I can see you, but you can't see me.

Imagine a park with hundreds of people sitting down, perhaps having a nice picnic, or just taking a break from all the stress in their lives. Suddenly, music starts being played from the large building across the road to try and promote a more cheerful environment, people enjoying what they do. A person gets up and starts dancing to the music. Nobody gets up at first and it can be said that the person dancing is rebelling against the norm and not conforming to the rest of the group. The people sitting down are conforming to each other. However, a second person decides to get up and join the first, then a few more, and more. Soon, you have every person but one dancing to the music. The person sitting down is rebelling against the new norm and is not conforming.

The questions I propose in this scenario is: At what stage did conformity shift? When did the rebellious person become a leader of conformity?

I ask this because conformity itself is a very strange concept. There is no universal definition of what conformity is composed of and no standard of measurement to express when conformity occurs. So if there is no universal way of knowing what conformity is, how do we know we are conforming to anything at all? If a lawyer turned up in board shorts to a courthouse, we say he/she is not conforming to the traditions, but if all the lawyers turned up in board shorts to a courthouse, are they still not conforming to the traditions? Who established these traditions anyway? Well, humans did. So if we can establish traditions about conformity, can't we also change them?

Why do we need to change traditions? Well, Australia is a multi-cultural society and currently, we are in the debate of whether Middle-Eastern women should be allowed to wear those things that cover their entire faces and show no facial features apart from the eyes (Sorry, I don't know the proper name). So the argument is that they should be banned from wearing them in Australia (in the public) because it is quote: "un-Australian" and not part of the Australian culture. They are not conforming and accepting Australian "values". Well, that's all nice, but if women didn't wear them in the Middle-Eastern countries, then the Western people are not conforming to their culture. If every woman wore it in Australia, does it change the idea about conformity? Vice versa in the Middle-Eastern countries.

We say we need to accept other cultures and 'tolerate' them, yet we ask them to conform to the Australian way of life, dubbing everything that seems unusual "un-Australian". Perhaps we change our traditions and our perceptions to change how conformity is viewed.

The Road Not Taken.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So I want to talk about that article taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Australian Federal Government has recently proposed to pass a legislation which bans and censors certain material and sites on the internet. From experimental tests, it has shown than the filters are able to be bypassed. I don't understand why Australia is all of a sudden wanting to establish the "Great Firewall of Australia" as it has been coined. The most technical literate would be able to bypass the filters set by ISPs easily. Australia is in my opinion, denying citizens the right to movement in the cyber world and be able to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Having compulsory filtering of internet sites and material is clearly denying information to the Australian public, no matter how controversial it is. We all have our own established opinions on what is right and wrong, our own moral and ethical code and for the Federal Government to intervene and interfere with our freedom is unacceptable behaviour.

Since it can be bypassed, I don't know why the government is still pushing for the legislation to be passes through parliament even with critiques. I think Australia is making a very wrong move in "protecting" the Australian civilians by having censorship on information, denying knowledge and education of the outside world.

I thought Australia was a free country if not the best. I am now having second thoughts. What happened to democracy?

Tear the roots from the earth.

In all of debate within the last 30 or so years, Australia has tried to become a republic. A referendum was held and it lost as it did not get a majority of both individuals and states. Why is this the situation?

As it turns out, I think when individuals voted during the referendum, many people did not understand the political structure, the economic structure as well as complex legal structures that relates to a republic. Those many have no idea of what a republic is like and fears that it may as well be related to a communist rule. That I believe is one primary reason for the failure of Australia becoming a republic.

Australia should become a republic, where we can establish our own identity instead of following the lead of the British. The royal family does not even have any impact or influence to Australia in this modern era. There is hardly any communication within. It is time to break away from tradition. It is time to let the people of Australia determine Australia for who we are. The British is already losing their power over us, so why not break from it entirely? There is no point to be hanging from a thread in this situation.

The individuals must understand that a republic is more or less controlled by the people within that nation. It is similar to what we have now, but only without a queen. All systemic structures can remain unchanged and we no longer need a Governor-General to sit in the Australian Parliaments and pass all Bills and Sign all Acts. What a waste of an effort. It is one extra barrier to having what the people really want.

There are benefits and costs to becoming a republic. But the opportunity cost to Australia becoming a republic is giving up time and transition, in which during that time, may result in many complications, conflict and frustration. However, once that period passes away, everyone will be enjoying life without a monarch.

Why stay with "Mother England" when they are hardly looking after us? Why, when they neglected us in World War 2? Why, when we are capable of running a country by ourselves without a head monarch authority?

It is time to break away in this new modern world of the twenty-first century, from our earthly roots.