Month: July 2023

Australia’s favourite dictator, Comrade Kim Jong-Dan of the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria, has struck again. After spending months negotiating for Victoria to hold the 2026 Commonwealth Games — and running on that platform — he cancelled the games. After only a few months, the same people who said that the games would cost A$2 billion suddenly realised that they’d cost A$7 billion. Of course, cost overruns and unexpected cost increases are part of any building process. But… A difference of A$5 billion within months is a bit much. Part of the Victorian Labour Party’s strength in regional cities at the last election came from the promise of new infrastructure and facilities as a result of the Commonwealth Games.

That the games would be expensive was already well-known. South Australia had explored a bid, but chose not to proceed after they concluded it would be a loss-maker. Other Australian officials, such as the premier of Western Australia, held the same stance. That’s political maturity and responsibility. If something is going to cost more than it’s worth, don’t bid on it — or, at very least, cancel a bit early on. For athletes from Commonwealth countries, the Commonwealth games are a good chance to shine. They receive global exposure, but don’t have the Americans or Chinese crowding them out.

The games themselves are not in doubt. The UK and India are ready to host the games on relatively short notice, should the Gold Coast, which is prepared to hold the games, not go through. (Anastasia of the South Seas and Canberra would have to provide some funding — a possibility, but not a guarantee) What bemuses me is that Comrade Kim Jong-Dan acts with such brazen impunity. To begin with, the cost overrun of A$5 billion within months is not insubstantial. In any reasonable jurisdiction, heads would roll. The sudden cancellation will most likely cost billions in compensation. Again, in any reasonable jurisdiction, the head would be in hot water. Not in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria, it seems. Although there is a Senate inquiry in the works, it’s less certain what will come of it.

In recent days there has been a viral video circulating around the world of a German woman dragging an eco-freak off a road in Bottrop by the hair — twice. For those who have not seen the masterpiece, I have found a short clip which has the bonus of a driver in a black Mercedes-Benz knocking another-freak over.

There has been some confusion about what will happen. I will seek to explain the German legal context to you, my dear fellow Charioteers. Under German law, the eco-freaks will be charged with various offences. This particular group were merely annoying. Others attach themselves to roads with resins, etc. They will be removed, using jackhammers if necessary. They will be held financially liable for the damage done to the road in order to get them unstuck.

The amount of assistance provided to remove them from the road will, however, be strictly limited. Once removed, they will be sent on their way with court dates to follow. In many cases, they will still have blocks of asphalt, cement or concrete attached their hands. If two people attached themselves to the road in close proximity, they two will remain attached to either other. It is up to them to get the remnants of the road removed. Depending on what was used, it can be a very long, painful process.

Unfortunately… The heroine of the day, the woman who pulled the eco-freak by the hair, will most likely also face charges. However deserved, German law frowns down on people taking physically aggressive action against others — even if they’re in the wrong, unless it is strictly necessary for self-defence. The Mercedes driver will most likely also face charges. That this will turn them into martyrs with an international following is entirely irrelevant. German law, and German prosecutors (persecutors?) are almost autistic in their inability to understand when prosecuting (persecuting?) someone will cause the people and the state more harm than good.

Recently, at a work-related meeting in Copenhagen, I had the opportunity to here a republican Scotsman opine about the nature of monarchy. In his view, it’s an essentially racist, classist and parasitic institution — whether it’s back in the UK, Denmark or Sweden.

I didn’t bother engaging him all too much. It did, however, make me ponder that thought process. He is a reasonably intelligent man, but his views are not grounded in reality.There is a myth of the republic — that a republic is somehow more meritorious, that it is somehow more egalitarian.

The two great modern republics, the United States and France, would seem to embody the exact opposite of those republican myths. Both the US and France have social hierarchies, both have a history of less than stellar treatment of visible minorities and it’s hard to argue that American or French presidents have been “men of the people”. The United States, in part, was formed as a response to growing pressures in Britain to end slavery. There was a sense that it was not a question of if Britain would end slavery, but when. Twelve of the first eighteen US presidents were slave owners.

In South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, part of the drive towards becoming republics was the desire to remove the influence of the Crown in domestic race politics. On his visit to South Africa in 1947, King George VI defied South African politicians and personally pinned medals on black South African soldiers. The Crown was making its discomfort with Apartheid and its Southern Rhodesian equivalent known with some regularity. Even that pales in comparison with the brutality of Argentinean and Chilean republics. Without the brake that the Spanish Crown had been, early South American republics engaged in genocides against indigenous peoples. There was a fear that they, too, would become mestizo societies in the Mexican fashion.

I have similarly wondered about the nature of cost. French, American, German, Irish, Italian and Austrian presidents receive pensions for life. Former PMs, when applicable, also receive life pensions. In the USA, that means that six men are receiving presidential salaries. Likewise, in France, relatively recently five men were receiving presidential salaries. In Germany, it’s six. American, French, German, Irish, Italian and Austrian presidents live in mansions/palaces. These are not humble, modest estates. A primary difference is that these residences are not necessarily open to the public as museums. Although visits are possible, they’re strictly controlled.