatever.

Thumper 10:20 am 01 May 08

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this score…

And I answered the Rudd question many, many posts ago so there’s no point answering it again.

tap 9:54 am 01 May 08

Thumper: Once more for luck. You ignored the original point of our dialog, what evidence do you have that K-Rudd is only after an australian republic for self serving purposes, and not perhaps that he just thinks its the way australia should go? If you ignore this again then ill just have to assume silence is how admit you were making assumptions with no evidence?

Ok to answer your points against mine.

I dont think it is far fetched to think that Australia would do some serious re thinking about who it is and what it is if we got rid of the monarchy. I do not see how you can dismiss that possibility you calling it a mother statement or whatever may be all well and good, but can you really argue that it definately wouldn’t happen? Of course not.

I dont see why nationalism would be increased by becoming a republic. I see nationalism as something that comes from being insecure, not being proud. When i said we were an asian country i meant where we actually are in the world, not who colonised us. but you are just getting into semantics here so unless you think there is an important point here ill leave this one alone.

At the end of the day Thumper, we belong to the queen, not oursleves. Thats the monarchy. Maybe only symbolically but its still true.

Having AC/DC (or men at work maybe) as our national anthem would make a huge difference thumper! I wouldn’t be embarrased when it gets played for one thing.

Our flag has the union jack on it. Thats england (yes people who sent convicts over here when there was no more room on their island, i dont dispute that), not australia.

You missed the merit not parents point, and DMDs point that real constitutional change could occur (dont ask me for details about that however, i just want to kick out the queen).

Your points:
You seem to have changed track from nothing will change to the sky will fall. Fair enough. You did not make any other arguments, comment 19 is the only one where you say anything.

Prime Minister is not the head of state Thumper. The head of state is born into it. We can’t get that job. In saying you like the monarchy, you are saying you are happy being born into a world where people are born to rule you. Even if only in a symbolic way. Shit even Maelinar is lord of something or whatever. This may be one of the ‘not perfect’ bits you are talking about, but you have to agree this is true.

Money, whatever, its worth it.

That was a long time ago now and yes, about half the republicans voted against the republic model that was being voted on, that does not make against change or for a monrachy. I would be massively surprised if monarchists in australia are anywhere close to being 50% of the population.

Your third point is much like your first, and again its worth it. I dont see that as a reason not to go forward at all, just something that we should be aware of as we go forward.

Im sure the role of the states etc would go unchanged i actually agree with your earlier sentiments that this change would be largely symbolic. But the idea that we would have states splitting off from australia is a bit far fetched, and not a reason not to go ahead, again just something that will need to be worked out.

Ok we don’t know what some issues may be, just as we don’t know what some benefits may be.

The Republic of Australia is not airy to me. To me it doesn’t make sense not to.

Thumper 8:47 am 01 May 08

At the moment we are a constitutional monarchy.

It is a sound system that has worked for this country for a long time. Okay, it may not be perfect, but it’s as near to being perfect as one could wish.

It is democratic meaning that you, or I, or anyone, can legitimately become the prime Minister (unlike US president)

Roughly 50% of the population are happy to carry on with the status quo knowing the above.

Another 50% want a change to a republic, which is fine. It is therefore up to this 50% to put forward valid arguments as why it will be better for Australia to be a republic. So far, i’ve yet to see any real evidence.

The chance that changing to a republic will shake up many inbuilt beliefs, increase our chances of becoming a nation that is more secure in itself.

I have already adressed this. It is a motherhood statement that means nothing.

Perhaps if we lose our official ties england we will seriously begin to view ourselves as an asian country, which may lessen bigotry in australia.

I’m not sure where you get this idea from, but we are not an Asian nation. Asians never colonised here and never lived here. If anything, we’d have to call ourselves micronesian, which we still are not. As for bigotry, changing to a republic will not change peoples ideals, if anything, we may see more nationalism which would lead to greater discrimination for example, cronulla riots.

We will belong to us.

What? This is just plain silly.This is Australia and it belongs to Australians. i did find the Braveheart bit funny however 🙂

We could change our god awful national anthem.

I agree, it’s horrible. but it’s our horrible anthem. Again, what difference would this make? Seriosuly? Besides, we could change it tomorrow if we wanted, without being a republic.

And our flag would represent us, not some offshoot if the empire.

Our flag does represent us. It just happens to show where the country came from. That is a historical fact. The country was founded by the English and was built on English values. That cannot be refuted. We may have a multicultural society now, but it would be silly to try and be inclusive to everyone who ever lived here or moved here.

The only argument I have heard contrary is ‘it wont change anything’. This to me means basically we have nothing to lose and potentially something to gain. So I ask you, why not?

No. I have put forward other arguments, you just choose not to read them. We have a lot to lose if we get it wrong.

It will cost the country an incredible amount of money to change and we will have to change a democratic system that has served us incredibly well for the life of the country.

And only half of the people actually want change, remembering that the last vote was defeated quite soundly. (yes, I know JWH rigged it, blah, blah, blah…)

The change in government and government departments would not only be immensely costly, but also extrememly disruptive. i’m not sure the country could function during such a change as we already have enough trouble functioning during a caretaker period near a federal election.

I also have doubts as to what sort of new federalism would emerge if a republic were to arise. For instance, what would be the role of the states? Or would they simply disappear as they too are based on the constitutional monarchy system. And if the states disappear in a governmental role, then who takes over? The new republic government, can we actually do this? I doubt it. And what if a state decides that it doesn’t want to give up it’s power? Will the state become it’s own country? I don’t know, but it is quite possible.

The issues are endless and as I have previously said, we don’t even know what some of issues may be.

As such, if one is to change a perfectly good system for an unknown system against the wishes of half of the population, you will certainly need better arguments than those you, and others, have put forward.

Some airy feel good notion is simply not good enough, nor does it make any sense, socially, economically, or politically.

Deadmandrinking 11:49 pm 30 Apr 08

Not to mention it’s an opportunity to rewrite our entire constitution, Tap.

tap 11:45 pm 30 Apr 08

err the numbering is a little munted but one last reason, which was mentioned earlier but ill state again. That the monarchy is an outdated system that should go. In this day and age having a head of state that is born into the position is plain ridiculous. Merit, not who your muumy and daddy are is what should get a person to a position like that.

tap 10:35 pm 30 Apr 08

Thumper: You ignored the original point of our dialog, what evidence do you have that K-Rudd is only after an australian republic for self serving purposes, and not perhaps that he just thinks its the way australia should go?

As far as me having an inferiority complex, I do not think I do… maybe a bit, whatever i dont know but thats not what im talking about. I tried to explain this in the last comment but ill try again. Im talking about the same sort of thing as ‘a person is smart, but people are stupid.’ (not calling australians stupid, just using it as an example) Im not talking about us individually, im just saying that our countries need to succeed above and beyond what a country of our population really should in sport seems to me to show that australia needs to prove itself a little too much. This is just an example, Australia being the ‘deputy sheriff’ or whatever it was is the same sort of thing.

I answer again:

1. The chance that changing to a republic will shake up many inbuilt beliefs, increase our chances of becoming a nation that is more secure in itself.

2. Perhaps if we lose our official ties england we will seriously begin to view ourselves as an asian country, which may lessen bigotry in australia.

3. We will belong to us. (insert braveheart speech here… freeeeeeeedom!)

4. We could change our god awful national anthem.

5. And our flag would represent us, not some offshoot if the empire.

4. The only argument I have heard contrary is ‘it wont change anything’. This to me means basically we have nothing to lose and potentially something to gain. So I ask you, why not?

Thumper 7:07 pm 30 Apr 08

I agree Mr Circus, however, will there be any real, tangible difference?

I’m curious. What difference will it make?

Tap, if you have an inferiority complex then that is your problem. i don’t, never have, and never will. I’ve lived all over the world, visited many places, everyone I have met sees Australia as an independent nation, even the poms!

I ask again, why is a republic a good thing?

Apart from motherhood statements like, ‘we will have an Australian as head of state’ and, ‘because we have an inferiority complex’, which frankly, I’ve never encountered. In fact, I didn’t encounter it in London last time I was there, or Wales, or even Maroc. The Australians I met there were very, very proud, to be Australians and certainly didn’t lack any ‘international’ confidence.

Come to think of it, in Maroc the locals liked me, and my partner more, simply because we were Australians, and not French, British or American.

circusmind 5:14 pm 30 Apr 08

Thumper said :

Republicanism is really nothing more than symbolism, albeit, symbolism in a big way.

Constitutional reform, to be fair, is a hell of a lot more than just symbolism.

tap 4:58 pm 30 Apr 08

That was a question not a statement Thumper… tut tut, misquoting…

But I do agree, it is too early to tell that, just as it is too early to tell if he is full of hot air or not.

Nothing like booting out a monarchy to shake up some ingrained beliefs though hey?

I was referring to us as a nation, which is different to the nationals individuals. I think the sport analogy is one reason that makes us seem like we have an inferiority complex.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site