|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Notwithstanding Ali-ops' attempts at censorship, serious POV existed which I have deleted:
"...he counselled Australians of Irish Catholic extraction to stay out of Irish politics."
No source for this highly dubious assertion/opinion.
"In Australia at this time, Catholics were commonly treated as an underclass by the Anglo-Scottish Protestant Ascendancy..."
This is pure POV, and is factually incorrect. There was no Ascendancy in Australia or Scotland, only in Ireland, which as an Irishman, Ali-oops should have known.
22.214.171.124 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad you at least tweaked it for NPOV, Mr. Sieger. It reads a lot better now - I'm okay with it the way it is now. Oh, and quit with the cries of 'censorship', Robert - Ali-oops✍ 07:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Even without an official anglo-australian protestant Ascendancy, protestants dominated Australian business and social life (and still do), and, during Mannix's lifetime, commonly treated Catholics as an underclass. As recently as 1982, the right-wing Federal Government of Malcolm Fraser contained only one Catholic Cabinet Minister (Philip Lynch), despite Catholics forming a third of the Australian population, and being the largest single denomination. 2006-06-11.
It should also be noted that Australia's head of state is the Sovereign of the UK, and the laws of Britain still prohibit Roman Catholics holding this position or being married to the position-holder. Australia's constitution thus still discriminates, just as Britain's does, against Catholics. 2006-06-11.
I have to take issue with the above. Firstly, although Sir Philip Lynch being the sole Catholic in Fraser's Cabinet is certainly an "under-representation", it is NOT true that Catholics made up 1/3 of the population. I think the current level of just over 1/4 is about the peak proportion. Also in 1982 I believe the Anglican Church (Church of England in Australia as it was called at the start of the year) was the biggest single denomination. Don't project current demographics onto the past please. You also have to balance this out against, say, the Chifley Government, which was dominated by Catholics (lapsed or active) despite only 20% of the population being Catholic at the time (it was before mass Italian immigration). Catholics dominated the ALP for much of the post 1917 split period, and certainly dominate the NSW Right (which is by far the strongest bloc, making and unmaking leaders and Prime Ministers).
The restriction on the monarch being Catholic (whilst being anti-Catholic) is actually a restriction on the Monarch, not Catholics.
Protestants did (do - if you classify anyone who ISN'T Catholic as "protestant") dominate Australian life, but this is due to them being a majority! You may as well say that white "Anglo-Celts" dominate Australian social, sporting and business life and this somehow "proves" that Australia is "racist". Catholics could also be every bit as chauvinistic as you claim “Protestants” are. My mother told me that when she was in the railways (‘60’s/’70’s – at the end of this period) to “get anywhere” it was common knowledge that you had to be either a) a freemason or b) Catholic! You can argue about Catholics being “forced” to act like this, but the fact is they did, and many still do.
Finally, the “Ascendency” refers to a period in Irish History. It was a time when the penal laws were in force. A time when there were restrictions on Catholic land ownership: Catholics couldn’t purchase land for example. Catholics were also excluded from all government appointments, denied the vote on the basis of Catholicism (rather than property qualification) and severe restrictions on Catholic Church practices (Bishops were banned in Ireland; no permanent Churches were allowed for Catholic worship). Protestants, a small minority, owned the vast bulk of the land, and exclusively comprised the Irish Parliament; made up all judiciary offices etc. Whatever evils of sectarianism there were in Australia, there is certainly nothing that can compare in any meaningful way to this, certainly not during Manix’s time in Australia much less today. At all times in its history the majority of voters for the ALP were non-Catholics (would have been Protestants in the old sectarian days). Yet they voted for a practicing Catholic in the form of Scullin (enough to make him PM); lapsed Catholics in Curtin and Chifley (they won huge majorities) and a practicing Catholic in Calwall (he came close to being PM in 1961, and was denied due to opposition from the Catholic DLP!). However much discrimination there may have been at times in Australia, it cannot be called a “Protestant Ascendency”, particularly since the Irish term specifically refers to a minority lording it over the majority, not the other way round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The article needs to cover Mannix's influence on the ALP more than it does. He held a huge amount of influence across much of the ALP. It was Mannix and his anti-Communist sympathizers who kept the ALP split and out of power until 1973. Mannix saw the ALP as being the political wing of the Catholic church. This situation has now been fully reversed, since the election of A.J. Abbott. The ALP has purged itself of religious influence, while the conservatives are now riddled with it. The religious indulgences practiced by Abbott's cabinet are far more overt than ever practiced by Mannix and his minions. Pell is the new Mannix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The page has been protected for three weeks now, and no substantive discussion has occurred on the talk page. Can we request unprotection? Calwatch 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that Daniel Patrick sounds like a good guy and should not be deleted
Mannix is listed as daniel 'patrick' mannix. I can find no evidence at all, other than that it is sometimes quoted, that mannix had any aecond christian (given) name. Other than here, and in the "oxford companion to aus history" (morag fraser's entry), he is everywhere else just plain 'daniel' - he is not 'patrick' on his death certificate, his tombstone, any of his foundation stones, any of his biographies, the ADB, barry jones' dictionary of world biography. Could someone in authority adjudicate, please? patrick184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Patrick! Thanks for pointing this out, I've checked a couple of online sources, and I too can't find any reference to him having a middle name (the Australian Dictionary of Biography doesn't have one, and it's usually pretty good with middle names, see here). I've removed it from the article. In the future, you should absolutely feel free to make changes like this yourself, all users, including new ones, are encouraged to be bold when updating pages. If you have any further questions about contributing, please feel free to let me know on my talkpage! -- Lear's Fool 21:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)