If “some people” are  claiming “a general redundancy of Christianity, or even religion in general”, do these same people have the same attitude to non-religious organisations, carers, atheism in general, state schools – all areas where child abuse occurs and will continue to occur.

Or, is this just more anti-Christian bigotry from an ALP Socialist Left blogger? My money is on the Christianophobic attitude of his political spectrum.

ttbn ; PLS Read the WHOLE article through and you will see that the article is 'pro-Christianity' ; though exploring this from a broader philosophical perspectives which considers other religions also.

Christianity? A Religion founded exclusively on the teachings of a reformist Jewish Rabbi? Allegedly.

Even so, where did he say or write that all those who spoke for him/interpreted his gospel, needed to be, both men and celibate?

Esoteric Christians never built edifices to glorify God, but met in followers homes to break bread in remembrance.

Where in the Master's sermons did he give authority for priests to hear confession or forgive sin.

I say they have no such authority, given it was never ever given, implied or even inferred? NEVER!

Confession may be good for the soul? But surely, it's something between man and his (everywhere present, all powerful) maker! Minus the self imposed intermediary?

Where do we go when we die?

Well we certainly go somewhere. And I say that as someone who thus far has opened the door on no less than three occasions and returned.

My own sainted mother came back to visit as a disembodied spirit 3 days after we buried her mortal remains. And given my state at the time just 27 days after I buried my father, a great reassuring comfort!

I do know this much, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

Those with much, have much responsibility to the least amongst us, those with the most, the most responsibility.

Understand, wealth and privilege is just a tool to make our world a better place for all of us! Rather than mere self aggrandisement or to fulfil an ambition to become the richest man in the graveyard!

Even if you are the biggest, most illustrious, puffed up popinjay, standing tall on the highest tower, in the entire world!?

One day, not too far ahead in time, they will bury you beneath it!

Hell is not a pleasant place, but as dark and desolate as the dark side of the moon, where all you see is the occasional glow of red, unimaginable predatory nightmares, a night that lasts forever and filled with ever mounting terror!
Alan B.

Considering its obvious limitations it was quite a good essay. Much better than the usual nonsense that Sells writes.

But where does the Teaching and the Living Demonstration of Truth come from?
It certainly does not come from the usual dreadfully sane believer either conservative or progressive convicted as they are of being a sinner - that is completely Godless.

This essay gives a unique Understanding of the radical non-Christian teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee, and of esoteric Spiritual Religion too.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/birthday_message/index.html

And of course the fundamental motive or unconscious drive at the root of everyone's philosophy whether secular or what is usually promoted as "religious" is the (understandable) avoidance of the confrontation with death, and what it requires of us.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/dying_death_and_beyond/index.html
http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp

Alan, you first couple of sentences I will have to agree with, but after that, all I can say is, "It is all in your mind". You don't need to be a schizonphrenic to have visions, but at times of emotional stress, the mind can do all sorts of unexplainable things.

The Christian church teaches the very young that we are all born sinners and if you keep sinning, you will end up in Hell. If you believe that, then they have you in their grip for the rest of your life. Better to forget all that crap and accept the fact that at the end of your life, you die, and that is the end of the matter. You will be a much happier person.

Finally, don't believe that the birth of Jesus is going to bring "Peace on Earth". It hasn't happened yet and with people like Trump in the White House, is just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

David

How can one take seriously a religion that claims virgins can become pregnant and corpses can come back to life? How can one take seriously a religion with an unparalleled record of suppression of dissent and violence - Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of the Reformation, Dark Ages, execution of scientists, Hypatia, Servetus, Bruno, Holocaust, slavery & massacre of indigenous people, murder of heretics & non-Christians. It cannot be taken seriously if reason applies. It can be taken seriously as a plague on humanity.

For a perfect example of how absurd and completely divorced from any kind of reality whether conditional or Spiritual even the seemingly most sophisticated Christian mind-games are check out the new essay by Alison Milbank on the ABC Religion and Ethics website.

Alison is considered by her many admirers to be a hot-shot theologian and/or "authority" on Christian doctrine and "faith". She is also associated with the the fanciful/delusional "radical orthodoxy" movement.

' How can one take seriously a religion that claims virgins can become pregnant and corpses can come back to life? '

yeah certainly by faith davidf but made much easier to believe when you read of the totally unscientific and irratrional something from nothing fantasy and total irrationality of the evolution myth. Add to that the fruit of secularism being as ugly as Islam it actually becomes much easier to believe. In fact compared with the totally immoral secularist dogmas, Christianity or Christ's claims make much more sense. I suspect Jesus was 100 times more honest than you.

The less said about Christianity at Christmas the better. Bah Humbug!! Scrooge be my beacon.

Christmas, after all, is out of place at the beginning of serious Summer heat in Australia. Christmas is an inherently Northern Hemisphere festival centered on December 25 being the winter solstice, the shortest, pretty darn cold and darkest day of the year.

I like to think that the peace-loving Vikings snuggled up and took hold of each others' yuletide log at Chrissie.

Pete's Yule celebration predates Christian holidays and traditions by thousands of years.

The earliest recorded evidence of Pete's Yule is in the Germanic month names Ærra Jéola/Jiuli which is before Yule and Æftera Jéola after Yule. Researchers have found a connection with the festivities to the Wild Hunt, between the god Odin and the pagan Anglo-Saxon Modranicht.

The Midwinter Feast lasted twelve days which is where our modern twelve days of Christmas comes from. The Vikings made sure to honor their Gods with traditions, feasting, and religious rituals. One of their rituals required a sacrificial wild boar to the god Frey of fertility and farming in hopes for a productive season.

Any of youse Vikings know the Pete's Yule Goat Gävle is a traditional Christmas display Erected every year at Slottstorget in central Gävle.

Let all us pre-Christian Vikings, sundry pagans and non-religios celebrate the gift of giving and kindness on 25 December 2017.

Go Vikings go!

Yours

Pete Ironside von Ragnar

http://inventorybag.com/blogs/normandescendants/christmas-yule-traditions-viking-origins

Dear runner, There is good evidence for evolution and other scientific theories. There is absolutely no evidence for virgin birth and resurrection. I assume that you will continue to believe in nonsense, I will continue to be more honest than Jesus, Thor, Apollo or any other mythical or semi-mythical figure you care to name. May you be in good health and enjoy your life. Have a merry superstition.

yes David and may you enjoy your something from nothing chance god!

I enjoyed the article Tristan. A good defense for people looking to religions, by considering sone holes in the perspective that nothing spiritual or religous is real.

Regardless of being a left Christian, a right Christian, or something else entirely, Christmas is a celibration of Jesus's birth and God's love. With that in mind I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas.

Thanks ; I appreciate the sentiment :)

May all the contributors on this list and people everywhere have a good year, enjoy the wonders of the world we live in, question and have compassion for others.

To David f.

I think you give Christianity too much credit, and for all the wrong things credited to it. The Holicost for instance. Can Christianity take credit for Hitler? Can Hitler be counted as Christian if he oppressed Christians that, based on their beliefs, stood against Him? If I am right about Christianity not being the blame for this evil, then perhaps it could be looked at simularily about other evils placed in the name of Christianity, only to be found that they aren't Christian at all.

Where there is critism let it be real and hold merit. Let Christians live by their beliefs and the teachings in their religion, and test them on the merit of the Christians who are Christian in more ways then just their name and claim. I say this because there are errors in our communities. And if a nonbeliever is able to point them out then hopefully that will help the Christian and his/her community. Often I'd observe that much of the issue can be traced to not actually living up to the teachings of Jesus. So an honest critism is of value only if it holds merit.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If you can do this you will excape the hype against Christianity. It is not a plague, but all to often is a sturdy glue for society. Hope for the sorrowful and the hopeless alike. Teachings to love God (He is real by the way) to give generously, love one another, respect authority, and to not compromise on their faith. Many hospitals and schools are started in poor areas by Christians, or if not them then by other religion's follower. Not many schools (if any) can claim it was started in a poor community without religous roots as the foundation of the school. And though medical science has advanced hospitals, I'd wager the same kinds of roots are in the history of most hospitals that are the foundation of any country.

A plague might be a bit much. Too much credit, without merit to what is being blamed on it. Let each religous belief be judged on the values it practices. And then after that on the people who don't practice them. Not the other way around. First judged by the people who do not practice what they believe.

Either way, I wish you a wonderful new year too. And in this season compassion for those with little, and with those who have lost loved ones. Have a Merry Christmas. :)

David: You don't have to be under stress to have a vision and one that communicated a silent message, only her and I understood! The fact you clearly don't believe in an afterlife? Doesn't confirm or deny an afterlife!

The apparition could have been literal or real, or the product of your alleged stress? Either explanation has an equal possibility of being true, rather than what you chose to believe or summarily discount!

Moreover, as someone who has opened death's door on no less than three occasions and returned! I'll thank you to keep your witness free assumptions/asertions to yourself.

After all and to coin a phrase, you are not the suppository of all wisdom!

That said do try to enjoy the Christian festive season and goodwill to all men. It doesn't hurt I assure you.
Alan B.

Thankyou NNS.

Alan ; I think you mean "Depository". :)

Suppose Alan means " All waste generated from this ore is still present in the gray upper layer (4 million tons) of the waste depository, which thus contains 800 tons of thorium or 9 10 tons of ThO2 unevenly dispersed in hardened shale ash."

Dear David,

«enjoy the wonders of the world we live in»

I would like to believe that you sincerely wish us all well, then why is this curse sandwiched between your blessings?

The aim of religion is to return to God, rather than to remain addicted and trapped in the wonders of the world.

So I consider this an honest error and I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a really good year and also to thank you for your roll in purifying religion.

Intelligent, questioning atheists, have an important religious role: just as the human body cannot function and survive for long without its eliminative systems, no religion can function and survive for long without being questioned by atheists.

Here is what Shri Aurobindo has to say on atheism:

"Atheism is a necessary protest against the wickedness of the Churches and the narrowness of creeds. God uses it as a stone to smash these soiled card-houses."

"There are two for whom there is hope, the man who has felt God’s touch & been drawn to it and the sceptical seeker & self-convinced atheist; but for the formularists of all the religions & the parrots of free thought, they are dead souls who follow a death that they call living."

"Atheism is the shadow or dark side of the highest perception of God. Every formula we frame about God, though always true as a symbol, becomes false when we accept it as a sufficient formula. The Atheist & Agnostic come to remind us of our error."

For more, read http://auromere.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/on-atheism-and-agnosticism-2

Dear Alan B,

As long as I don't attack anybody or am rude I don't feel I have to keep any of my ideas to myself nor do you have to keep any of your ideas to yourself.

Christianity can take credit for Hitler. Nazi newspapers printed Martin Luther's sermons against the Jews verbatim.

The centuries of hatred against Jews promoted by both the Lutheran and Catholic Churches made the German people ripe for Hitler's message that the Jews were to blame for Germany's difficulties.

Although the Catholic church has excommunicated, imprisoned and burned people at the stake Hitler was never excommunicated and died a Catholic in good standing. He even made a Concordat with the Vatican.

Individual Christians opposed Hitler, but none of the German Christian churches did nor supported those who opposed Hitler.

Although Hitler was not an enthusiastic Christian he was supported by most of the German churches who prepared the ground work for accepting the extermination of Jews.

German Christianity has a long history of persecuting, exiling and massacring Jews. Hitler carried on the tradition.

David F ; The Vatican tried diplomatic measures with Hitler it's true. Hitler had backed Franco ; and the hope from the Vatican was that Hitler would leave them be. In 1938 Hitler responded by marching into Austria - deposing the 'Austro-Fascist' (Clerical/Monarchist) regime there. Earlier on German agents organised the assassination of the Austro-Fascist leader, Dolfuss. So - things were complex. (nb: I'm also a democratic socialist ; and would have stood with the Social Democrats against the Austro-Fascists when they took power in 1934) Hitler subordinated every civil institution to the Nazi state. Of course those who valued their lives backed him. But the churches in the Commonwealth and the United States supported the Allies. Point being that the churches all over the world were largely subordinated to secular power. Rare people like Bonhoeffer paid with their lives. You cannot 'pin' responsibility for Nazism on Christianity. German ethno-nationalism also had Pagan undertones. Half of Germany DID NOT vote for Hitler- including Christians. People 'buckled under' for fear of their lives once the totalitarian state, Gestapo, state surveillance and Terror apparatus were established. In any case it's exactly my point in the article that the church organisations get corrupted - and true Christians find God and Christ in their own way. The Churches will always have their frauds and careerists. But there are plenty of genuine people as well. Though some of those get taken advantage of by people in the hierarchies who are not genuine.

To David F.

Because I have heard mixed info regarding Hitler's religous stance I googled if Hitler was a Christian. This is what I found.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/26/was-hitler-a-christian-an-atheist-or-neither/

It's a book review on Richard Weikart's book, "Hitler's Religion." Though I'm sure the book goes into more detail, the review is very enlightening. It also supports many of the things I've heard regarding Hitler. He was in no way a Christian, except to first use it for political power, and then to oppress both Lutheran and Catholic Churches. Read the review.

Neither the article nor any comment has pointed out the obvious, urgent action which the church should take, which is to campaign for the death penalty for paedophiles.

That's it , many have steeples which are easily converted to gallows.
Or the altar is ideal for strapping down and injecting at 11 am Sunday morning. Burying alive is an attractive religious rite. Laymen can perform the honours for the reverend father bless him.

Christianity can take credit for Hitler? Death penalty for paedophiles? Some posters get more naive by the day. Or should that be 'nuttier' by the day.

The magi priests were linked with bribes , drugs and the young boy. His mother was handed gold and the drugs are suspicious: Frankincense helps relieve chronic stress and anxiety. Myrrh has also been recommended as an analgesic for toothaches and can be used in linament for bruises, aches, and sprains. The 3 wise men discussed the boy with Herod who had his own deviancy. Herod the Great was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431) and ordered mass infanticide , paedocida, and the act would be paedocidium of 2 year old boys. The star of Bethlehem led the drug-pushers from the east and is the main suspect and was probably a Media celebrity. Persian king Cyrus' clothing is described by Xenophon : “A purple tunic shot with white , trousers of scarlet dye about his legs, and a mantle all of purple.” King Darius III : "The attire of the king was beyond all else ; a purple-edged tunic woven about a white centre, a cloak of cloth of gold, ornamented with gold ; from a golden belt, with which he was girt woman fashion, he had hung a scabbard which was a single gem."

Jesus survived the abuse, appeared at the royal commission and was executed.

Do the 'Philosophical arguments about religion at Christmas' have anything to say about Indigenous religions/spirituality?

Wandjina of Kimberley and Lightning Brothers of Katherine NT are dated at 400-600 years old. They wear long striped robes and pointed turbans resembling Indonesian-Thailand Buddhist deities with a sword.

The Church in south India probably influenced the Matsya Purana text of Tamil Nadu's Pandya dynasty about the flood and known in Indonesia. Its details are like the Pundu legend of creating the Darling-Murray rivers.

leoj ; no I didn't mention indigenous religious belief specifically. I should have. Insofar as I'm arguing religious liberties of course that extends to indigenous peoples as well. And I think some indigenous beliefs have real symbolic meaning also.

Christmas isn't even a Christian holiday... There is no evidence that Jesus was born on the 25th December whatsoever so why do Christians celebrate Jesus supposed birthday on the birthday of Pagan and other Gods?...lmao

There are heaps of Catholics and other believers in the ALP so poor ttbc is doing exactly what he claims others do...

The pot calling the kettle black is always a good sign of a lack of intellect and character...lol ttbn seems over qualified in these area...lol

Happy Christmas, Horusmas, Mithramas, Krishnamas, Attismas, Dionysusmas or whatever other being you choose to worship ttbn...lmao :)

Oh look....

Jesus : Israel 2000 years ago, Celebrated birth (see below) 25th December, virgin birth,Star in the East, 12 disciples, Performed miracles,Dead for 3 days then resurrected, Teacher at 12, Baptized age 30.

Horus : Egypt 3000BC Born 25th December, virgin birth, Star in the East, Adorned 3 kings, 12 disciples, baptized age 30, Teacher at 12.

Mithra : Persia 1200BC Born 25th December, virgin birth, Performed miracles, Dead for 3 days then resurrected.

Krishna : India 900BC Virgin birth, Star in the East, Performed miracles, resurrected.

Attis : Greece 1200BC Born 25th December, virgin birth, Crucified dead 3 days then resurrected.

Dionysus Greece 500BC Born 25th December, virgin birth, Performed miracles, King of Knings, Alpha and Omega, Resurrected

Fact : The arch of Constantine is adorned with images of the goddess Victoria and when it was dedicated sacrifices to gods including Apollo, Diana, and Hercules were made. There are no Christian symbols on the Arch whatsoever.

One imbecilic Christian wrote...The Bible doesn't mention the 25th of December as the birth date of Jesus so Christians don't care about these dates of these other Gods being the same...lol He is correct...so why celebrate it on the day of all these other Gods?

That Constantine was a clever manipulator...lmao And you guys all have fallen for the trick... TOP EFFORT!...lmao

Merry Whoever you worship day...lmao

david f, wasn't responding to you, but another DAVID.

That said, some evolutionists are clearly more fanatical about their fundamentally flawed, belief based system of explaining, the universe and everything. Simply put, and given energy can neither be created nor destroyed! Something from nothing can only be explained by a creative force or magic.

Moreover, and given comparative complexity! It would be easier for a whirlwind to whip through a junkyard and create a fully assembled and flyable 747 than chance and serendipity, alias evolution, to create something vastly more complex, i.e., a living, breathing, thinking (sometimes) man.

Tristian. I said and meant suppository, although suggesting he talk from a little higher up? Might have been too obvious? And it's the season of goodwill?

Besides, I was quoting Mr Tony Abbott, an all too obvious expert in all such allied matters, objects or substance? And indeed, where to put them? Along with the majority of his very best ideas and achievable outcomes?

That said. I wish you all a very merry Christmas and hope that's it's your fondest dreams that come true/are realised. And, (lang may yer lumrick.)

And if you intend to tipple with any enthusiasm? Drive your drink home, then get thoroughly plastered there. As opposed to drinking then driving into the front of a bus or a bulldozer or worse, Santa making a delivery.

Cheers and best wishes.
Alan B.

Alan B...

You said ....It would be easier for a whirlwind to whip through a junkyard and create a fully assembled and flyable 747 than chance and serendipity, alias evolution, to create something vastly more complex, i.e., a living, breathing, thinking (sometimes) man.

So prove it..Has it ever happened? Any junkyards being blown into a fully operational 747 that you know of?

The Theory of Evolution is happening before your very eyes and you miss it.

Let me point it out to you...

Religious people who believe with no evidence whatsoever God drowned everyone on Earth in a flood except 8 humans and pairs of each animal species, or who believe in talking snakes, or who believe in a murderous, vengeful God are at best standing still.

Others who have turned to a more educated scientific approach to understanding the past and where we came from are moving forward thus are evolving.

Seeing the ones who want to learn are evolving that means the Abrahamic religious among us are devolving.

Viruses and Bacteria are evolving right before researchers eyes or are you saying that is the hand of God making these viruses and bacterium more dangerous to man?

The theory of God is a very interesting and simplistic theory that may be true BUT it's problems lie mainly in it's believers... An influx of brains into those ranks would improve the average IQ dramatically and might actually assist it, but brains tend to notice the holes in that theory.

As evolution is a Theory, it means that correctly, science has left the door open for future discoveries that may alter the theory. Now that is using our God given brains correctly...If they were given to us by God.

What does that say for the believers in talking snakes and other absurdities? God loves them so much that he made them more dense than the rest of us?...lol

Christmas isn't a Christian celebration...The Pharasaical religions tricked you all into celebrating the birthdays of non-existant pagan Gods and you do it willingly...lmao

Christians don't own Christmas they just think they do!...lol

Alan, I am big enough to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I have been around for long enough to know that the Christian churches as they presently stand know sfa about the origin of man or what happens to us when we die.

David

Dear Tristin Ewins, You wrote, “and true Christians find God and Christ in their own way.” When a Christian uses the phrase “true Christian” he or she generally means those Christians whose actions he or she approves of. I do not make such a differentiation. IMHO Christians who opposed Hitler and Christians who supported Hitler were all true Christians. Some Christians behave in a manner I approve of, and some Christians behave in a manner I disapprove of. However, I do not define Christians as “true” because I approve their actions. Christians may forget that the one they worship, namely Jesus Christ, was not any kind of Christian, either true or false. Christians claim to follow Christ, but they do not follow Christ’s religion. As far as I am concerned no follower of Christ can be a Christian. From my reading of history Christianity was founded by Paul not Jesus. As an American I admire the Christians Roger Williams, John Brown and Martin Luther King jr. I despise the Christians Robert E. Lee and Benedict Arnold. However, none of them followed Jesus’ religion. Dear Not_Now_Soon, The Catholic Church did not excommunicate Hitler although they excommunicated many other Catholics. Apparently His actions did not merit excommunication. As far as the Catholic Church was concerned he remained a Christian. I am not aware of any German church during his rule denying his Christianity. Whether one is or is not a Christian is determined not by one’s thoughts or actions but by the acceptance of a church and/or other Christians. That criterion applies to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others. Hitler was a Christian. Jesus wasn’t. Dear Leo Lane, The death penalty for paedophiles like the death penalty for other criminals does not undo what the criminals have done. Paedophiles may be under a pathologic compulsion while those who cover up their actions may simply be working in the interests of a corrupt bureaucracy. The death penalty for those covering up the actions of the paedophiles does not undo the actions of the paedophiles either. The death penalty merely makes the state a murderer.

Found a moral conscience davidf. How amazing.

I agree that the death penalty is another form of murder - no matter how bad the crime ; or how despicable the person.

Dear runner, It is not amazing that I found a moral conscience since I never lost my moral conscience. Unlike you my moral conscience has nothing to do with believing in nonsense.

Dear runner, That was not a good comment on my part. My moral conscience compels me to apologise to you. I wish you well.

It never ceases to amuse me just how sophisticated the thinking of those Rightists, who want to distance Christianity from Hitler, can get in order to achieve the above stated (and rightly so, too). Yet, when it comes to falsely passing-off Nazism as some sort of a left-wing ideology, all it takes is the word "Socialist" in their name.

Apparently, Rightists have never heard of a thing called a "misnomer".

I suppose the DPRK is really democractic too, eh?

"Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." - Adolf Hitler

http://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists

In a book, Life after life, the author, a practising doctor, relates literally hundreds of patients's recollection of near death experiences, which folk, who have never ever experienced the phenomena! Write it off as hallucination!

Because it dovetails with their from nothing to nothing, belief system, regardless of the facts, be they otherwise.

I drowned as a four year old child, was apparently found face down in a small creek on the farm, and reportedly for around ten minutes, the time it took an older sibling to run to the nearest neighbour and back, for help.

During this event, I have vivid memories of feeling hungry, wondering what was for tea and peeking over my mothers shoulder, as she prepared the evening meal. A drover's pie, a version of traditional cottage pie.

You'll be pleased no doubt, to learn that I survived. And surprised Mum by accurately recounting her secret ingredients, Parmesan cheese and paprika. And still only knee high!

Two other times have I opened deaths door and taken a butchers. The last the most memorable! I've already described elsewhere.

To reiterate, folk completely bereft of eyewitness experience happily write it off as hallucination, just one possible explanation while dismissing all else!

And have no answer for the reported factual account of a young man made comatose by a severe head injury and for years.

And although never ever and any time in this life, ever exposed to any Asian culture or folk! Awoke one day. able upon awakening, to speak fluent Mandarin the most difficult and complex language.

My explanation? And the most logical and persuasive? Recalled from memory of a previous life, lived as a Mandarin speaker.

More later. Alan B.

There are numerous similar experiences . The 6 shown on google all have explanations of previous language contact in childhood or at school. The memory of 1 language over-rides the usual language. Sometimes Thorium is a repeated theme as a flashback reaction until normal service is resumed.

Re the death penalty this essay http://www.dabase.org/p9rightness.htm was written in response to the execution of the former bad-guy leader of Iraq - who we were all taught to hate.

Re christians, and especially "catholics" and the nazis why not check out the contents of this truth-telling site: http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

And do a search on the psychotic murderer AntoN Pavelic. Pavelic murderous activites were given explicit support by the "catholic" hierarchy in both Croatia and the vatican.
After the war Pavelic and his murderous henchmen was given sanctuary in Rome courtesy of the vatican.
The vatican also set up and financed the rat-lines by which known nazi war criminals were given save passage to numerous other non European countries, especially in South America.
All of this was also given explicit approval by the "blessed saint" pope John Paul II. All of the relevant details are given in the book by David Yallop titled The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican. The book also describes in foot-noted details the dark (even murderous) applied politics promoted by John Paul during his papacy, including his DELIBERATE aggravation of the situation during the Kosovo crisis. Aggravations directly intended to target the "orthodox" Serbs and inflame the centuries long antagonisms between the "catholic" and "orthodox" churches.

Raised a Christian, without my informed consent. Attended mass/confession, regularly till just after my 12th B'day. Stopped altogether, aged 18.

The reason? Books and the difference between evidence based facts and the alleged Church an alleged Messiah (Constantine?) founded?

All theory has holes. None more so than the theory of evolution; which to be persuasive would have left vast deposits of nitrogenous coke behind, from the alleged primordial soup we allegedly (bong, bong) sprang from, abracadabra!

Although we've had a very thorough search over time, of the accessible crust. Nowhere have we found a glimmer of a speck of a grain of a scaric, of said nitrogenous coke anywhere, especially in that part of the crust, yet to undergo mantle folding! That might have proved the existence of said coke?

Evolution happening before my very eyes? Bah humbug.

All that is happening before my very eyes is adaptation! Only due to environmental changes that force or promote it, along with natural mutation.

Only possible due to intelligent design!?

Without which the organism any organism, simply succumbs to the changed environmental (frog in slowly heated water) circumstances.

As ever with fanatical environmental fundamentalists, their evidence free theories, founder on the rocks of, first principle foundations. i.e., one celled organisms and life came out of a billion long year ice age and slime, slime that begat bacteria that begat one cell organisms, abracadabra? What?

So where did this magical slime come from? Mars?

So, from whence it came? To arrive ever so conveniently at comfort stop, Mars?

Simply put, one just does not have to be Christian or a bible/book bashing fundamentalist to think, we just don't know enough facts! But especially the glaringly missing ones, to arrive at a plausible theory on life, the universe (unified field of energy) and everything in it!

All one can say with any measure of surety. We know we just don't know enough? To know anything for sure and for certain.

But dissemble and share known evidence based facts? And see where that leads?

Merry Christmas to one and all.
Alan B.

Merry Christmas Alan B. :)

Life after death. Seems to happen often enough to be paid attention to, even if it is rare. Thank you for sharing yours.

The folk on Mindino, having a brilliant Christmas this year aren't they?

Some very dear friends, celebrating their good fortune, their humble hovels reduced to rubble, others counting lucky stars, they're not also buried under tons of mud, like some of my dearest friends/family?

I could thank the resident Nazis for changing the rules/the goal posts after the decision/kick had been taken.

Marriage, sham or real, would've saved the taxpayer, around $20-$50,000.00 a year Care the government pays $40,000.00 for would've been replaced by dutiful, to death do us part, wife, for half that!

Moreover, the two extremely bright twins, who'd topped their class in English, would've been an instant asset.

But no. Instead I hold nicknamenick/his like minded "green" friends personally responsible for every life lost, every humble hovel flattened.

Why?

Because this depopulation event, while obviously excluding them, is part of a long range goal hidden agenda!

And why this creature, dogs my electronic trail! Trying to bury thorium, along with my friends and family! Well done Putin's puppet.

Imagine the catastrophe, Nick's, that could have ensued, if thorium, rather that trees were cooking the rice and fish?

And manmade endlessly sustainable alternative fuels, fertilizer plastics, been sourced from seawater, the promise of clean, cheap, safe energy!

Plus, would've provided plus the almost unlimited economically boosted outcome, that would've meant, fewer people needing large families! Their only real insurance against abandonment in old age/ill health.

Without question climate change, the carbon atmospheric load now in uncharted territory; extreme weather events are inextricably linked!

Can only be addressed by base load, carbon free, affordable electricity, even the third world can afford!

UNDERSTAND YET GENIUS?

Not everything we need or use, has to generate economy killing profit! But sometimes supplied in a cooperative capitalism, social compact!

You all have a nice Christmas and remember to dig deep when they pass the hat around for my dead or homeless CHRISTIAN Filipina friends/FAMILY!
Alan B.

. Dear Tristan, . You wrote at the outset of your article : « I will argue that there are philosophical reasons still to take Christianity – and religion more generally – seriously » Whether anyone likes it or not, Christianity and “religion more generally”, exist, and I don’t think that any reasonable person would not take them seriously. That is just plain common sense. . Then, before “exploring some broad philosophical questions”, you ask : « how to explain free-will ? » and « how to explain consciousness ? ». You declare that « most atheists (most likely philosophical materialists) have no answer for the questions ». The term “free will” has a moral or religious connotation. I prefer the term “autonomy”. If you accept that “free will” means “autonomy”, then all life forms dispose of a certain amount of autonomy or “free will”, without exception. It is a defining feature of life itself and evolves and develops as such. As for “consciousness”, the OED definition is « the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings ». Without consciousness, no life forms could survive. As Darwin observed, even earth worms have a well-developed sense of consciousness because, based on his close observations, they have to make judgments about the kinds of leafy matter they use to block their tunnels. Plants, shrubs, trees and other vegetation also deploy quite sophisticated strategies with their environment in order to accomplish various vital functions such as pollination, self-defence, and capturing food. Carnivorous plants are known to trap and feed on insects, spiders, lizards, sow bugs, tadpoles, and frogs, and even small mammals such as rats and rabbits. Although lacking an immune system comparable to animals, plants have developed a stunning array of structural, chemical, and protein-based defences designed to detect invading organisms and stop them before they are able to cause extensive damage. It is the mechanism that triggers these elementary biological functions that I consider to represent a form of consciousness. . (Continued …) .

. (Continued …) . And, unless I am mistaken, the range and sensitivity of consciousness varies from one species to another, from one individual to another, and even varies within the life span of each individual. In its more sophisticated, cognitive form, consciousness permits the perception of mental states, or so-called “qualia”, such as taste, smell, colour, feeling (the physical sensation) as well as the sense of movement produced when visioning a series of fixed images in rapid sequence – which appears to have permitted the subsequent development of the faculties of imagination and conceptualisation. It is this perception of movement that we are capable of deriving from a series of static images that, in my opinion, pleads in favour of the hypothesis that, just as there is no “movement” in reality, there is no “mind” in reality that produces thought - simply physical matter. Even robots such as modern “automatic” vacuum cleaners may be said to possess a basic form of “consciousness” as they detect and avoid obstacles they encounter whilst vacuuming the floor. . If you don’t mind, I’ll leave it at that for the time being and get on with my Christmas feasting. Merry Christmas, everyone ! .

Hi Banjo ; But there's a difference between self-awareness on the one hand ; and mere programming or mechanical functionality on the other. The point is that its a qualitative difference ; and not merely a quantitative difference.

Tristan. It seems to me a Christian must believe in the resurrection of Jesus as a non-negotiable. Without the resurrection you are left with Christ as one of any number of Jewish messiahs. From the resurrection belief other beliefs can follow – forgiveness from sin and everlasting life. A Christian who believes in heaven and hell is essentially saying that every human being is immortal (in the sense that death is simply a transition stage where you reach a judgement by God – heaven or hell).
These three core beliefs – resurrection, forgiveness (through Jesus – there is no other way) and everlasting life, must be held by someone professing their Christianity.
And that’s where it gets hard for an irreligious person. Acceptance of the three beliefs must involve a “leap of faith”. You cannot use your ability to reason out a ‘proof’ to support any of the beliefs.
As an atheist, when I’m ever asked (rarely) what it will be like after I die, I reply: it will be just like it was before I was born.

Our thoughts and prayers are with your family and friends Alan B. I'm sorry for your loss and for theirs.

Alan
Do you mean you have family who died ? Then I offer my sympathy and good wishes to you.

But this is not the right thing to say:

"But no. Instead I hold nicknamenick/his like minded "green" friends personally responsible for every life lost, every humble hovel flattened.

Why?

Because this depopulation event, while obviously excluding them, is part of a long range goal hidden agenda!

And why this creature, dogs my electronic trail! Trying to bury thorium, along with my friends and family!"

You are wrong to blame me for the weather . Wrong to say I caused death. And wrong to say I bury Thorium. For weeks I've tried to point out the obvious fact that Thorium is not yet commercial or even designed so no-one can declare the price of its electricity . I've never opposed the principle , just your illogical repetitious falsity. Your lack of comprehension may explain your Thorium posts but can't excuse your claim about my guilt for deaths. That is verging on your making criminal accusations and public libel.

NNM Completely disingenuous to claim thorium unproven, was tried and tested at Oak Ridge, but even though possible, never ever ALLOWED to generate an erg of electricity!

Nor has the conventional reactor ("unproven technology") at lucas heights, even though we could, just as we could from a carbon copy of the successfully trialled Oak Ridge reactor.

As for my assertions? I rely on experts in the field and prize winning investigative Journalism, Richard Martin's, for my fact checking.

Next thing we know you'll be telling us that NASA scientist and nuclear technologist, Kirk Sorensen, is clueless about thorium, or Ivy League Professor (ret) Economist Robert Hargreaves knows less than you, even though the author of peer reviewed, Thorium cheaper than coal. And it's his claim that the estimated median would be $00.1.98 PKH. Quote unquote.

Without question, your goal here has to sabotage any genuine inquiry into thorium, even though we can reliably extrapolate, that one ton of thorium burned in a LFTR, will produce a much energy as 2551 tons of uranium, burned in a light water reactor!

Indisputably, you and your ilk care nothing for the impoverished world or the conflict created by climate change/displaced people!

We don't have thorium, because the nuclear scientists in our parliaments have ruled it out!

Oh, what's that?

Our parliaments between them, have no scientists in their ranks! But need to get their science elsewhere and even when sound?

Often ignored due to the ideological imperative, yours? Or countervailing commercial interests?

Wind farms need to turn for thirty years plus, to offset the carbon created in their manufacture and don't get me started n the amount of toxic waste solar voltaic has already imposed on the environment; and for centuries to come! And too expensive for two thirds of the world or the downtrodden poor!

As for libel, the recoverable record will show you've been dogging my electronic trail for weeks, with mischievous vexatious mischief designed, I believe, to BURY thorium! Without which the poor of this world have just two chances, buckley's and none! Ditto the carbon ravaged environment!
Alan B.

.

Dear Tristan,

.

You wrote :

« But there's a difference between self-awareness on the one hand ; and mere programming or mechanical functionality on the other »

I was not commenting on “self-awareness”, Tristan. I was commenting on the question you posed in your article, i.e., « how to explain consciousness? »

I wrote that, according to the OED definition of “consciousness” (“the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings”) : « even robots such as modern “automatic” vacuum cleaners may be said to possess a basic form of “consciousness” as they detect and avoid obstacles they encounter whilst vacuuming the floor ».

Research in robotics is still in its infancy but it is advancing swiftly. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that we may eventually develop robots that are also capable of some form of self-consciousness.

If you know of any good reason, I should be grateful if you would share it with me.
.

Whilst writing, there are a few other comments I should like to make. The first relates to your comment to David F on page 4 of this thread : “The Vatican tried diplomatic measures with Hitler it's true”. If you don’t mind my saying so, I find that a bit of an understatement. My understanding is that Hitler would probably not have succeeded in obtaining his dictatorial powers without the active assistance of the Vatican (Pope Pius XI and his Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII). Following the signing of the Catholic concordat by Pacelli with Nazi Germany in 1933 :

« In the early days of the Weimar Republic, the Catholic Center Party was the second-largest party in the Reichstag. After the Reichstag Fire in early 1933, the Catholic Centre Party voted for the Enabling Act, which granted dictatorial powers to Adolf Hitler. By this vote, the Catholic Centre Party effectively destroyed itself, as the Nazi Party became the only legally permitted party in the country shortly thereafter » (Wikipedia).

.

(Continued …)

.

. (Continued …) . Also, I don’t know how you feel, but, I must say that I am more than a little disturbed by the attitude of the Catholic Church in dismissing the key recommendations of the royal commission into child abuse by a large number of its clergy. So much for its morality and the pretended sincerity of its regrets. On a similar vein, the recent declaration of the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, that “2017 might be described as “annus horribilis” because of euthanasia laws in Victoria, the exposure of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage were failures that challenged “our Christian conceptions of life”. Not only does he demonstrate his complete lack of humanity on the question of euthanasia and his ignorance of the fact that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality and a common feature of all living species, but, obviously, he is also totally oblivious of the huge gaffe he made in qualifying “the exposure” of child sexual abuse in 2017 as a “failure” that challenged the Christian conception of life. That is a Freudian slip of the tongue that is quite revealing, don’t you think ? : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/24/same-sex-marriage-and-euthanasia-mean-annus-horribilis-catholic-bishop?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=257990&subid=10045778&CMP=ema_632 .

Alan
You may have a mental disability.
A prediction about non-existent reactors to .01 cent kwh is not fact.
Discussing and disagreeing with your public posts is not an offence.
Accusing me of causing death is an offence.
If you didn't have a mental disability you would understand you have broken the law.
It's not possible to reason with you.

Banjo, I will appologise for going off topic on this one, but. Are you saying that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality because it exists and therefore it is natural? By suggesting such a thing you have completely rejected the fact that in the overall mechanics of life and ALL it's properties and functions nowhere is there a place or structure to support or cater to a homosexual. Where-as the opposite applies to heterosexual beings. Nature is our teacher. There can be NO deviation from what IS natural. It is natural for ALL living creatures to reproduce, which is natural and instinctive. Nowhere is there any place for two creatures of the same sex to function 'normally'. It is definitely not natural. It may be construed as natural and instinctive by those conflicted with this dis-order. And make no mistake it is a dis-order. Your comments try to ascert that being born as something other than a heterosexual, MUST be normal because, well they are here now and alive so once something is created, by definition, it becomes the norm? You and your lot want to believe anything that legitimises the normality of the abnormal. Why do you think words like queers, poofs and so on came to be? Queers are no more natural than Albino's or midgets and so on. They are a minority and as such should be treated so. We should pity them not applaud them.
Just needed to correct your mis-leading comments on the subject.

ALTRAV
You need to get with reality Chum.

David

David, as it stands, it is you who needs to 'get with reality'. You obviously don't like what I have written. As I have said many times before, if what I write is wrong then I would appreciate being corrected as I don't relish in mis-information. On the other hand if what I say offends or upsets you then, I don't care. Ones emotions are counter productive to any discussion or debate. It is no different than if a woman wants to get her way, she will ultimately resort to tears and they are quickly accommodated, completely denying any further and factual discussion on the matter. So if you find factual flaws in my comments I would appreciate any correction. On the other hand if your offended by what I have said, I don't care!

NNN. Suggest you were looking in the mirror when whipping off your last post? You do not reason you impugn!

You try and credit me with the evidence based facts presented by highly credentialed scientists like nuclear technologist Kirk Sorensen, and many many others.

Don't threaten me with the law unless you are prepared to risks $50,000.00 of your own money and issue a writ that allows me to know who and where you are! And I will not be silenced by threats of possible legal reprisals!

In any event a jury of peers will tell you I have broken no law by expressing a belief on a rolling, sometimes robust, online opinion poll.

It has never ever been an offence in Australia to vent an opinion! Moreover, the denial by activists, with an antinuclear idiotic ideological imperative, of affordable clean safe energy is all the keeps the poor and downtrodden poor and downtrodden!

Any reasonable man who can read, will know for sure and certain you are an avowed antinuclear activist, hiding behind a pseudonym, determined to stall any nuclear development, but particularly thorium! For as long as our thicker than a plank of wood pollies allow it.

Untried, unproven it is not! Disallowed, disendorsed it is. At one time the combustion engine was theoretical, ditto trains, planes, horseless carriages and a man walking on the moon!

Left to you and your ilk, mankind would still be living caves and running his food down with a stone tied to a stick!

How does it feel to be on the receiving end of someone's endless scorn?

Should make a fascinating change from the mindless gibberish you fling at me and then go ape over the wording of a eulogy!

So sue me, what are you waiting for? Official permission from the Kremlin?
Alan B.

Green activists don't like the truth, i.e., their mindless asinine antinuclear anti development activities have undisputedly caused or created hunger, illness, hardship and climate change related death tolls!

Be it tons of mud sweeping down deforested hillsides, accompanied by rocks bigger than cars, flattening/burying all before it, including a widowed mum and her quite charming twin daughters!

And all it took or has ever taken is the word NO erupting from the mouths of implacably opposed anti development antinuclear activists who always retreat to? This is unprovened or untested and or never ever commercialized! Omitting the salient fact, even though essentially possible, officially refused and prevented.

And when asked/held to account, retreat behind some mythical law.

Look, If we would just allow testing R+D and a few pilot projects, inside a decade we could be rolling out around the impoverished third world, waste burning thorium reactors. While we clever folk continue to mine and burn 19th century coal to power 19th century technology.

And where we've sent those mass produced reactors, enable deionization dialysis desalination to provide endless affordable, potable water.

And resisted by "green" activists whose goal is depopulation by, wait for it, natural attrition, that like Pontius Pilate, they can wash their hands of!

Even though that's the only possible outcome of their callous indifference, doggedly determined opposition to development and genuinely affordable energy for all!

So Yes, just saying no to nuclear, with a single mass murder voice, changes the weather, further impoverishes the poor and even buries them beneath mudslides from denuded forests! That could have been saved/prevented by the provision of affordable, carbon free, clean safe, energy! And thereby, allowed other commercial export incomes, [recycling perhaps?] to replace the forest industries that logged/clear felled those forests!

NNN/NNS/ Nutin but a nutin, not a thing at all?

Needs to understand he alone is not accused nor individually, personally responsible, and not what I said or implied! Just part of a mindless "green" anti development antinuclear herd that surely is!? And from which I don't rezile.
Alan B.

To ALTRAV.
Hi.
Is my understanding of your argument and that of Banjo's correct....?

1 Banjo argues that homosexuality exists. Because it exits it must therefore be 'in nature' or natural.
2 In reply you argue that homosexuality cannot be natural because A. nature requires all creatures to reproduce. B. A homosexual couple (assuming to the exclusion of any others)cannot procreate. C. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
3. Because homosexuality is not natural it is a state of being best described as a "disorder".
4. Further, homosexuality is in a minority (of the human experience)
5. As a minority homosexuals should demand pity.
6 Our pity (for homosexuals) should be of the same kind we extend to midgets and albinos

Ashbo, you seem to have my comments down pat. Except for #5. They should not 'demand' pity; but to pity them as they are an exception to the norm and as such cannot experience what it is like to be 'normal'. In which case they are not capable of 'normal' interactions with humans on a level playing field. Whether their 'playing field' is higher or lower than normal people matters not. Suffice that they cannot 'play'. They can only be fully understood or at ease with others of the same persuasion. This is the way it has been for as long as society has existed. If you don't like the word 'pity' I will change it to 'feel sorry'. In some circles being Gai is aligned with being handicapped. I know, many would dis-agree, but, it is still another description of these types of people, yet I can see where they are coming from. Anyone who lacks any of the human faculties, for whatever reason or is unable to function as per the specifications of homo-sapiens, and what is considered normal historically, is by definition, abnormal.

ALTRAV
The fallacy in your argument is that you reckon that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is an error that a lot of people make and it needs to be corrected. That really pulls the rug out from under your argument. Sorry about that.

David

David, don't try reaching or deflecting. You know very well what I mean. Once you break the caveat of normality, anything is possible. But now you have stepped into the world of abnormality! I will not facilitate a discussion based on an abnormal hypotheses. Two queers of the same sex, no I'm not going there. You must be an argumentative twat or a queer yourself. Let me simplify it for you. It is because this couple are not normal or against the laws of nature or whatever other examples, they cannot fucck EACH OTHER and produce a child. If you're suggesting IVF, then that's cheating. Even a normal couple who can't conceive, having IVF is an act of abnormality. If you're going to debate something then let's abide by the rules. IVF is a man made procedure. Nature intended for this particular union to not spawn an off-spring. It is a selfish decision to continue even though nature said they couldn't. And why can't they, because they are ABNORMAL!

Daffy makes the baseless statement “we were all taught to hate.”
Speak for yourself, Daffy, no one taught me to hate him. By whom, and how, were you taught to hate him? What makes you think that we have your strange mentality, and also hate him?
Or would you like to withdraw your nonsensical statement, along with the nonsense link purporting to support the specious and flawed argument against capital punishment?
The link states in part:” Murder and revenge are inherently morally wrong and never justified. Therefore, capital punishment is morally wrong and is never justified.”
The writer gives no rational basis for this absurd generalisation.
Of course the state has the right to impose the death penalty where it is appropriate, such as in the case of paedophiles, who, like many classifications of perverts, are incapable of rehabilitation.
Lennie Lawson is a clear example.
“He was sentenced to death but this was commuted and he became a popular prisoner, embracing Catholicism and painting murals of Biblical scenes in the chapel at Goulburn jail. He was released after seven years.
Finding work as a commercial artist, he settled at Collaroy and befriended a neighbour named Mrs Bower, who (knowing nothing of his past) allowed him to paint her 16-year-old daughter. During a private sitting in his flat in 1961, Lawson raped and murdered the girl.”
http://www.sydneycrimemuseum.com/crime-stories/the-crimes-of-lennie-lawson/
If the death penalty had been carried out, it would have saved a number of innocent lives.
The State has a duty, and a right to impose the death penalty to protect the community.

ALTRAV. The fact that you have to resort to abuseive language just goes to show how fragile your argument is, so instead of responding in kind, I will just rest my case.

Have a good day.

David

ALTRAV, I take offence to your claim:

" In some circles being Gai is aligned with being handicapped. I know, many would dis-agree, but, it is still another description of these types of people, yet I can see where they are coming from. Anyone who lacks any of the human faculties, for whatever reason or is unable to function as per the specifications of homo-sapiens, and what is considered normal historically, is by definition, abnormaL"

I am disabled, I am a tetriplegic (broken neck, partial C5, total C6, partial C7) confined to either bed or an electric wheelchair. I have limited sensation, more pronounced on my left side, from roughly the shoulders down. My left arm is very weak but fortunately my thumb has sufficient sensation and strength to allow me enormous freedoms, including holding an iPad and being able to respond to your disrespectful posts.

I am a homo-sapien who does not function normally, to lump me in with another group in a vexatious attempt to try to win an argument is not only rude but you do me a great disservice and your insult and ignorance shows no bounds.

Perhaps you should think a little before making such ridiculous assertions.

By the way, I have just taken delivery of a wheelchair Drive car, does this make me less abnormal?

. Dear AL TRAV, . You ask : « Are you saying that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality because it exists and therefore it is natural ? » That’s correct, AL TRAV. According to the OED, the word “natural” means : « existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind ». I think you will agree that homosexuality corresponds to that definition. I, nevertheless, understand your consternation. I think there are a number of factors that should be taken into consideration. First of all, if there were a god, of course, everything would be perfect (because, presumably, he would be perfect and everything he did would be perfect), which is what I understand you would prefer. Unfortunately, everything is not perfect, so there does not seem to be any god. Presuming, therefore that nature arose simply as a result of “chance and necessity” (where chance is a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable event”) - as the 1965 Nobel Prize biologist, Jacques Monod, suggested – then there is no divine plan, no perfection, no norm. Nature is not uniform or homogenous. It is diverse and heterogenous. We are all different. Nobody is born perfect. We all have our little idiosyncrasies. I have mine and I’m sure you have yours. Many are undetectable. Others are visible. Some are beneficial. Others are handicapping. Perhaps you will have observed, as I have, that sexuality (including that of human beings) is a delicate question of “fine tuning”. The division between male and female is a very fine line. Sometimes it gets slightly out of tune. Call it an aberration of nature if you like. But who’s fault is that ? Certainly no fault of the person involved. There is nothing he or she can do about it. They just have to live with it as best they can – despite the incomprehension, the ostracism and the injustice of some people like you and me who are lucky enough to not have the same problem. We have no special merit. We are no better than them. . (Continued …) .

. (Continued …) . It’s not the fault of nature either. There is no right or wrong in nature. Morality is a human invention. We tend to look at people who are very different from ourselves with suspicion, distrust and disapproval. Strangers are not welcome. In ancient times they were called barbarians because they did not share our culture or perhaps simply because they had different coloured skin. The variability of nature is evident throughout the universe. We can’t change that. It’s nobody’s fault. We just have to accept it. Getting upset and rejecting it doesn’t do anybody any good. Better to calm down and reflect on our own good fortune. Here is an article that provides some interesting information on the question that seems to be bothering you : http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/ .

Geoff and Banjo,

There is no point in atrying to argue with a "blind" person who cannot see the wood for the trees.

David

Dear Banjo Paterson, I appreciate your erudition, logic and compassion.

You can't argue against logic, even though somw on this page still try.
Logic beats faith anytime.

David

Thanks David, I think you are quite right
Cheers, Geoff

Alan B and NNN arguing with the voices in their head.
But which wiitch is which in homophonia town?

Banjo, I cannot find my comment about 'because it exists it is natural'.

If I wrote that I was either being philosophical or I meant to say it came from nature. But NOT all nature is 'normal'.

An item is created on a production line with machines that are pre-set to a particular function.

If one machine breaks down, the end product will be abnormal.

This is no different in life.

Now turning my focus to my detractors, in particular Geoff of Perth.

You ask if by getting a wheelchair drive car, does it make you less abnormal?

How would I know? Do you feel less abnormal? If you do, good for you.

Now let me respond to YOUR comments about YOUR situation.

If you were born with these impediments, you were born 'abnormal'.

If you came to be in the state you are today, since you were born, you are still abnormal.

You obviously don't understand the concept of normality.

On the question of being offensive. I will repeat what I have said many times before.

If you are offended by something I say simply because you 'feel' offended, I don't care!

On the other hand if what I say is incorrect then I would 'insist' that someone correct me, obviously. And I would be greatful. Not offended.

Emotions, even though they run pretty high on these forums some times, play no part in any debate or discussion.

They offer no useful information other than the abuser is offended or frustrated because they cannot find a rebuttal to make their case.

Banjo, I get your point about everyone having some slight difference and the similarities between male and female.

What you are suggesting is microscopic. What I am suggesting is macroscopic. In the case of the queers it is mental.

We must establish a 'normal' base or we cannot confirm a particular status.

Some examples of norm;

9 months to give birth.
Our body temperature.

I could go on but you get my drift. So ANY deviation from the NORM is ABNORMAL. Don't get angry, get used to it.

Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were all abnormal. They all deviated significantly in intelligence, creativity and productivity from the norm. There is nothing at all wrong in being abnormal. There is something wrong in rejecting or condemning a person solely because that person deviates from a norm.

David, still you try to deflect. I thought you had removed me from your 'give a crap' list.

Anyway seeing as how you still want to play,

I will accommodate you, how's that?

What you suggest is the basis of two separate criteria, even though they are both to do with the mind.

Assuming we consider your examples. 'One is abnormal because they are more intelligent than most', but still normal in every other way.

You have missed the point. They are within the normal spectrum of the brain and it's normal function.

Just more intelligent than most. Intelligence is not regarded as something against the laws of nature.

Being Gai is!

Being Gai was not a social or actual, norm historically.

If it was never accepted for thousands of years, there is no reason we should accept it now.

ALTRAV,

Two fallacies in one post. You're not doing too well here.

<<Being [gay] is [against the laws of nature].>>

What is your evidence for this?

Either way, to argue that homosexuality is therefore wrong or undesirable is to fallaciously appeal to nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

<<If [being gay] was never accepted for thousands of years, there is no reason we should accept it now.>>

This is the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

AJ you do not contribute to this forum if all you do is sit back and reject everything because you don't like it, and you reject everything I say, so why are you still here taking up space that someone older and more experienced could better contribute.

There is no doubt as to what is natural by way of DNA. When a child is born there are certain immediate tests that are carried out to check its health status.

The greater majority pass with no physical or health issues.

On the other hand every now and then one is found to have some disorder/s. These babies are ABNORMAL.

Being queer is not normal for homo-sapiens, no. In any form of assessment you will find many forms of living creatures that do not conform to the mold of a male or a female homo-sapiens.

Albino's, midgets, hermaphrodites and many more.

I'm wasting my time. I am not getting through to you but I know those out there who are not scared of peer pressure or what someone thinks about them, agree with me.

And another thing, I don't mind you bagging me because I know you have nothing to contribute, but stop bagging nature and tradition/history.

Both were around much longer than your small brain could ever comprehend. And both are my evidence of what you seek from me.

To ALTRAV. Thankyou for your reply of 26th December.
I have adjusted your argument to be:

Homosexuality cannot be natural because:
A. nature requires all creatures to reproduce.
B. A homosexual couple (assuming to the exclusion of any others) cannot procreate.
C. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
Further, t
D. Because homosexuality is not natural it is a state of being best described as a "disorder".
E. Homosexuality is a minority (of the human experience).
F. As a minority homosexuals should be felt sorry for.
G. Our feeling sorry (for homosexuals) should be of the same kind we extend to midgets and albinos.

I did notice in your reply that you began using the word “normal”.
Because the words “normal” and “natural” suggest quite different things have you expanded your argument?
If this is the case, then it does seem to me that introducing "normalcy" weakens your views.
I say this because what is normal (or usual or expected) is such an imprecise concept - at best used as a generalisation whilst at the same time acknowledging there will be a spectrum of “not normalness”.
Your argument based on “naturalness” seems stronger without introducing the vagueness of normalcy

ALTRAV,

This is an online debating forum. If you say something that is wrong and I rebut it, then that is contributing. If you want to have your beliefs to go challenged, then either don't contribute, or go down the road to www.butthurtfreeopinion.com.au, but you don't get to accuse me of not contributing just because you don't like me discrediting your absurd claims.

<<... you do not contribute to this forum if all you do is sit back and reject everything because you don't like it, …>>

It has nothing to do with what I do and do not like. This should be evident in the fact that I always explain why it is that you are wrong. I will discredit your absurd claims for so long as you make them.

<<Being queer is not normal for homo-sapiens, no.>>

You need to explain why, though. You have not yet done this. And before you appeal to reproduction, consider that homosexuality may play another role in nature and the implications this would have for your fallacious appeal to nature. You HAVE studied the evolution of homosexuality, I take it?

<<... stop bagging nature and tradition/history.>>

At no point have I bagged nature or tradition. I have merely pointed out that appealing to them, in order to distinguish right from wrong, is fallacious.

<<... both [nature and tradition] are my evidence of what you seek from me.>>

Only they're not evidence of anything. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? Clearly you didn't read the links I posted before.

Ashbo, thanks for picking me up on the word 'normal'.

I do believe that what is natural is also normal so I am not surprised if I used the word at some point.

You see nature does throw up the odd left ball. Albino's, midgets, queers etc.

In describing nature we have to see that it is also normal.

So when describing something as un-natural, it is also abnormal. Again by description and definition.

The argument the queers want to promote to justify their very being and therefore equality is that because they exist then they are natural and therefore normal.

Yes they are. To other queers. Not to normal and natural homo-sapiens.

I describe normal as the 99% of the population. Not the small minority that are so few they do not constitute a number worth counting. ie; a very small number by comparison that cannot justify their 'equality' mantra.

Now AJ, I do well enough explaining. If you don't like it tough. Stop asking me to prove things. I make a statement, you disagree, but you don't give me a reason.

Your attacks/response to me is as fallacious as you contend of me, or have you conveniently forgotten your comments and associated links where you accuse me of being 'fallacious' re nature and history.

Mate, honestly most of your phsycobable is incomprehensible, the rest is irreprehensible!

. Dear AL TRAV, . I note your particular attachment to norms and the importance you place on them. But, as I indicated in my previous post, I tend to agree with Jacques Monod that nature arose simply as a result of “chance and necessity” (where chance is a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable event”) which means that there are no such things as divine plan, perfection, or norms so far as nature is concerned. What you indicate as examples of norms are what Jacques Monod refers to as the “invariant reproduction” or “invariance” of the morphogenetic processes that build the macroscopic structure of living beings. He notes that living beings and crystalline structures share this property that renders them unlike all other known objects in the universe. . Here is some additional information which may be of interest to you : « There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation » [The American Psychological Association] « The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly demarcated, known and understood by developmental psychologists, and are so obviously learned that heterosexuality is clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits in several of these developmental stages – showing that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic » [Whitehead, Neil E., PhD] . (Continued …) .

. (Continued …) . « Human sexual orientation is influenced by biological, cognitive, cultural, and subcultural variables in interaction, leading to multiple types of heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals… [T]here is so much variation within each group that the chances of finding any small set of variables which will account neatly both for average differences between groups with differing sexual orientations and for variations within groups approaches the vanishing point » [Van Wyk, Paul H., PhD, and Schiro-Geist, Chrisann, PhD. (1995). Biology of Bisexuality: Critique and Observations. Journal of Homosexuality, vol 28 (3-4)] . Is sexual orientation determined at birth ? Here is an interesting list of opinions, for and against. It’s worth consulting : http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001335 .

Yes, ALTRAV, most of the time.

<<I do well enough explaining.>>

You come up with the occasional unintelligible comment, but I don't think that's been the case this time around.

<<If you don't like it tough.>>

Again, this has nothing to do with what I do and do not like.

<<Stop asking me to prove things.>>

Then stop making unfounded and demonstrably false claims.

<<I make a statement, you disagree, but you don't give me a reason.>>

Yes, I do. Every single time, in fact. I have explained to you that your reasoning is fallacious, and why it is. The ball is now in your court to either explain why I am wrong, change your line of reasoning, or change your mind. Instead, you sit here and delay with ad hominems.

<<Your attacks/response to me is as fallacious as you contend of me …>>

At no point have I attacked you. Nor has anything I have said been fallacious.

<<... or have you conveniently forgotten your comments and associated links where you accuse me of being 'fallacious' re nature and history.>>

I said your arguments were fallacious, not you. You cannot, by definition, be fallacious. You are a person, not an argument. You don't actually understand at all what a fallacy is, do you?

<<Mate, honestly most of your phsycobable is incomprehensible ...>>

At no point have I discussed psychology or used technical jargon. I'm confident that everyone here is capable of understanding every word I have said. If you can't, then that is a real problem.

<<... the rest [of what you say] is irreprehensible!>>

Thanks… I guess

Banjo, I have considered some of the points in your posts. I can see where the authors are coming from.

The one thing I am reminded of as I read them is that science is a theoretical discipline, and as such it's conclusions are not 'set in concrete'.

I must however disagree with some of the conclusions I read.

I do not believe queers suddenly decide they are so inclined.

I do believe they are born with this, 'disorder'.

To believe that a straight person 'flip flops' in and out of poofterism, is also not a valid hypotheses as it means the person does not have an instinctive propensity to being queer, but one of petulance, and changes sides as a result of conscious decision.

I know exactly such a person. Others I have come into contact with, I would say they have serious identity issues, or much deeper historical problems, such as having been 'played' with when they were younger.

I reject totally the suggestion that poofterism is 'cultural and environmental rather than genetic'.

At this point I must highlight the fact that these comments are mainly due to PhD's.

These are not to be taken as fait accompli, but are the results of someone completing an academic requirement.

These utterings have not been tested by the greater scientific community and had 100% compliance or conformation.

Banjo, even though I applaud your posts and their detail, I cannot, in good conscience agree completely with all your comments.

I'm not a PhD, but my knowledge is garnered from exposure and experience relating to most of the topics I engage in.

I will not claim to know too much about queers over the years, but as I have socialised with, and still have friends who are queers, I am satisfied that my comments come from a base of experience rather than observer.

To ALTRAV
May i challenge you again (and test your patience)on the use of the word “normal”?
When using the word normal there is an unstated understanding that acknowledges a range of “not-normals” also exist.
Some examples:
A. For many it is considered normal to have 3 meals a day – many people, of course do not.
B. A person has a normal day at work – but some days were, and will be, not normal (eg. the day the person gets the sack is not a normal day).
C. Two people may view the same thing differently – one sees a normal event the other something out of the ordinary.
If there were no “not-normals” the word normal has no meaning.
Also what is considered as normal has a habit of changing over time –
A. For many slavery was once a normal state of affairs
B. That women could not vote, or own property was at one time the normal state of affairs
Also, using the word normal, does not imply anything is necessarily wrong with not being normal -
A. An elite tennis player is not normal when compared to the tennis abilities of most of us.
B. A 7ft plus basketball player is not normal. That he or she may play in the NBL, and earn millions is certainly not normal.

In your latest reply to Banjo, you state that:

“I do believe they are born with this, 'disorder'.”

Does that belief undermine your argument as to homosexuality being un-natural?
If same sex attraction is genetically determined then same sex attraction must be “within nature” ??!!

There is a common tendency among both believers and unbelievers, to think that the idea of religion that they had been taught by the age of 12, is what religion is. I've found this developmental problem revealed in even some of the more famous commentators such as philosopher, A C Grayling, and, of course, Richard Dawkins. Nonetheless they are to be forgiven, because many of the key spokepersons for Christianity have presented Christian though in that 12 year old version. In a time when materialism, a peculiarly unbelieving philosophy or 'way of life', is at its height, the most popular christian churches are mimicries of adolescent and young adult attitudes to life. I think Marx and Nietzsche would be very disturbed to see that some churches have become even better as an 'opium for the masses' all rock and roll. Nonetheless, there are increasing numbers of people of all religions who are taking the religious ideas fully into the maturity that their founders expressed. These, mostly as yet, unseen followers, are growing in number, while their main religious expression lives in service to humanity (not such a media sexy lifestyle). It is in that religion can evoke an extraordinary response by some in building communities of service and hospitality, that religion will continue to be effective, and vital, and attract the best of humanity to its doors, as well as many who just want to be close and work with, the best of humanity. There are no specifically aetheistic models of society that inspire towards building a social model according to the best humanitarian philosophy, there are no followers, no one doing the work

Ashbo, I look forward to your posts. And yes you can 'challenge me' and 'test my patience'. I have plenty if I am to deal with some posters in particular.

Ashbo, to begin; The norms you have described are physical and social.

The norms I speak of are genetic. They relate to mental norms.

It has previously been mentioned that there are certain chemical imbalances in the brain which tend to be responsible for such things as poofterism.

As for your suggestion that same sex attraction 'must' be in nature, correct. In the same way the same sex people are attracted to each other.

It is all within the boundaries of nature, but as I have said, sometimes it throws a curved ball and that's when we get these abnormal, un-natural, results.

We must establish a baseline for this type of debate.

Let's say that 99% of the population was queer and the 1% were straight. What would be normal/abnormal, natural/unnatural?

I may not be making myself understood and I am probably using the wrong words, but I'd like to think by now everyone gets what I'm trying to say.

If your not don't waste your time I don't think I can put it too many other ways than I already have

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

I am pleased to learn that you have managed to arrive at an informed opinion on the complex subject of homosexuality.

What stands out for me from these discussions and investigations is that :

1. there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons why an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation, but it is clear that there is no “gay gene”.

2. most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation

Personally, I shall regard any opinion that takes these two factors into account with the utmost respect, provided, of course, it is not expressed in disparaging terms.

As I see it, no sexual orientation is superior or inferior to any other. They are all equal and are to be treated with exactly the same respect.

I consider that anybody who does not treat them all with the same respect, only belittles himself.

.

Banjo, I will not question your comment about there being or not, a gene which directs a person one way or another.

I do how insist that there is something. I don't know what it is but it is something they are born with.

I use the term chemical imbalance, because it has been used over the years. And certain treatments, I'm not sure what, have been used to re-align queers, at least those who respond to treatment.

I can also agree with you on your respect comments, BUT I will not respect someone who does not respect me.

I have witnessed, read and seen some very dis-respectful attitudes and actions on the part of the YES camp.

So with respect to you I will retain my well earned disdain for this group of mis-fits more commonly referred to as (the more subtle name) queers.

This they have earned of their own doing. Where things were quite harmonious for as long as I can remember, they were tolerated. When this SSM rubbish began they demonstrated their true colors.

I think the NO camp is incensed because of the absolute insistence on the use of the word marriage and the push for equality.

There is not one thing about a queer that is equal to straight people. For God's sake, even their appearance is different.

We were never explained why it was so important to be equal. And I don't mean the feeble fabrications and lies we were told.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

My heart goes out to you, my friend. I fully understand what you mean and commiserate with you.

I was born in Cairns two days after Pearl Harbour and the day after Australia declared war on Japan. My father immediately enlisted in the army and my mother, my brother and I were evacuated by the army back south to my mother’s old family home in the bush on the Darling Downs, 200 km west of Brisbane, where I grew up.

I felt the fear in the air as a kid and my favourite game was running around the house shooting Japs. When I was twelve years-old, I bought an old 303 from army disposals, took off the bayonet, cut the wood back and spent most of my youth roaming around in the bush shooting anything that moved. I grew up never knowing my father.

For most of my life, whenever I crossed a Japanese in the street, I instinctively felt a twitch in the stomach and the image of my childhood game of shooting Japs flashed through my mind’s eye. I never allowed it to show in my professional life during which I had many business dealings with the Japanese and often visited Tokyo.

It’s only since I grew much older and became a grandfather that it calmed down and no longer occurred.

Who am I to blame you for taking offence at the way other people conduct themselves ? It probably happens to the best of us, but, I guess, we just don’t let it show. Out of modesty, perhaps ? Because we try to be more tolerant ? Or are we just hypocrites ?

Quite frankly, apart from my problem with the Japanese due to the war, which had a direct impact on my life, I really couldn’t care how other people live. If they are happy doing what they do and cause no harm to anybody, they can do what they like, so far as I’m concerned. It’s none of my business.

Live and let live, that’s my motto.

.

Banjo, I am no different re. your live let live. My only beef, and it is a big one is with Australia and all the scum within.

Being born the son of Italian immigrants, in 1950 I had to suffer through all the usual taunts and put downs thanks to the war.

I survived but the prejudices live on to this day and they have stolen what was to be a very successful business future.

Having designed and built some new products in the automotive industry. I was invited to create a new company with the Malaysian govt as partners. I did very well and after a two odd year stint sold my share to the partners and returned back to this mud pit.

I had to, it was where my family and I lived. Over the years I have been to most countries like the middle East, some even like Saudi where one needs a letter of admission signed by the ruler on his official and personal letter/document.

I have been fortunate to have engaged with so many people in so many countries. All of them good decent people, and yes even Muslims. Believe it or not they conduct themselves just like other people do.

Unfortunately Australia is a stand out country of patronising, deceit and opportunism. Not opportunity, no that is a privilege granted the elite, the govt and their scum mates.

Always good to hear your input, keep it up.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« Unfortunately Australia is a stand out country of patronising, deceit and opportunism. Not opportunity, no that is a privilege granted the elite, the govt and their scum mates »

That comes as a surprise to me, AL TRAV, but I’m sure you have your reasons. Most of my friends in Sydney have had vastly different experiences from yours. They tell totally different stories, stories of personal achievements that have nothing to do with the so-called elite, nor with any government of any sort.

Most of my working life has been spent outside Australia, but I still consider it as home. I know of no better country anywhere else in the world. All countries are different and some are probably just as good as Australia, depending on one’s personal tastes, values and lifestyle.

In fact, I have been living most of my life in France now but have never taken French nationality. I have a wife, children and grandchildren. All are French. I happen to be the only foreigner in the family.

Though I am not entirely happy with the track record of our successive governments, particularly as regards Aboriginal affairs and the way we treat illegal migrants, I am not convinced that other governments are any better than ours - obviously, for other reasons.

Perhaps you might feel more comfortable living in the land of your forefathers. I quite like Italy. It is a country I think I would enjoy living in myself. But I’m sure you have already given that some serious thought.

When all is said and done, perhaps you will finally manage to become reconciled with the country of your birth. It’s not a bad place. Anyway, whatever life has in store for you, AL TRAV, I wish you all the best,

.

Banjo, thank you for your kind words. I'm sorry if my attitude towards this country offends you, but you see I have good reason.

To explain; from birth my lifestyle has been contrary to the Aussie one.

For example, having spent most of my life focused on my hobby/work/career 'locked up' in a workshop designing/building all things automotive and engineering, I found I had NOTHING in common with these people.

I don't drink or smoke and absolutely loath sports, (of all persuasions). As I believe sports is for children. If you are not a sports freak in this country YOU are the freak and so are on the outer.

Because I don't share this childish mentality and attitudes of the Aussies, I have never been able to engage with them at their level.

This did not concern me as I felt I could not have a sustainable and long term interaction with, well basically, children. I have friends of course but all measured and mature of mind and attitude.

My lifestyle was 'I live to work' not 'I work to live'.

Briefly, the main reason for my negativity about Australia, goes back to one particular incident where I spent three years, on and off, designing and building, creating a new vehicle concept. All with the knowledge and inclusiveness of the most senior of the RTA.

I apply for registration. Only to be told he would not, not could not.

It's no wonder I am incensed by these time wasting follies like SSM.

Legalising SSM achieved nothing for the greater good of Australia, but just appeased a very precocious and petulant minority.

I previously had no opinion about queers, they were just there and not 'in your face'.

Banjo, as for living abroad. I have been considering it for many years but only on the basis of buying something as a temporary accommodation to be used a few months of the year, not permanently. This actually and coincidentally one of my current distractions.

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps not as much as some posts, the Swedish Lutheran Church is pushing to remove any reference to their god or to Jesus as 'he', that the entire Trinity is to have no gender.

As an atheist, I'm not sure where that leaves the Holy Spirit, which I've always interpreted as referring tactfully to the Divine Penis, stretching from Heaven down into the hitherto Virgin Mary. Medieval artists drew the Act as if a tube ran from somewhere Up There down under Mary's skirts: so what else is an atheist supposed to think ?

But what is his/her/its role now supposed to be ? Will the Trinity become a Duality ? 'The Parent, the Child and .... er .... '

Of course, feminists could assert that their god is actually female. But that complicates things further: how does a female god fertilise a human woman ?

Maybe we should just stick to parthenogenesis, and not ask questions. Darn, that's what everybody had to do in the Middle Ages.

Joe

Hi Loudmouth. I heard about that push last week. In my opinion it is crazy and should be ostrized. Not because of people wanting to be recoginized without a gender, or out of disrespect for women, but because throughout the bible God refers to Himself as a "he." As a Christian, if that is not enough to be respected by fellow Christians, then looking only at the New Testiment is enough for me because Jesus was born a male, as well as referred to God as "Father." The Swedish push for removing gender would have to include some very heavy counter interptations of scripture while trying to ignore or rewrite the parts that plainly say otherwise.

The Swedish church in my opinion therefore is not something I'll give merrit to until they hold God's words, and Jesus's words as the standard over all of our philosophies. Sorry for the confusion, I don't know how this looks to an atheist. To me though it looks like people compromising their faith and trust in God, under social pressure for what we count as right or wrong.

Not_now.soon, as someone who was born and raised a christian, even though I may not be so inclined these days, find this attempt to change the most fundamental basis of the teachings of the bible as a historic fact, and not to be prostituted by a group of politically correct slack jaw yokels.

I have argued against PC from the moment I first heard of it.

It is the men's fault we have to have these ridiculous conversations.

We allowed women to gain a foothold in independence, but not giving thought to the fact they are not equipped to handle or justify this new found power.

The failed argument of equality again continues to prove me correct as inadequacies such as being suggested by what the Swedish Lutheran Church is considering.

These stupid politically correct scum should be removed from society, and I don't care to what extent. We are continually being forced to consider more and more absolutely ridiculous suggestions, all in the name of PC.

Once upon a time this was considered treason. (insighting violence against a ruler). It was punishable by death.

I find what the Swedes are suggesting is treason of the highest order, and it's a shame the death penalty is no more.

You would not hear such moronic comments being uttered anywhere, if it were. Bring back the death penalty I say! As if.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« To explain; from birth my lifestyle has been contrary to the Aussie one. For example, having spent most of my life focused on my hobby/work/career 'locked up' in a workshop designing/building all things automotive and engineering, I found I had NOTHING in common with these people ... »
.

That’s an interesting story. My impression, for what it is worth, is that, you have either suffered some sort of traumatism or there was something lacking in what should have been your socialising process as a child. Children usually undergo the socialising process from an early age through play and leisure activities they share in together.

The only way to find out is to consult a psychotherapist, psychiatrist, or psychoanalyst. There are plenty of them around but the difficulty is to find one that is not only competent and intelligent but with whom you feel comfortable. You have to find somebody who matches your personality. First, you have to decide if you feel more comfortable sharing the intimacy of your inner self with a man or a woman. It has to be the right “fit”, otherwise you will never get to the bottom of the problem and it’s a waste of time and money.

I have been through this many times with my children and grandchildren. Sometimes it works with the first psy on the list. Sometimes you have to try two or three or more before you find the right one. That’s probably the most difficult part. The rest is up to you. It’s not easy to uncover whatever it is that your subconscious has hidden away and refused to reveal all these years.

It's never too late to try to understand.

Sorry if I sound a bit pedantic, AL Trav, I really know nothing about any of these things so if you think what I am suggesting is a lot of rubbish, just forget it. I won’t be at all offended.

I wish you and yours a happy New Year and excellent health in 2018.

.

Banjo, I don't wish to paint you a false picture. I have no issues with my up-bringing or as an adult.

I discovered, from a young age that because I am by nature a practical and pragmatic person, I have a more acute sense of what IS and not what someone is promoting IT IS.

I found that Aussies are not a mature and knowledgeable people. They are completely dedicated to 'having fun' and enjoying themselves with the mantra 'I work to live'.

I realised from an early age, this was counterproductive and could not understand why this country had this type of culture as the base.

I am quite pleased that I don't relate to this culture because it is a self destructive mentality and they are paying for it now and on into the future.

I have always said, these people should not be allowed to vote. They are mis-informed, ill-informed, lack any knowledge about the political machinations and the greed and lies being the norm and being practiced in every level of govt.

My anger and frustration is because I know what is going on and I can't believe there are not other people like me who are incensed enough to care and comment accordingly.

Instead all I get is, 'She'll be right mate. That's what we pay them for'. Meaning the politicians.

Banjo, I believe the people you refer to that have found living in Australia have no grievances may be because they live very simple lives and never have to engage with the establishment, eg; govt, I do.

Believe me I don't need phyc's I need a military backing to clean this place out and start again.

To ALTRAV

I also have looked forward to your posts.
Whilst i disagree with you, you have got me thinking hard about your arguments, and exactly why I cannot agree.
So, your argument again is:

Homosexuality cannot be natural because:
A. nature requires all creatures to reproduce.
B. A homosexual couple (assuming to the exclusion of any others) cannot procreate.
C. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
Further, t
D. Because homosexuality is not natural it is a state of being best described as a "disorder".
E. Homosexuality is a minority (of the human experience).
F. As a minority homosexuals should be felt sorry for.
G. Our feeling sorry (for homosexuals) should be of the same kind we extend to midgets and albinos.
In a latter post you mention that Homosexuality is “in nature” but is a “curve ball”.
I will take this as a restatement of A through C above.
My response to your argument:

A. Nature and morality are quite different things.
B. Nature just exists – it is there with us and without us
C. Morality is our way of deciding what is right or wrong, and
D. Nature has nothing to say about what is moral or immoral

The above is much better discussed in a BBC website article by Brendon Ambrosino from 16th March 2017. I quote as follows:

Debates about sexual orientation have tended to focus on a badly defined concept of “nature.” Because different sex intercourse generally results in the propagation of the species, we award it a special moral status. But “nature” doesn’t reveal to us our moral obligations – we are responsible for determining those, even when we aren’t aware we’re doing so. To leap from an observation of how nature is to a prescription of nature ought to be is, as philosopher David Hume noted, to commit a logical fallacy.

If this whet’s your appetite for the whole article, go to:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality

Ashbo, I agree with you on all your comments. A B C and D.

Even though we should accept all living things. In life there are always the exceptions.

We do not accept a murderer, even though he is a human being. Yet among his fellow murderers he is the norm and acceptable. This is a minority that society has rejected.

I see the queers in a similar vane.

Words like gender fluidity and sexual orientation were not part of the national every day discussions some years ago. It is only when the queers began their SSM push did all this nonsense suddenly become topical.

This SSM joke was not acceptable to the real majority of the population until recently when the queers started their push in earnest.

All 'street' and 'pub' talks revealed that the real majority were not in favour of this queers law. So how did it get over the line?

Put simply, it was not because people were in favour of it but because they were in disgust of it. A lot of people didn't vote because they simply wanted nothing to do with it.

As you know, if you don't vote against something you are weakening your vote and strengthening the oppositions.

I for one refuse to believe that the peoples vote was a 'true' indicator and I know for a fact that the govt vote was contrived to give a YES result as it was an insane attempt by an inept govt to hold on to a lost cause;

They're inability to retain govt at the next election.

I think u would find the Swedish lutherans believe the evolution fantasy. It not surprising they would be Christ deniers. No doubt they also push the gw hoax. Strange how Christ deniers become so irrational. Oh well maybe God hands them over yo their stupidity.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« I found that Aussies are not a mature and knowledgeable people. They are completely dedicated to 'having fun' and enjoying themselves with the mantra 'I work to live' … I have always said, these people should not be allowed to vote. They are mis-informed, ill-informed, lack any knowledge about the political machinations and the greed and lies being the norm and being practiced in every level of govt … Instead all I get is, 'She'll be right mate. That's what we pay them for'. Meaning the politicians »

You’ve got a point there, AL TRAV. Nevertheless, we regularly vote governments out of office in the hope that we might get a better one. We also almost systematically reject referendums and plebiscites. We have only accepted 10 of the 48 that have been proposed to us by the federal government since federation in 1901 - and that includes the recent marriage law postal survey. We only accept what we fully understand and agree with.

That said, you are right in thinking we are basically an easy-going, peace loving people who accept that somebody has to run the country and that it’s not an easy job. That it’s impossible to make everybody happy – so we just shut-up and get on with our lives until the next election. In other words, we respect democracy for better or for worse. Unlike many other countries, we have never had a revolution.

Our old colonial constitution, like a rusty old bucket, is so old and fragile it is full of holes and beyond repair. Freedom of expression (speech, cartoons, etc.) has fallen through one of them. The Prime Minister has fallen through another one. There is nothing in the constitution about a Prime Minister. It says the British Crown is the head of state. We do not have a bill of rights and the federal government cannot legislate for our indigenous peoples. That is left to the states and territories. The list of what needs fixing just goes on and on.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

If the country works, despite our out-dated constitution and despite the short-fallings of our governments “at all levels” as you say, it’s because we are easy-going, sensible, down-to-earth people who simply get on with our lives, without any fuss, and get the job done.

Here is how we compare with the rest of the world on a certain number of important issues :

Corruption : Australia is the world’s 13th least corrupt country :
http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

Democracy : Australia is the world’s 10th most democratic country
http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2016.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016

Government : Australia ranks N° 10 among the world’s best governments :
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-best-governments-in-the-world.html

Inventions : Australia produced 20 inventions that changed the world :
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2010/06/australian-inventions-that-changed-the-world
.

I guess that’s not too bad for a multicultural country whose inhabitants, as you rightly point out : « are completely dedicated to 'having fun' and enjoying themselves with the mantra 'I work to live' ».

Sounds pretty good to me ... if only it were true !

.

To ALTRAV.

I'm at a loss at whether you mean what you say or say it in jest regarding the Sweedish Lutherian Church, and to PC pushers in general.

The Swedish church has crossed a line. That much I agree with. But it's also a line that has already been crossed before by devoted Christians. To sidestep the bible entirely with one issue or another. Divorce and homosexuality are already issues that commonly aren't considered in the biblical sence before making a desision in our lives.

But this does cross that line, and cross it to a much farther degree. Not just to ignore or sidestep different sections of the bible. But to also try to rewrite it. Or very close to doing so. God is introduced again and again in male pronouns. If that is how He says He is, who are we to correct Him. It wouldn't do to ignore one or two bible sections to be ok with this, as it can be done with homosexuality and divorce, because God is referred to in a male sence in numerous verses. Nor can it be argued by other elements in scripture, such as loving your neighbor for homosexuality, or that God allowed divorce due to our heard hearts before, and thus can be argued because of this. No the Swedish momement to ungender God has no merit anywhere that I can see.

But does this mean treason and the death penalty? Do you mean this in jest? Or are you serious? People are confused over the other issues, and I wouldn't suggest killing them over it. Just try to correct them if you know better, or move on and have nothing to do with them, if you don't have the words to argue with them. In this sence do more of the same. But not death.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

(Continued …)

.

The productivity rate of Australia in 2017 is slightly higher than the OECD average. It ranks 16th in terms of productivity among the 35 OECD countries.

According to the latest OECD report, eight years after the global financial crisis, the overall picture points to slowing rates of growth in most countries as productivity growth continues its long-term decline in most economies.

As you will see on the graph on page 17 of the report, Australia is doing better than most OECD countries. Its productivity growth rate continues to remain relatively stable :

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/oecd-compendium-of-productivity-indicators-2017_pdtvy-2017-en#page18
.

Not too bad for a country whose inhabitants « are completely dedicated to 'having fun' and enjoying themselves with the mantra 'I work to live' », don’t you think.

Must be the key to success.

.

Not-Now.Soon, Let us not forget, the death penalty applied since way back when. It was only removed not that long ago, so the death penalty is not a new concept by any means.

Of course my reference to the death penalty must be taken with a grain of salt.

I am so frustrated at the legal and social system here, in so much as crimes are committed daily and some very serious ones and by people who are not attune to living amongst simple decent people.

Because these people contribute nothing to the larger community and their actions cause nothing but grief and sorrow and generally a ship load of negative results for the victims. And they don't discriminate on age either.

So I consider what our lives would be like if these elements were removed from society, and I can see truly wonderful safe place to live, for EVERYONE.

Incarcerating them is the worst thing as they meet like minded scum and when released only cause more pain and anguish. The jails are costing more and more every year, only one in very many change for the better, the rest come out worse.

No NNS even though my comments have to be measured, the death penalty was in place before so I am not advocating some new and despicable plan. It was already there, all we had to do was keep it going and I believe just the threat of the death penalty would have made many of these scumbags re-consider what they were about to do.

Banjo I appreciate your sentiments and applaud them, but over time a lot of good people have made the wrong decisions based on the wrong reasons.

I have watched major decisions being implemented and yet even I knew the long term implications of that decision were negative and so here we are today.

You have a very understanding, forgiving and compassionate view on life, and that is commendable, but you mask the real Australia by not acknowledging it's true colours and historical sub-culture.

I have always believed that there is no gain or purpose in broadcasting someones achievements because they are already being experienced, so don't need any more praise.

What we DO need is much more denouncing, broadcasting and rejection of anyone who harms another person. Only when the screws are turned up will these people suffer.

I make no secret of the fact, I want the miscreants to suffer. I know it is not within the Christian ethos, BUT, we must consider the greater good for the greater population, and not a secular interpretation of the bible at the expense of human kind.

If it puts minds at ease our saviour died on the cross for his people. You might say that's different. It has differences but ultimately someone died so that many would live. Is there not some distant parallel or irony in that act of sacrifice. For the greater good?

To ALTRAV
Your reply to my last post was, in part –

Ashbo, I agree with you on all your comments. A B C and D.
Even though we should accept all living things. In life there are always the exceptions.
We do not accept a murderer, even though he is a human being. Yet among his fellow murderers he is the norm and acceptable. This is a minority that society has rejected.
I see the queers in a similar vane.

It seems to me that you accept homosexuality is not “un-natural”.

Is your argument now really a question of morals (what is considered right and what is considered wrong)?
Your reply above suggests so.
However, I’m not sure if I understand your joining together homosexuality with murder (apart from homosexuals and murderers being a minority in our society – with murderers being a, thankfully, tiny minority).
A murderer takes another’s life – perhaps the most terrible thing one person can do to another.
Can homosexuality be thought of in the same way?

Ashbo, it appears my explanations are flawed as I seem unable to explain myself.

I do not accept queers. They may be 'normal' amongst their own kind but not according to normal healthy homo-sapiens.

I was not intending to involve morals, but if it helps make my case I will gladly include. If not, no.

My reference to murderers was as minorities. Although it must be said when the question was put as to whether they should let Jesus free or a murderer.........

Can you get a sense of what people are like, by this simple analogy?

Ashbo, as much as you will not agree with me, and that's OK because you sound like a much more affable person than myself.

But I am an honest man who stands by his convictions. All of them earned through a life of struggle and continual push-backs and rejections from those who we trusted to help and assist us.

Well here it is, I just don't like queers! I have many reasons to justify my stance but it seems that there are too many voices who are YES sympathisers on these forums, so my views and I are attacked and aggressively challenged.

This SSM has been a social disaster in other countries, such as Massachussets USA. It is on the record and it is akin to the war on terror, only legalised by the govt. Look it up.

But as long as it is irritating someone it means I am still a voice.

To ALTRAV

It's strange. Considering the death penalty and the roots and growth of Christianity, we started in the shadow of Roman rule, persecuted by both Jewish and Roman leaders, that the young church had Jesus's teachings and letters from apstoles to lead them. We did not start with the power to initiate justice to those worthy of death, and it was not taught which crimes would be given the death penitality if we ever obtained the scales of justice. Yet Christianity grew. Became adopted instead of persecuted by government powers that were. And in that mix the striving for power verses faithfully following Jesus haunt our history. A battle that still stands as seen in the Swedish Lutherian church trying to politically garnish our faith.

We have the death penalty, have had it for some time. But I don't know how often we've used it in a Godly way. Justice served should be a protector of the people, and incite fear in those who would break the law. That is in my opinion the only way Justice holds the power to keep corruption, murder, and general lawlessness at bay, to remain the minority. Do not steal because you will owe more then you stole. The punishment being atleast as great as the crime. In Mosasic Laws, death was among the punishments that served to hold the nation together as well as teach God's standards and His focus of what was wrong and punished, verses what was wrong and purged from society so it could not gain a foothold.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I don't know what you've seen regarding the Genderless agendas, or with the PC movements as a whole. But I trust your judgments as I've seen a few "do as we say, not as we do" behaviors in my lifetime.

However they are not all crooks. Many of them are caught up in the movements of PC morality. Without a history of their actions to show them what is actually happening, and the deceptive schemes to change what is right and wrong to include what they stand for, even if standing for it causes distraction of property or violence to their view of "bad guys." Many people get caught up in these. Too many that are just young and unexperienced for me to sanction a death penalty on.

The ones that are older and have not fixed from the movements, their guilt is greater. However I think for now, I would still keep to the teachings of the early church of how to handle those who sin against us. Correct them to try to save them, then if they refuse to change, kick them out of the church, and let them learn the hard way. Let vengeance be God's instead of at our hand. And then trust Him in His actions.

Not-Now.Soon, I can agree with you in your overall theme.

What I would probably question is the part about God's vengeance.

Though I would welcome the intervention of a 'father figure' to smite a wrong do-er, I feel that any punishment due to these miscreants may not be administered in a timely fashion.

I also believe that God's will is not to influence singular infractions and therefore these people would go unpunished and continue their vial acts with impunity.

I take strength from the most significant of examples as lead by Jesus, in that the people were given a choice, to either free Jesus or a murderer. They chose to free the murderer.

That one act alone left me, as a young man, with such a feeling of disgust and rejection of both mankind and religion.

I know, I have postulated this decision many times over the years. And yet, human kind has not disappointed me in my condemnation of it.

Human kind has slowly reverted back to the era of orgies and sodomy and generally a lifestyle of disgust and disgrace to their own detriment.

The notion of discipline is a distant memory when we had social and cultural boundaries. Today we have none.

Our leaders have not changed for as long as people have been on Earth. They are still a very select group of 'snakes' which I maintain should be gathered up and also be put to death.

I see no good in the future of mankind. If we don't stop and take stock of our own volition, then we, as a species, will ultimately commit ourselves to death

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« … you mask the real Australia by not acknowledging it's true colours and historical sub-culture »

I don’t recall having done that anywhere on this thread, AL TRAV. Quite the contrary, I systematically verify the facts before posting them. But I have no idea how many facts there are about Australia. Hundreds, thousands, millions ? As you know, we are limited to 350 words per post on this forum, so I only post those which I consider both pertinent and important to the discussion in hand.

It is possible that there are other facts which you consider more or just as pertinent and important as the ones I post. That is a question of personal evaluation and judgement. It does not mean that I do “not acknowledge” that the others also exist. Nor does it mean that they, alone, represent Australia’s “true colours and historical sub-culture”. I think it is more complex than that. If there are facts that you consider to be more or just as important, please feel free to post them.

I understand that human nature is such that certain individuals feel alienated, for one reason or another, from mainstream society, in just about every country in the world. Almost all of them have multiple sub-cultures, counter-cultures and a so-called underground.

I am conscious of the fact that all of us do not appear to live in the same world with the same set of values, symbols, ideals, tastes, opinions, beliefs, philosophies, world-views and aspirations. Each sub-strata of society also has its own set of rules and laws.

Though I situate myself clearly in the mainstream of both Australian and French society, I readily acknowledge that both countries have their multiple historical and contemporary sub-cultures, counter-cultures and so-called undergrounds - which, I must confess, I do not frequent.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I have never been attracted to any sort of Mafiosi or criminal networks, “bikies”, anarcho-punks, anarcho-syndicalists, beatniks, skinheads, Sharpies, Doomsday Peppers, Bra Boys, or subversive political activists of any sort, and I am totally ignorant of their activities – if that is what you have in mind.

But that does not prevent me from expressing my personal opinion on any subject that I consider important, especially if it happens to be in total opposition to what may be deemed to be politically correct.

So far as justice is concerned, I consider that everyone should assume responsibility for his acts. And as you mention the death penalty, I consider, for example, that society has the right to deprive anybody of his life if he is proven guilty of an “atrocious” crime by a democratically constituted court of law. However, I see no justification for disrespect, mistreatment, pain or cruelty. I consider that the court’s decision should be carried out as humanely as possible, in the best possible conditions of euthanasia that modern science can allow, preferably, in a warm, cosy environment.

Naturally, I am also in favour of euthanasia in exactly the same conditions for those who wish to end their lives voluntarily, for whatever reason, irrespective of their state of health. This, of course, entails a certain number of preconditions in terms of safeguards in order to protect the vulnerable from ill-intentioned persons in their entourage.

.

To ALTRAV.
Fair enough.
May I thank you again for getting me thinking about the place of same sex attraction in society.
I recall a time when sex between two consenting homosexuals was a crime in most states of Australia, although fewer and fewer were prosecuted until homosexuality was no longer considered a "wrong" punishable at law.
I respect your opinion despite you not presenting a plausible reason for thinking so.
Best regards....

To ALTRAV.

It's much easier to offer advise about a group you don't hate. This is a lesson I just observed while trying to best word my response to you. However instead, I've found your views to the miscreants you've described, to be the same actions I would like to do to the terrorists I see in the news. I'm sorry that I have no merrit to offer based on being better at following what I want to say. For this please accept my apology. I do not mean to be a hypocrite. We need to trust God, even in our anger and our need to seek justice. God gave governments the authority to punish criminals, and He can do the same in each of their lives indivually setting them up for a fall. But that's not the only option. Like us, God loves them as well.

Therefore we should do as directed even at our own expense. God can take care of us or allow us to return home with Him. But to save our enemies because God loves them too, whike trying to protect those we love or protect ourselves. That is a battle we must all face, and I think by following Jesus's teachings, and trusting God through them we will be better for it, then if we tried to handle it on our own in spite of what the bible says.

Again I wish I wasn't a hypocrite in this advise. Still working out the idea if loving my enemies on the enemies that really matter. Hope you understand what I'm saying even while I struggle to do the same.

Happy New Year, ALTRAV.

To BANJO.
May I challenge your support for the death penalty?
Should Australia re-introduce the death penalty, and unless the accused pleads guilty, a person's guilt or innocence is decided by a jury. In Australia I believe judges are appointed to the "bench" and democracy does not come into it.
So, my arguments are:
A. Juries are notorious for getting things wrong. Whilst there is an appeals court an accused can appeal to, the appeals court will not change a juries decision unless they have overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice.
B. Many innocent but convicted accused have been released from prison after new evidence has come to light (in recent times via DNA testing which was not available at their trial.
Sadly, many innocents have been put to death, only to find later they were not guilty.
Taking A and B together strongly suggests the judicial system is not perfect(if only in a very small number of cases).
So, do you carry out the death penalty, knowing there is a possibility you are wrong?
Or do you choose to avoid this possibility by not having the death penalty?

Ashbo, I am also at a loss in not being able to explain myself on my rejection of queers. I can only say that I know this SSM thing is wrong, if only because where it has been adopted it has caused enormous damage to that society and it's moral, ethical, religious beliefs.

Not-Now.Soon, if it is any consolation, apparently I am a bigoted, homophobic, racist and so on you get the pic. So don't concern yourself.

If we listen to people we don't know, how do we react to criticisms from those we do.

I take stock in the knowledge that I am only human and as such can only function to the best of my personal ability. Anyone expecting more is being unrealistic.

About queers and the death of serious offenders, I stand by my comments because they are based on sound reason and not just emotion.

Banjo, nor am I accusing you of any wrong doing. My comment even though badly worded, has to do with Australia's beginnings of white colonial settlement.

The real majority of the first 'white' Australians were criminals.
The 'sub-culture' you refer to has nothing to do with anything you wrote but everything to do with the fact that Aussie's have criminal blood in them.

Like the abo's, they may be 1/16th cast and trying to pass themselves off as abo's by suggesting that they, (can't think of the word right now) shall we say 'feel' abo. Therefore they decide they are abo.

In total rejection of the other 15 non abo people who make up his blood line. It's a joke.

I do not see you as anything but an OK guy so I absolutely don't see you involved with the sub cultures you mention. If I am being honest, being of Italian descent, I think I am more likely to fit that mould than you ever will or have.

So no, I'm the bad guy here and I accept my lot. I don't know what I wrote to give you that impression. Mia culpa, for which I appologise without hesitation.

Ashbo, on your 'death penalty question, one would have to consider the amount of pain and suffering the accused has caused and the number of people involved.

It become a question of quantity and quality. If both these questions return a high percentage results on both counts then we must commit. There is NO doubt as to how bad this person is.

I would use the 'greater good' test. Why do we have plea bargaining, because we let the little fish go in hope of catching the big ones.

Once you start demonstrating a total disregard for a fellow humans life, you have signed your death warrant. Remember, we did nothing it all comes back to him.

The idea of rehabilitation is a Nancy's folly and the number of success stories are too, too few to even consider relevant.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You ask :

« So, do you carry out the death penalty, knowing there is a possibility you are wrong? Or do you choose to avoid this possibility by not having the death penalty? »
.

If you don’t mind, I think the question should be formulated as follows :

« Does the court of justice order that the death penalty be applied, knowing there is a possibility that the accused may be innocent? Or should the court not dispose of a death penalty? »

The question is grave and must be given serious consideration. Justice is the instrument of the political regime it serves. Australia being a modern democracy, we are fortunate in having what may be considered one of the most impartial and efficient justice systems available in the world today. But justice it not just limited to the courts. It is a tentacular organisation which extends out of the courtroom to numerous outside services.

It depends on the quality and impartiality, not only of the judiciary, but also of the independent service providers, in the research and analysis of evidence and the provision of so-called expert opinion. The chain of justice is only as strong as its weakest link.

There is no magic formula for producing justice. Many systems have been tried and there is no guarantee any of them can come up with a just decision. The choice comes down to which system provides the best guarantee of impartiality, is free from any outside influence, in which none of its members has a vested interest in the outcome.

Though justice remains the weak point or Achilles’ heel of democracy, any aspiration to strict neutrality and total detachment are not only impossible but probably not even desirable, for the simple reason that they are inhuman. What we are concerned with is human justice, not just some ideal or speculative justice, such as so-called divine justice or computerised justice based on artificial intelligence.

Not surprisingly, justice arrives at the end of the democratic process. The objective of democracy is justice.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Despite all the pitfalls and imperfections, I, personally, consider that our courts should be authorised not only to deprive accuseds of their freedom if found guilty of crimes, but also of their lives if found guilty of “atrocious” crimes such as child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed. Naturally, they should benefit from a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

And, of course, we must impose the highest standards on our justice, ensuring that a satisfactory share of the best students are being attracted to the legal and judicial professions, and that the most effective procedures of quality control are implemented by the judiciary in relation to outsourced public and private expert services – not just relying on accreditation by their professional associations – guaranteeing that state of the art professional standards are fully respected and applied at all times and in all circumstances.

Even in the best of conditions, perfection is not of this world, and accidents can happen. It is a fact of life we simply have to accept. It is unavoidable, no matter what we do. Justice is no exception.

.

To ALTRAV. No consolation nessassary. Just being honest and don't want people to see me as a moral snob or something. Concerning queers, I trust your judgment. It's been fairly recent, but I've seen a few tactics and behaviors that make me question everything that is presented by the homosexual movements. Still try your best to the best of your ability. Humanly speaking we have limits and can only do our best. But with God all things are possible, even the unrealistic.

Not_Now.Soon, thanks for the thought.

I could not help but notice the time of your post; 3:45 AM?

I assume you have a night job or, like me, an unusual sleeping regime.

As it is 2:35 AM here.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« The real majority of the first 'white' Australians were criminals … Aussie's have criminal blood in them »
.

That’s the official version, AL TRAV, but the reality is a little more complex. From the 17th century until well into the 19th century, transportation to the colonies as a criminal or an indentured servant served as punishment for both major and petty crimes in the UK. Famine was still rife and slavery was not abolished throughout the British Empire until 1833.

They could best be described as “convict-slaves”, deported from their homeland as free labour to develop the new colony. Most had been condemned for petty crimes.

Pursuant to the so-called "Bloody Code", by the 1770s there were 222 crimes in Britain that carried the death penalty. These included offences such as stealing of goods worth over 5 shillings, cutting down a tree, theft of an animal, even theft of a rabbit from a rabbit warren.

The Industrial Revolution led to an increase in petty crime due to the economic displacement of much of the population, building pressure on the government to find an alternative to confinement in overcrowded jails. The situation was so dire that hulks left over from the Seven Years' War were used as makeshift floating prisons. Eight out of every 10 prisoners were in jail for theft.

According to one study, three convicts out of four first offenders had stolen grain, rabbits and fowl which suggest they stole out of hunger and not for greed. Most did not reoffend at the completion of serving their sentence.

Your statement that “Aussie's have criminal blood in them” - whatever that means - does not appear to be justified. For the most part, they do not appear to constitute a criminal class, per se. On the contrary, the evidence tends to indicate that they were more the victims of adverse social and economic circumstances.
.

As for your comment on Aboriginality, the legal definition is based on three criteria: descent, self-identification and community recognition :

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10

.

Alt Rav & Banjo,

With a plethora of convict ancestors, I have to believe that criminality is not genetic. On the other hand, to the extent that it is connected to stupidity, it may have a tenuous link: one of my gr-gr-gr-grandmothers stole an expensive bolt of cloth and was nabbed up the street trying to sell it. Another ancestor was transported twice. Nor, perhaps, were the offences all that minor: another of my revered ancestors was caught trying to smuggle a hundred sheep across the Scottish border. On the other hand, another ancestor, one of Wellington's soldiers, was lumbered for stealing a silver spoon in the Netherlands.

Alt Rav, would it be okay if Aboriginal people declared that they're of Aboriginal descent ? If you can claim as an Eyetie or a dago of a wog (terms that I find wholly reprehensible), i.e. that you are of Italian descent, what's the problem ?

Joe

Loudmouth, you find words like dago, wog or eyetie, 'wholly reprehensible'. Please don't, it's OK.

When I was younger it was said in anger, we understood why, even though we attempted to explain that we were not in favour of the war and we in fact, from memory were out of it before we knew what was going on.

As we grew up we were slowly accepted and the name calling became more of a term of endearment. Soon you would clearly and loudly hear someone call out 'Hey you wog bastard, where ya bin'?

I am of Italian descent because both my mother and father were pure blood Italians going back as far as the records show.

Where-as the wannabe's, as they were referred to by an Elder, are not of abo descent because their blood line was or has been broken by anyone of the wannabe's previous ancestors not being an abo.

They are therefore Aussies! They cannot call themselves abo's.

Sure they can say they have abo blood in them, but they can't choose who they wannabe? They are Australian. That's it!

As to the convict reference. I am aware of the minor infractions that caused a person to be classified as a thief or worse.

I was not focusing on the criminality of their incarceration, but the fact that they were classified as criminals and I maintain that most of them were, by the laws and standards of the day.

My point is that Australia started from convict beginnings. They all pretty much took up with settlers who were not convicts, but the offspring of that union was now tainted with convict blood.

From that moment on that blood line is tainted. It is not unusual today to hear some younger Aussies proudly announce that they are a descendant of a convict as if it were a title of honour.

What is typically disgraceful of those claiming such titles, with pride, is that they have discarded all the ancestors that came after that first union, in favour of being perceived cool.

Again, like the abo's.

To answer you're question ALTRAV, I'm not actually in Australia. Though I do have a late night schedule and sometimes do post at 2 in the morning (my time). The real reason is that you guys are 17 hours ahead of me. Sorry if this doesn't settle well with anyone. A friend who is Aussie directed a few of us to an issue that was brought up in these forums and blogs. I looked into it and have stayed since.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« My point is that Australia started from convict beginnings. They all pretty much took up with settlers who were not convicts, but the offspring of that union was now tainted with convict blood »
.

That’s a theory that sounds familiar, AL TRAV. It’s called “original sin” or “the doctrine of ancestral fault”. It was posited by a Jewish rabbi and theologian called Saul of Tarsus, in about the year 57 AD, and goes like this :

« Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned » (Romans 5:12, KJV)

The concept that all humans are born guilty was sublimated and elevated as a new religion (Christianity) by the tortured and ecstatic Saul of Tarsus. It culminated in the symbolic sacrifice on the cross of the mythical figure of Jesus of Nazareth and his own martyrdom by decapitation under the reign of Nero in the year 67 AD.

I sincerely hope you do not suffer the same fate as your illustrious predecessor, AL TRAV, but you had better keep your head down, just in case. The same causes produce the same effects, so they say.

Another unfortunate matter concerning Saul, of course, is that while many consider him to be the founder and principal promotor of Christianity (having written most of the New Testament with the help of his side-kick, Saint Luke) he has never actually been officially canonised. Saint Paul is just a customary title.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Saul of Tarsus had a long history of religious fanaticism. He participated in the stoning to death of the first Christian martyr, Etienne, then became a rabbi before having an illumination and seeing Jesus as the Messiah. He was a tent maker by profession. His life was marked by physical violence, pain, illness and self-flagellation – to such an extent that he seemed to have masochistic tendencies, detesting himself and the human condition, while glorifying the virtues of obedience and submission. Perhaps he was a man in the closet.

For Saul of Tarsus, religion appears to have been the sublimation of the death impulse which haunted him all his life. It obsessed him and consumed him. Nero put him out of his misery by decapitating him in Rome in the year 67.

.

Not_Now.Soon, I find your location makes you all the more interesting, nothing to appologise for.

Banjo, I confess, your knowledge of religion and it's workings leaves me shaking my head. How on earth can you remember all these details?

I put my lack of memory down to age.

Always good to have your input.

Carry on.

Loudmouth, just to answer your question in isolation.

There are of course other reasons for these attacks on the wannabe's.

The govt has created far too many ways for anyone to obtain benefits and grants, (money) so all these so-called abo's are coming out of the woodwork everywhere to claim their aboriginality.

In many cases are failing the test, but still continue saying that just because they failed the test does not change the fact that they 'feel' abo.

It also has not helped that the true number of the 'real' abo's, due to this bloody re-identification program', is responsible for a sudden and severe increase. (on paper).

The benefits are what they seek. Nothing to do with their abo background. Take away the benefits and we'll see how many 'real' abo's there are.

The reason why they are not abo's, is that by trying to choose to be one race they are shunning all the other races after the abo one.

If you are 1/8th cast, then you could have 7 other races in your blood. It is disingenuous of you to choose one of your ancestral race over another.

That's why an abo who's lineage has been broken along the way is, I'm sorry to say, NOT an abo. They are merely an Aussie with abo blood somewhere back when. It's a pity one chooses to highlight the abo ancestors over the rest.

On the other hand in my case I have been written up in various newspapers and media stories as, quote: 'An Australian born Italian Designer', unquote. I had nothing to do with this title it was bestowed upon me without my knowledge or input.

The author of this title was completely correct in his description, because I AM of Italian blood and descent, clearly. And I happen to be born in Australia.

I believe I have previously posted an example which may or may not still be the case today, as follows;

If you were born on a ship, you took on the nationality of the country the ship was registered in at that time.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You ask :

« Banjo, I confess, your knowledge of religion and it's workings leaves me shaking my head. How on earth can you remember all these details? »

My memory is not that great, AL TRAV. As I indicated in a previous post, I verify the facts before I post them.

Religion is part of the cultural heritage of the large majority of mankind. It was part of my cultural heritage. In fact, it was all I inherited – apart from myself.

As I figured it must be important, I spent much of my non-working life investigating religion, only to come to the realisation, at a fairly advanced age, that its essential tenants are totally false.

My inheritance was reduced to just me. That’s it. No sense believing in something that doesn’t exist. I was used to travelling light anyway, and where I’m heading, I don’t need anything else.

As I told my dear wife, many years ago - and it hasn’t changed that much over the years :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJE1uhXrcQY
.

The question of personal identity which you raise in your post to Loudmouth is an important one, particularly for people of mixed ethnic ancestry. It’s not quite as simple as you describe for our Aboriginal peoples. They’re not the only ones. It concerns a whole lot of people in Australia.

We are becoming more and more multicultural and more and more multi-ethnical as the same time.

There always is and always will be abuse of welfare systems. It's not limited to Aboriginal benefits. But the question of personal identity is not only about welfare benefits. It goes much deeper than that.

Personal identity is exactly that : personal. Many individuals are faced with the difficulty of finding out who they are, what they are, and who and what they want to be. It is often a long and difficult process for the individuals concerned. They should not be regarded with contempt or lack of respect.

Not surprisingly, your Italian ancestry does not make you sensitive to the complexities of ethnic diversity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy

.

Banjo, my contempt and lack of respect you sense has to do with rights and privilege's and ultimately equality of property and land rights.

As an individual and an Aussie, I am incensed at any group, especially minorities who have acquired a clear advantage over the rest of the population, like the queers and the abo's and not just because they pushed their way to the front of the queue, but the lie's and mis-representations they used to get there.

I do not believe in the many reasons I have heard justifying these wannabe's excuses for calling themselves abo's. And I'm sorry Banjo, I don't give this 'personal identity' any traction either.

You are entitled to feel whatever you wish but when that 'feeling' encroaches or impacts on others, you are called to account to justify your 'feelings'.

I'm sorry if you feel somewhat compromised by my comments but on the flip side I am pleased because now you can 'feel' how the other side feels.

I do not appologise for any emotional distress my comments may cause, but I have said previously, emotions play no part in any discussion or debate, but merely attempt to sway the direction of the discussion away from it's true path and final objective.

Returning to topic. I too found religion to be a con and was invented only as a means of keeping people under control with fear. You speak of finding out who you are and who you want to be. I'm sorry Banjo, in my world you have gone too far. You are over thinking a very natural thing. LIFE.

Never mind all this psychobabble and just get on with life. You will be what you are, you don't need to annalise every facet of your life. Just get on with living it.

Banjo, words like 'ethnic diversity' are wasted on me because that phrase did not exist until recently when some smart arse academic thought it would help the abo's cause and white man could not argue it down or reject it because it was promoted as a sensitive issue.

. Dear AL TRAV, . You wrote : « I do not believe in the many reasons I have heard justifying these wannabe's excuses for calling themselves abo's … I'm sorry Banjo, I don't give this 'personal identity' any traction either … words like 'ethnic diversity' are wasted on me … » . Yes, I understand that, AL TRAV. It’s not your fault. As I indicated in my previous post : “Not surprisingly, your Italian ancestry does not make you sensitive to the complexities of ethnic diversity”. Italians are ethnically fairly homogenous. Multiple DNA studies have confirmed that genetic variation in Italy is clinal (a gradation of the characteristics within the population). All Italians are made up of the same ancestral components, but in different proportions. The only exception are certain north-eastern Italian populations who cluster with Germanic and Slavic speaking Central Europeans. As you are neither ethnically diverse yourself, nor conscious from childhood of any cultural diversity of your parents or ancestors, it is extremely difficult to apprehend the problems of personal identity that children born into multi-ethnical and multi-cultural families have to resolve. Also, as I indicated in my previous post, the problem is not exclusive to Aboriginal peoples, it affects an increasingly large proportion of Australians of all walks of life and has nothing to do with welfare benefits. Please don’t feel offended, but perhaps it might help you to understand if you try to imagine how you would cope if, instead of both your parents being of Italian extraction, only your father were of Italian extraction and your mother were of Aboriginal extraction. As you know, each child tends to identify with the same sex parent and is attracted to the opposite sex parent. This results in the child rivalling with the same sex parent. What effect do you think that has on how the child sees his own ethnical and cultural identity ? Perhaps there are some other factors (personality traits of the parents, social and cultural environment, etc.) that complicate things even further. Try to work it out. .

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« I do not believe in the many reasons I have heard justifying these wannabe's excuses for calling themselves abo's … I'm sorry Banjo, I don't give this 'personal identity' any traction either … words like 'ethnic diversity' are wasted on me … »
.

Yes, I understand that, AL TRAV. It’s not your fault. As I indicated in my previous post : “Not surprisingly, your Italian ancestry does not make you sensitive to the complexities of ethnic diversity”.

Italians are ethnically fairly homogenous. Multiple DNA studies have confirmed that genetic variation in Italy is clinal (a gradation of the characteristics within the population). All Italians are made up of the same ancestral components, but in different proportions. The only exception are certain north-eastern Italian populations who cluster with Germanic and Slavic speaking Central Europeans.

As you are neither ethnically diverse yourself, nor conscious from childhood of any cultural diversity of your parents or ancestors, it is extremely difficult to apprehend the problems of personal identity that children born into multi-ethnical and multi-cultural families have to resolve.

Also, as I indicated in my previous post, the problem is not exclusive to Aboriginal peoples, it affects an increasingly large proportion of Australians of all walks of life and has nothing to do with welfare benefits.

Please don’t feel offended, but perhaps it might help you to understand if you try to imagine how you would cope if, instead of both your parents being of Italian extraction, only your father were of Italian extraction and your mother were of Aboriginal extraction. As you know, each child tends to identify with the same sex parent and is attracted to the opposite sex parent. This results in the child rivalling with the same sex parent. What effect do you think that has on how the child sees his own ethnical and cultural identity ?

Perhaps there are some other factors (personality traits of the parents, social and cultural environment, etc.) that complicate things even further.

Try to work it out.

.

Banjo, it takes a bit to offend me so don't worry.

To answer your question on how the child would handle their cultural identity based on a dago father and an abo mother? You realise that the question is wasted on me because my answer, at best, is an opinion and not even one based on experience and empathy.

But I will answer you as best I can.

Firstly I see both parents as just parents. I do not highlight one over the other.

Trying to seek this personal identity you speak of is pointless. I don't give that question a thought because I am an individual as far as my identity goes, it is whatever I am, not whatever I decide I am.

I suggest to anyone in your predicament to stop over thinking it. There is no definitive answer, otherwise you would have found it by now.

I would suggest stop labouring over nothing and just focus on yourself, as just yourself. By all means find out who your ancestors were, but only to put a name on them. As for their origins, I would leave that for the record.

As I have said, if both your parents were abo's, there's nothing to talk about. Your an Australian Aboriginal. If not your an Aussie. You can't pick one ancestor over another. If you have Greek, Vietnamese, French and English backgrounds, there is NO formula from which to choose your heritage.

So why shame and forsake all those other ancestors by choosing just one out of the lot.

If this is your case your decision is easy. You are an Aussie. So become familiar with who YOU are and move on putting your identity question well and truly to bed.

To Banjo and ALTRAV.
Coming back to the death penalty if I may.....
It seems you are saying that IF an innocent person is executed then that is a terrible but unavoidable consequence of having Capital Punishment. And we know that innocent people have indeed been executed wrongly, in the past.
So, what is the reason or reasons for having Capital Punishment?
It cannot be to act as a deterrent to others who might commit similar crimes - where the death penalty exists those crimes are still happening and in places where there is no Capital Punishment there should see a higher rate of the crimes....but do we?
Is it an "eye for an eye" matter?
Is it revenge of some kind?
Can you try this for me:
Imagine YOU are facing the death penalty, for some terrible crime and you know you are innocent?
Do ANY reasons for Capital Punishment justify your own execution?

Ashbo, I am excited by your question, why? Because it brings forth the very worst in society.

We have a police force that is absolutely abominable. It is useless. It is beholding and cowers to the govt. It is a tax collector. Heaven help anyone 'involved', (not even at fault) in a 'law breaking' activity.

The first thing they do is badger you with over the top statements like 'this is very serious' and try desperately to force you to admit guilt. And try hard they do.

Then you are charged using evidence that is not totally proven because they will argue their case in court and that's where they expect to win. So they believe.

The judiciary is also lacking in communication skills and also inept with the whole system, they are inconsistent with their sentencing. If it is a trial by jury, then the jury is flawed also because they are just people who can be swayed one way or another by a very pushy juror.

Oh BTW according to the constitution ALL trials were supposed to be 'judged' by a jury. The 'judge' is merely there to see that proceedings are according to law. A 'judge' was never supposed to pass sentence on a trial.

So to the answer; Given that the system is flawed, the people are flawed, we live in a flawed country, I fully expect to be executed.

I will add that since the advent of DNA testing; no even that was reported as being flawed a few moths ago, putting in doubt thousands of cases dating back many years.

I was going to say that DNA could have saved my life.

HAH, what a sh!^hole this place is. No really, I've said it all my life and here it is exposed again.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

An “Aboriginal” cineaste came through here quite some time ago now, a chap called Warwick Thornton. I was invited to attend the premier of his film “Samson & Delilah” in Paris.

He made a speech at the end of the film and took a few questions. When he stood up to make his speech I whispered to my (French) wife “He doesn’t look like an Aborigine to me. They’re usually charcoal black. He’s probably half-caste or only part Aborigine”.

A cocktail followed and my wife and I happened to find ourselves standing in front of Thornton as we tasted some Australian wine. To open-up the conversation, my wife said to him with a pleasant smile : “ My husband tells me you’re not a true Aborigine”. His eyes flared-up. His face turned red. He grinded his teeth and I thought he was going to kill me. He was a pretty big guy.

Then he calmed down a second and blurted out that his Aboriginal mother had been raped by his genitor, a white man.

I told him I enjoyed his film and asked him where I could buy the music. That calmed him down. He told me where I could purchase it on the internet and promptly disappeared into the crowd without uttering a word.

I have the disc right here in front of me. It’s great stuff … but difficult to find on the internet. This is the best I could do :

http://www.allmusic.com/album/samson-and-delilah-music-from-the-film-mw0001497890

http://www.letras.mus.br/charley-pride/608247/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksK5QMRmifE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZbap9De-J4

.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You ask :

« Can you try this for me :

Imagine YOU are facing the death penalty, for some terrible crime and you know you are innocent? Do ANY reasons for Capital Punishment justify your own execution? »
.

The same arguments are valid for my execution as they would be for anybody else in my most unfortunate and highly regrettable position, I’m afraid. The fundamental argument is that which Winston Churchill very wisely pointed out, quoting an unknown author during a speech in the House of Commons on Armistice day, 11 November 1947 :

« Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time … »

As I indicated in my previous post to you, Ashbo : “Justice is the instrument of the political regime it serves. Australia being a modern democracy, we are fortunate in having what may be considered one of the most impartial and efficient justice systems available in the world today”. You will call that I consider that the State alone, exercising the will of the sovereign people, should be empowered to prevent us from living or dying, against our will, in the common interest, if such is the decision of a democratically constituted court of justice and only after full exhaustion of all means of recourse available to defendants within the judiciary process.

Nevertheless, it will be a long time before mentalities change in order for justice to be seen simply as the rightful enforcement of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe through the democratic process, and depriving somebody of his freedom or his life not just as some cruel form of punishment.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out, even in the best of conditions, perfection is not of this world, and accidents can happen. It is a fact of life we simply have to accept. It is unavoidable, no matter what we do. Justice is no exception. There may be good reason for a jury to think that I am guilty of some “atrocious” crime that I did not commit and I may be executed unjustly.

All the more reason, as I indicated in a previous post, not to look upon those found guilty of such crimes with contempt, nor to treat them with disrespect, or submit them to mistreatment, pain or cruelty. The court’s decision should be carried out as humanely as possible, in the best possible conditions of euthanasia that modern science can allow, preferably, in a warm, cosy environment.

For the sake of comparison, here are some of the latest official “innocent” death statistics :

1,337 deaths by accidental falls in 2016 - Should we ban falling over ?

1,295 road deaths in 2016 – Should we ban all automobiles ? (During the last ten years, vehicle registrations increased by 24 per cent. Passenger car registrations increased by 20 per cent, motorcycle registrations increased by 62 per cent and light commercial vehicle registrations increased by 36 per cent).

2,227 suicides – Should we ban suicide ?

31 aviation deaths in 2015 – Should we ban all aircraft ?

576 deaths by accidental poisoning in 2016 – Should we ban all poisons ?

149 deaths by drowning in 2016 – Should we ban all swimming ?

82 deaths by choking in 2016 – Should we ban all breathing ?

99 child-birth deaths during 2006-2010 – Should we stop having babies ?

There were 158,504 deaths in Australia in 2016. 1 in 12 had dementia as the underlying cause - Should we ban people going crazy ?

Or, after all, while we’re at it, why not simply ban dying innocently altogether – whatever the cause ?

.

PS : Please excuse my appalling black humour, Ashbo.

.

To Banjo and ALTRAV.
It seems to me you both, to varying degrees, accept that miscarriages of justice have and will occur.
With this in mind what is your JUSTIFICATION for the death penalty?
Your justification cannot, it seems to me, be based on the death penalty acting as a deterrent.
Is it that living in a society that has and enforces the death penalty better in some way than a society that does not?
If so, in what way exactly is it better than the other?

Ashbo says:” Banjo and ALTRAV.
It seems to me you both, to varying degrees, accept that miscarriages of justice have and will occur.
With this in mind what is your JUSTIFICATION for the death penalty?
You say that it is not a deterrent, but no paedophile, after suffering the death penalty, has reoffended, and a paedophile is not capaple of rehabilitation
The intractable pervert and murdererLennie Lawson is a clear example.
“He was sentenced to death but this was commuted and he became a popular prisoner, embracing Catholicism and painting murals of Biblical scenes in the chapel at Goulburn jail. He was released after seven years.
Finding work as a commercial artist, he settled at Collaroy and befriended a neighbour named Mrs Bower, who (knowing nothing of his past) allowed him to paint her 16-year-old daughter. During a private sitting in his flat in 1961, Lawson raped and murdered the girl.”
http://www.sydneycrimemuseum.com/crime-stories/the-crimes-of-lennie-lawson/
If the death penalty had been carried out, it would have saved a number of innocent lives.
The State has a duty, and a right to impose the death penalty to protect the community.
Do you have a better way of dealing with intractable perverts, ashbo?

To Ashbo.

You've asked for a justification of the death penalty. Here is one to consider. Justice, even if it is flawed justice is better then injustice. We make mistakes and therefore our systems of justice does too. But if it actively and successfully fights injustice, then it is a better system then one that does not fight injustice. The death penalty is a sure way of ending a criminal.

That's one justification. Can't say it's right or better then a system without the death penalty. But that because it's really difficult to discern if the other system is doing any better or as well of fighting crime in the communities.

Cousin Leo,

Perhaps life imprisonment should mean life. Robert Stroud, a.k.a. the Birdman of Alcatraz, was sentenced to life without parole for (from memory) two murders. He spent forty-odd years in jail and died there. My mum told me that he became a world authority on sparrows.

So perhaps not the death penalty, but life - meaning life, never to be released. Never to ever again be a danger to the rest of society.

Joe

Loudmouth, even though I would like to agree with you I would feel a lot safer if he was dead.

It is because the system is flawed that it is not beyond imagining that at some time after the criminal is incarcerated he could take on the services of another scumbag, better known as a lawyer.

With the net result the crim is released.

No I am not prepared to take that risk.

Joe,

There is the option of having, “Never to be released”, stamped on their files (the most well-known example here would be Martin Bryan). Perhaps it should be made easier for the courts to do this?

Of course, there’s the issue of the cost of housing criminals for the rest of their lives, but, in the US at least, the death penalty actually works out to be more expensive due to the rigorous standards which must be fulfilled in order to carry out the punishment. I can’t imagine a more civilised country like ours would be much cheaper.

--

There is little-to-no data in support of the death penalty (where modern civilised countries are concerned, at least), and the states in the US that still allow the death penalty are a laughing stock for much of the rest of the civilised world (Sorry, Not.Now_Soon). It’s one way in which they are alone join the ranks of dysfunctional societies such as those in the Middle-East, in that regard.

Much of the data debunking the death penalty as a suitable form of punishment can be found at http://deathpenaltyinfo.org. The site is fully referenced, if anyone doubts the claims made there.

In my opinion, for so long as there is the risk of executing innocent people, there is no justification for the death penalty. Life-without-parole can be somewhat corrected at a later date, in the event that the accused is found to be not guilty. The death penalty, on the other hand, cannot be.

The death penalty is the only safe course. A life sentence does not mean “life”. There is a constant effort for diminution of sentences essential to the safety of the community.
Consider the following facts:
” Corrective Services boss Peter Severin has jetted at NSW taxpayer expense to conferences in Mexico, Colorado and Namibia to discuss issues such as the “The Victory of the Soul” with prison chiefs around the world.
But under his watch in NSW some of the state’s most infamous killers have been granted prison privileges while “culturally and linguistically diverse” inmates have been surveyed to see what they want on the menu.”
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/never-to-be-released-prisoners-get-soft-serve-in-jails-from-corrective-services-boss-peter-severin-who-jet-sets-to-mexico-and-colorado-to-brainstorm-jail-policy/news-story/fee87b8594a5b2b36f517b36e0986f1a

philips, I have to go with leo on this. The risk of a crim being released is too great when weighed against the damage and mayhem he has caused and has yet to cause if he were free.

I always imagine the peace and tranquility with such people removed from society.

To be able to shift the threat of death from our shoulders onto theirs where the burden of guilt actually belongs.

Hi Leo,

In mid-1971, a Taperoo schoolgirl was found dead on a beach here in Adelaide. Fritz van Beelen did nearly twenty years for her murder, before being pardoned. I think he's still pursuing a compensation claim. The death penalty might have still been on the books in SA at the time: the last bloke executed in SA was hanged only seven years before.

The evidence against van Beelen always seemed dodgy: the girl came home from high school in Port Adelaide by bus, went down the beach and wasn't seen alive again. Van Beelen picked his wife up at the central GPO at 4.50 that Friday afternoon. Port Adelaide and Port Road were much busier back in those days, especially on Fridays, yet he was supposed to have been down at the beach, accosted, perhaps assaulted and murdered the girl, buried her body under seaweed, got back to his car and driven through Port Adelaide along Port Road to pick his wife up at the GPO at ten to five.

From memory, a crucial piece of the 'evidence' was that the girl had red woollen fibres on her uniform, and he was wearing a woollen jumper with red in it. Red woollen fibres are in most woollen garments. It seemed ludicrous at the time, but was enough to help put him away for an offence that he didn't commit, and which may not have been an 'offence' at all, given that there were no marks on the girl's body, and it's possible she was alive until the next morning.

Fortunately, van Beelen wasn't executed and is now free - nearly fifty years later, and around seventy - to seek justice.

Joe

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You ask :

« It seems to me you … accept that miscarriages of justice have and will occur. With this in mind what is your JUSTIFICATION for the death penalty? »
.

Anybody who, for whatever reason, happens to be within the geographic jurisdiction of Australia, is automatically subject to Australian law.

The simple fact of being within that jurisdiction (even if only temporarily) implies that he accepts the terms and conditions of Australia’s democracy. He is deemed to voluntarily subscribe to the “social contract” of Australian society. Like all contracts, the social contract contains rights and obligations together with corresponding sanctions that apply if those rights and obligations are not respected.

As usual in such cases, the legal principle of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” (“ignorantia juris non excusat”) applies. If that were not the case, anybody could claim that he was unaware of the law to avoid liability. This principle applies in every country in the world, without exception.

So, if we were to authorise the judiciary not only to deprive those found guilty of crimes, of their freedom, but also those found guilty of “atrocious” crimes, of their lives, we would simply be applying the terms and conditions of the social contract which the criminals would be deemed to have fully understood and voluntarily accepted.

In accordance with International Human Rights Law, the right to life is an inalienable right of every human being. However, there are certain situations in which State actors are required to take drastic action, which can result in individuals being killed either by law enforcement agents or armed forces personnel, in defence of the nation.

This is a natural reaction of defence and retaliation which occurs when individuals or society as a whole come under attack. It is common practise among all life forms without exception. One could even say it is a law of nature. Unlike the so-called survival instinct, it is totally independent of the conscious mind.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Nature has attributed many life forms with immune systems capable of detecting and locating enemies or potential enemies that threaten them, and elaborating strategies to destroy them. The so-called enemies are, of course, other life forms. Here is how it works :

http://www.imgt.org/IMGTeducation/Tutorials/ImmuneSystem/UK/the_immune_system.pdf
.

Though plants lack an immune system comparable to animals, they have developed a stunning array of structural, chemical, and protein-based defences designed to detect invading organisms and stop them before they are able to cause extensive damage.

It is by application of this law of nature, that I consider that it is perfectly legitimate for society to deprive certain individuals of their lives. However, while the criminal act of taking another person’s life is perfectly inadmissible, “atrocious” crimes such as child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed, are even worse.

As civilised human beings, I consider that we should reserve application of the most extreme measure, the deprivation of life, exclusively to those individuals found guilty of “atrocious” crimes, all other criminals being subjected to deprivation of their freedom, proportionately to the gravity of their crimes.

The risk of judicial error, which can never be totally excluded, also pleads in favour of the limitation of the extreme sanction to only the worst cases – but, in my opinion, not to its total abolition, as at present.

.

ALTRAV,

I have never known of a “Never to be released” prisoner being released in Australia. So, I fail to see how the risk is too great.

<<I always imagine the peace and tranquility with such people removed from society.>>

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to work that way. There is much evidence to suggest that capital punishment actually has a brutalising effect on the societies that use it.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=brutalizing+effect+of+capital+punishment

Philips, your comments attempt to deprive me of MY piece of mind, in so much as 'I' will feel will feel 'peace' and 'tranquility'.

I care not what happens to the crim, he obviously didn't.

He knew full well what he was in for if he got caught.

HE GOT CAUGHT!

Sounds like you need to read my last post again a little more carefully, ALTRAV. Nothing you just said is even remotely related to my comments.

Alt Raver,

Back when I was a kid, a bloke in England named Evans was hanged for murders committed by another bloke named Christie. Christie went on to commit more murders, was arrested, properly tried, found guilty and hanged. By then, it was a bit late for Evans.

'Never to be released': that always allows for the possibility that a convicted person was actually innocent. It seems to be a superior procedure rather than their speedy execution.

Joe

Loudmouth, I feel the urge to agree with you, BUT, the risk of the real crim getting pardoned because of some highly paid scum lawyer is too much for me to justify letting him live.

As for the poor bastard who was wrongly convicted and consequently executed, I would punish all those involved in this poor man being charged and convicted. Now 'they' should go to jail.

The mis-carriage of justice started with the lazy, stupid law enforcement, then on through to the judiciary, and finally the stupid people of the jury.

As long as people keep duck shoveling their responsibilities to their fellow man, we will always just keep on stuffing up. So let's lay the blame where it is due. You, the people.

ALTRAV,

I am happy to report that pardons only happen in the US (in the civilised world, at least), and only presidents can issue them. Furthermore, I am not aware of a POTUS pardoning a dangerous or deranged criminal.

<<As for the poor bastard who was wrongly convicted and consequently executed, I would punish all those involved in this poor man being charged and convicted. Now 'they' should go to jail.>>

Your plan wouldn’t work, I’m afraid. All this would mean is that no-one would be willing to become a criminal lawyer, serve on a jury, or become an investigative cop. Your idea is flawed. There are certain cases in which immunity is required.

Worst of all, it wouldn’t bring back the poor bastard who was wrongfully executed, and there have been many of them.

<<As long as people keep duck shoveling their responsibilities to their fellow man, we will always just keep on stuffing up. So let's lay the blame where it is due. You, the people.>>

Would that then include you, as a supporter of outdated and unusual punishments?

P.S. Can I take your silence on my last post to you as an indication that you have now actually read it properly and have nothing to say in response?

Philips, in answer to your last question. I give your posts a cursory glance these days. It's very astute of you to pick up on the fact I don't read your posts anymore.

I have to accept I am only human and therefore flawed. As you have pointed out time and again. You are an educated and qualified man and therefore know best.

As for laying the blame on 'you the people', I do not include myself because I am aware of and always arguing for the people's participation in important matters and that we should keep on top of these scumbags.

Regarding the complete desertion of legal scumbags, good, it will make it easier to replace them with people who actually understand and live by the mantra of, 'duty of care', and not 'she'll be right mate'.

As for juries, what an asinine idea in the first place. Asking a dozen morons to decide the fate of another. That's only because the judge hand-balled the unpopular decision so he could not be held accountable for a wrong conviction.

Honestly who are these twelve extremely intelligent people who can come up with the right decision every time?

. Dear AJ Philips, . You wrote : « There is much evidence to suggest that capital punishment actually has a brutalising effect on the societies that use it » - and you kindly provided a link to the source of your information. . I checked out those sites. Most of the research was about the pretended deterrent effect of capital punishment in the US. The findings are not unanimous. While most considered there was a “brutalising” effect, i.e., that executions stimulate the behaviour they are supposed to deter, one of the researchers, David P. Phillips, professor of sociology at the University of California, indicated exactly the opposite : « On the average, homicides decrease by 35.7% immediately following a publicized execution. The more publicity devoted to the execution, the more homicides decrease thereafter. This decrease apparently occurs because capital punishment has a short-term deterrent effect on homicides » Moreover, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the US National Research Council warned in 2012 : « Many studies over the past few decades have sought to determine whether the death penalty has any deterrent effect on homicide rates. Researchers have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions. Some studies have concluded that the threat of capital punishment deters murders, saving large numbers of lives; other studies have concluded that executions actually increase homicides; still others, that executions have no effect on murder rates » The Council concluded as follows : « The committee concludes that research to date is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, these studies should not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate or has no effect on it should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment » Here is the executive summary of the full report : http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_080967.pdf .

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

I agree with your simple but eminently wise reflection (page 25 of this thread) in response to Ashbo’s request for justification of the death penalty :

« Justice, even if it is flawed justice, is better than injustice »
.

It reminds me of the debate on the question of the presumption of innocence regarding sex crimes, most of which go unpunished because of lack of material evidence and no witnesses.

Commenting on the doctrine in "A Treatise on Judicial Evidence" which he published in 1825 the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, wrote (Book VI, Chapter II, p. 198):

« At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished »

Bentham's premonition has proven to be true beyond all imagination. The scales of justice are so heavily weighted in favour of the guilty that the vast majority of sex offenders are never punished.
Not surprisingly, Bentham clearly takes the opposite position to the reigning doctrine (p.194):

« Between Plaintiff and Defendant, the presumption ought to be in favour of the former, to the prejudice of the latter. The probability in favour of the former, because he voluntarily submits his right to the decision of justice; but the defendant appears in spite of himself. The case in which it is the interest of the plaintiff to litigate in opposition to his own conviction, must always be rare … »

Though this may be seen as a radical departure and politically uncorrect, I couldn’t agree more, so far as sex crimes are concerned.

.

ALTRAV,

That’s rather foolish of you if you’re still going to respond.

<<I give your posts a cursory glance these days.>>

It explains a lot of your strange responses on the other thread.

<<As for laying the blame on 'you the people', I do not include myself because I am aware of and always arguing for the people's participation in important matters and that we should keep on top of these scumbags.>>

And some don’t? Do tell.

<<Regarding the complete desertion of legal scumbags, good, it will make it easier to replace them with people who actually understand and live by the mantra of, 'duty of care', and not 'she'll be right mate'.>>

Like I said, though, you wouldn’t be able to replace them if they could be held responsible for executing an innocent.

<<As for juries, what an asinine idea in the first place. Asking a dozen morons to decide the fate of another.>>

Looks like I now have to educate you on the theory behind the utilisation of juries. I won’t bother, though, since you’ve admitted you don’t even read my posts properly. You can remain ignorant.

<<That's only because the judge hand-balled the unpopular decision so he could not be held accountable for a wrong conviction.>>

No, it’s not.

<<Honestly who are these twelve extremely intelligent people who can come up with the right decision every time?>>

They’re different all the time, and selected by ballot. Their decisions are usually reliable because they are directed by the judge.

Is there ANY area in which you are not completely ignorant? Surely, you’re knowledgeable in SOME field. Surely!

--

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I’m aware that the evidence for the brutalising effect is far from conclusive. That’s why I was careful with my wording when mentioning it to ALTRAV.

My main problem with the death penalty is that I view any risk of executing an innocent person to be unacceptable in societies that have the resources to utilise other options. Further to that, I find the idea of the State killing people, who are not enemy combatants, bizarre and unnerving.

Well Philips as usual you attack anothers opinions or comments and replace them with questions. Stop spouting your imaginary wisdom.

If I say people are stupid and not interested in their own welfare I have good reason to say such things. You have no reason to the contrary.

I am not concerned with your explanation of juries or anything else for that matter. The system and the people entrusted to manage this country and all it's various services are too lax to be trusted to do the right thing.

Of course innocent people have been wrongly incarcerated both in the past and in the future.

As I keep trying to explain to you, every time you question a comment there is evidence of opposing views, which render neither mine or your comment the right one, but opinions.

I have at times researched your comments or rebuts, only to find conflicting views and opinions from various authors. So stop selling your version of events or at least stop rejecting comments from others.

Philips, you 'view killing of an innocent person to be unacceptable'.

Well we agree on something, although small consolation for the 80 year old couple murdered in their sleep.

So you can tell who is innocent and who is guilty. You see your argument is flawed because the system everyone puts so much faith in fails all the time. No one wants to hear that.

Don't be obtuse, no one wants to execute an innocent man.

In the absence of truly committed compassionate people in positions of power, this is the crap we are left with.

Not withstanding your dislike for the death penalty, you will find a lot more people than you think are for it.

Research shows there is no conclusive evidence one way or another, so if you don't mind whether it's popular or not, it is MY opinion to go with the death penalty, and so, you can't fark with that.

To ALTRAV, Banjo, Leo, Not_Now.Soon, Loudmouth, AJ Phillips

Leo: Lennie Lawson was 1st sentenced for a multiple rapes not murder. For the murder he was sentenced to life without parole, which was carried out – he died in prison.
Just so we are talking about the same thing, a paedophile has a sexual attraction to young children.
A paedophile may or may not sexually assault a child. Sexual assaults on children are not confined to paedophiles. Sexual assaults on children can result in a Life without parole sentence.
A Life without parole sentence was recently handed down in a NSW murder case.
Not_Now.Soon: Your justification for the death penalty is:” it’s a sure way to end a criminal”. May I assume this idea is based on the premise that criminal’s will re-offend upon release?
Loudmouth: In Australia judges have available a “Life without Parole” sentence. Any your examples are persuasive.
ALTRAV: May I say that how a person feels is not a justification.
AJ Phillips: I visited the website you recommended and found it very informative
Banjo: I read somewhere that in sentencing 4 “outcomes” must be addressed together: Retribution, Punishment, Community Protection, and Deterrence.
These are moral concepts (how we should treat each other).
Your justification for the death penalty - invoking a “Law of Nature” is open to the argument that nature “Just Is” and has nothing to say to us about how we should live our lives and how we should treat others. In the criminal justice system we discriminate as to how an offender is to be treated.

Attack” is an emotive way of putting it, ALTRAV.

<<… you attack anothers opinions or comments and replace them with questions.>>

I will discredit a claim that I know it is wrong, and request evidence when I know there is none.

<<Stop spouting your imaginary wisdom.>>

At no point have I suggested that I am wise.

<<If I say people are stupid and not interested in their own welfare I have good reason to say such things.>>

So, that’s all you were saying? If you’re so passionate about the topics on which you comment, then why not educate yourselves on them. I mean, you criticise juries, yet don’t even know why they exist!

<<I am not concerned with your explanation of juries ...>>

And yet you criticize them anyway.

<<The system and the people entrusted to manage this country and all it's various services are too lax to be trusted to do the right thing.>>

That’s a bit of a broad statement. This is not my experience, where the criminal justice system is concerned, at least.

<<Of course innocent people have been wrongly incarcerated both in the past and in the future.>>

More to the point: executed.

You might acknowledge this, but I’m more interested in why you think that’s acceptable in societies that have the resources for other options.

<<As I keep trying to explain to you, every time you question a comment there is evidence [for] opposing views ...>>

But is it reliable, and why won't you present it?

<<I have at times researched your comments or rebuts, only to find conflicting views and opinions from various authors.>>

Do you have an example?

<<So you can tell who is innocent and who is guilty.>>

The courts can the vast majority of the time, yes. Even if they have to correct themselves at a later date in rare cases.

Continued…

...Continued

<<You see your argument is flawed because the system everyone puts so much faith in fails all the time.>>

No, it only fails some of the time. I have never claimed otherwise.

<<... no one wants to execute an innocent man.>>

Of course not. I have never suggested that anyone did.

<<Not withstanding your dislike for the death penalty, you will find a lot more people than you think are for it.>>

I’m well aware of the statistics there, even the fact some change their mind during a survey when asked what method they think should be used.. This is a fallacious appeal to numbers, too, by the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

<<Research shows there is no conclusive evidence one way or another …>>

Perhaps. But it IS heavily weighted against the death penalty:

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org

Ashbo, I'm not sure about your response to me about 'feel'. I think you may have confused me with another commentor.

But as I am here, I will say that people rely a lot on how they 'feel'. I'm not sure how it is a bad thing as this 'feeling' they have must have manifested itself from experiences or personal exposure to some pretty unsavoury things in their lives.

So it leaves them with a bad feeling, which is OK because it is a word that is used to summerise.

To Ashbo. If a criminal did something worthy of the death penalty, then the penalty is justified. The only concern to not kill of murders and other heinous crimes, is the possibility to harm an innocent person because the system doesn't always get it right.

It's not that it's not justified. At least not with regard to the crimes the death penalty would be applied to. As a punishment for the criminal that do the heinous crimes,mas well as a deterrent from others following suit, the death penalty is a deterrent against injustice.

If you can deter injustice without invoking the death penalty, so be it. That's great and it will save those who get wrongfully accused. If not, so be it. In our systems of justice, even though it is flawed, the death penalty is justified for those who commit crimes that warrant the penalty.

To Not_Now.Soon.
Saying <In our systems of justice, even though it is flawed, the death penalty is justified for those who commit crimes that warrant the penalty> is not a justification for the death penalty.
What you are saying is, in effect, the death penalty is justified because it is justified!
Also, in Australia’s “system of justice” we do not have the death penalty.........
Can you think if a reason the death penalty is better than what we have now?

To Banjo.
I think we can all agree that “Justice, even if it flawed justice, is better than injustice”.
All this statement does is describe the current state of affairs – it says nothing that might be seen as supporting capital punishment.
May i also say your quotes from Bentham’s “A Treatise on Judicial Evidence” are completely out of context and misrepresent his thoughts.
You quote the last few sentences of a section entitled:
“In criminal matters, and above all, in serious offences, the presumption ought to be in favour of innocence: or, at least, it is necessary to proceed as if this presumption were established”
You then claim that Bentham’s “premonition” has proved correct! What utter rubbish you then come up with.
Your second quote is, if at all possible, is even more dishonestly used by you. Bentham was discussing Civil cases and not Criminal trials when he argued for Judges to favour Plaintiffs over Defendants (unless of course the evidence suggested otherwise).

To Ashbo.

Look at each justice system that holds the death penalty. In each one they have held (or currently hold) a means to say what is bad enough to be killed by the state. If you look at each of those you can say whether the death penalty is justified or if it is an injustice.

For example hanging a murderer I'd count as justified. More modern times make the death penalty more humane and less public. Beheading an ex Muslim for turning away from the faith. Not justified, but in my opinion (and I hope your opinion too), it is a gross form of injustice, oppression, and coercion. In the days past. At least one king beheaded his wives for not producing a son. Also not justified.

My argument is that if the penalty fits the crime, then the justification is still sound even at the risk of the person being innocent of the crime. The problem with the death penalty is that it is a final punishment that can't be corrected. Is a life in prison any better though if the person innocent serves most of their time in prison before justice catches up to them and declares them innocent? They've lost much of their lives and the injustice in that isn't enough to keep the penalty from being enforced.

As much as I don't like the death penalty because of the risk of innocent people being put to death, there are crimes that I think warrant a death penalty. Murder, serial murderers, serial rapists, and posibly those who influence others to murder or do other heinous crimes (even if they keep themself from the act) are crimes I think warrant the death penalty

Before going on into the conversation. I need to ask. Do you think those crimes don't warrant the death penalty? I'm asking because I want to know if you are against the death penalty because no crime warrants that punishment, or if you are against it be cause of the risk of an innocent person being killed. The difference is worth being clarified.

Not-Now.Soon, if I can jump in briefly. I find I am uncomfortable with one of your suggested crimes which would require the death penalty.

As much as I agree with the death penalty, I absolutely dis-agree with killing someone for raping someone.

If the woman was attacked physically again, depending on whether it was a matter of restraining her, or whether his actions were more aggressive and constituted GBH by definition, then the law has punishments to suite the degree of physical harm inflicted on the victim.

The only reason for executing someone for rape is if they killed the victim after having their way.

Otherwise as far as I am concerned if someone is raped and there is a certain level of physicality involved then it should be treated the same as assault.

The charge of assault is based on the level of injuries, according to the terms of reference or definitions as laid down by law.

EG; simple assault, bodily harm, grieves bodily harm and so on.

None of these carry the death penalty.

P.S. With the amount of these Nancys coming out of the woodwork to accuse men of nothing more than being men, I am afraid we would have a bank-up of men being executed.

Alt Rave,

Are you suggesting that rape which does not involve violence, is not actually rape ? And therefore not a crime ?

To ALTRAV.

One of the issues with the death penalty is with where we draw the line for applying the punishment. I do think rape is a serious crime but, but unfortunately it is hard to prove. However if a person is found guilty of being a serial rapist, I think that pushes the seriousness of the crime to be in the same ball park as a murder.

That said you might be right about rape being like assault. I'll give it some thought. As of now I still stand by that a repeated offense of rape is a crime that should be punished by death.

I will answer both;

First, Loudmouth, I think you've answered your own question. I'm not sure of the question, but, err, I think I'll go with NO. I think.

Not-Now.Soon, I don't think rape is the issue I would be focused on. The act of raping someone, removing the physical injury component for a moment, becomes an act of emotion.

The victim is emotionally attacked. This, in my view does not constitute grounds for the title of a 'serious crime'. Nothing was disturbed but some emotion in the form of fear and pride.

Should it be considered a serious enough crime to be punished by execution? NO!

On the other hand if the victim is attacked physically. This attack should therefore by given the same degree of consideration as a physical attack where the victim is left with injuries ranging from common assault to GBH. The rapist should be charged under those laws.

Should it be considered a serious enough crime to punished by execution? NO!

Then last but not least we have the serial rapist who rapes and causes the victims to suffer GBH and worst, kills them after he's done.
OK, this is one sick puppy.

Should it be considered a serious enough crime to be punished by execution? Without question; YES!

Alt ave,

So if someone threatens a woman, that he will smash her face in with a brick if she doesn't give into him, and if she does so in order to avoid injury, and no actual violence has been committed, then no rape has taken place ?

ALTRAV,

While I agree that a single instance of rape does not justify the death penalty, your reasoning is flawed.

<<The act of raping someone, removing the physical injury component for a moment, becomes an act of emotion.>>

No, it’s an act of sexual assault. The DAMAGE is primarily emotional - which means the damage is usually longer lasting, harder to fix, and far more disruptive to one’s life.

<<The victim is emotionally attacked. This, in my view does not constitute grounds for the title of a 'serious crime'. Nothing was disturbed but some emotion in the form of fear and pride.>>

And this ignorant attitude, people, is why depression and mental illness still aren’t taken seriously. If you can’t see the damage, then apparently it’s not REALLY there. It’s all just psychological (in the ‘imaginary’ sense) and the sufferer just needs to pull their socks up and get on with it.

AJ, I won't appologise for seeing things free of emotion and sentiment. As I have said all along, we cannot allow emotion into a discussion/debate. It only serves to infect the outcome and deliver a completely wrong result.

Because emotions vary with different people.

By pandering to the victims you are not helping them get over the trauma but fueling their emotional fire for the worst, and they only go deeper into depression because your telling them 'it's OK to feel how you feel'.

Today's generation have become way too 'soft'. I personally was not privy to this 'princess' style of child raising, so call me all the names you want, just remember your not doing these Nancys any good by playing up the seriousness of their ordeal.

So do your worst, I'm a big boy, lived long enough to know the many different kinds of people out there, and you all leave a lot to be desired. I will elaborate another time.

As for you throwing in the phrase 'sexual assault', well again you and the law makers and the Nancys call it whatever you like. I see things much clearer than the PC following softies.

It is you who have the ignorant attitude. 'The damage is primarily emotional'. So we agree that there is a primary and therefore major view on the emotional component of rape.

Now I'm going to put the boot in. YOU choose to go with 'it's an act of sexual assault'. You can call it whatever you like. I define assault as a physical attack, not what some PC loving bunch of losers say it is.

I am curious as to how any sane man can come up with such an overkill description of something which involves no physical injuries. Did the rapist slap her with his penis? Was it that hard that he left deep scars and bleeding wounds? NO!

As I said in the real world we don't lie or overstate a case simply because we want to make a point that will see the victim get the benefit of the doubt.

At no point have I suggested that you should, ALTRAV.

<<I won't appologise for seeing things free of emotion and sentiment.>>

Nor does one need to allow their emotions take over, and cloud their vision, in order to understand the fact that emotional damage is a very real thing, and often worse than physical damage.

<<By pandering to the victims you are not helping them get over the trauma but fueling their emotional fire for the worst …>>

Who's pandering to victims?

<<… and they only go deeper into depression because your telling them 'it's OK to feel how you feel'.>>

Victims of rape need to understand that it’s okay for them to feel the way they feel before they can move forward.

<<Today's generation have become way too 'soft'. I personally was not privy to this 'princess' style of child raising, so call me all the names you want …>>

What do the different styles of raising children have to do with understanding the seriousness of mental and emotional damage?

<<… just remember [you’re] not doing these Nancys any good by playing up the seriousness of their ordeal.>>

So, victims of rape are just being “nancys”, and acknowledging the seriousness of their ordeal is really just a beat-up? Have you ever been raped, or dealt with a rape victim before?

<<As for you throwing in the phrase 'sexual assault', well again you and the law makers and the Nancys call it whatever you like.>>

Rape is by definition an assault, whether you like that or not.

<<So we agree that there is a primary and therefore major view on the emotional component of rape.>>

With regards to the resulting damage, yes, it appears so. Where we differ is in the fact that you don’t think emotional problems are real problems.

<<I define assault as a physical attack …>>

Rape is a physical attack.

NO, rape is not by definition assault. It might be by PC definition and certain people.

I grew up with assault being someone physically hurting you. I will never accept that anything other than that definition is correct.

Stupid phrases like 'verbal' assault and more. Pelease. Rape is not assault unless the victim is slapped around as I described as the various grounds for assault.

A victim is restrained, but if they haven't had the living bejesus bashed out of them it is called at worst deprivation of liberty. They can do this without harming them physically.

You believe what you want to believe, I choose to go with reason and common sense. Two things, it appears you lack. You would rather go with the bible of lies, better known as Political Correctness.

Oh, it absolutely is, ALTRAV.

<<NO, rape is not by definition assault.>>

Assault (noun):
1 A physical attack.
‘his imprisonment for an assault on the film director’
‘a sexual assault’

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assault

<<It might be by PC definition and certain people.>>

Even the Oxford. Most of your right-wing comrades, too, I dare say.

<<I grew up with assault being someone physically hurting you.>>

Times change as we learn more. Well, most of us, anyway.

<<I will never accept that anything other than that definition is correct.>>

That is your prerogative. It appears that virtually everyone else disagrees with you, though. Everyone else, that is, apart from rapists. Your rationalisations sound eerily similar to the rationalisations of those who have committed rape before and want desperately to morally disengage themselves from what it is they have done, or are still doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_disengagement#Disregarding_or_misrepresenting_injurious_consequences

<<Stupid phrases like 'verbal' assault ...>>

Assault (noun):
1.3 A strong verbal attack.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assault

<<Rape is not assault unless the victim is slapped around as I described as the various grounds for assault.>>

The law disagrees with you because damage is still done. You have not yet countered this with anything that does not sound like a perpetrator morally disengaging themselves from their actions.

Should I be calling the police?

Alt Rave,

So, if I found out where you lived, and had a mind to stalk your wife or daughter, accosted her in a park with a lump of wood to 'induce' her to go into the bushes with me, had my way with her, and then let her go, that would be okay with you ?

Wouldn't that be assault ? Kidnapping, or holding someone against their will for a start ? Wouldn't it have lasting effects of her ? Wouldn't it be a vile thing to do, worthy of a long prison sentence ?

Joe

AL TRAV.
Bear in mind that where there is a legal definition, it is not an option to accept or reject the definition.We are all bound by the law, which is unaffected by personal opinion.
“Although the term "rape" is widely used, it’s not a legal definition of the crime. The correct term is "sexual assault," as defined in the NSW Crimes Act. Under the act, "sexual assault" is penetrative assault “
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/what-is-the-legal-process-for-rape-cases-in-australia

You will need to modify your consideration of the topic to accomodate this. Good luck.

Loudmouth, if you used a piece of wood and hit her with it, thta's assault. Depending on how much you hit her it could range from common assault to GBH, the law already has that covered.

If by 'induce' you mean you convinced her to go with you without any 'physical' assault, ie; she was not harmed, I would be relieved and even grateful.

It would be rape yes and that's all. You might squeeze in deprivation of liberty but if she was not restrained in any way, I can't see how, by law, one could argue any further.

One has to ask, why she did not put up a fight? Too frightened maybe?
As for being a 'vile' thing to do, depends who is judging. Vile is too strong a word.

A long prison sentence, NO! I reserve that for the 'really bad guys'.

I would be angry and want to take my revenge on the guy, but as I said I'd be grateful he didn't physically harm her.

If my wife and I are to give you an explanation as to how we would feel, we come from a time where, she would be having emotional moments, but after a suitable time of 'mourning', we would get on with our lives.

As I've said before, nothing changed and the emotional part of such a thing is nothing compared to some of the things we and others have had to and yet to endure during our/their lifetime.

The only assault that IS assault is a physical attack. Which the dictionary confirms. The inclusion later of the words 'sexual attack' is a later inclusion by the PC Nancys.

Times might have changed, and it seems reason and common sense has too, for the worst. PC and the weak have taken control of society and brought us down in a race to the bottom.

Alt ave,

FGS. If one were to threaten to hit a woman with a lump of wood, but eventually not to do so, but to rape her, can you understand that this would still count as assault ? That intimidation may be assault ? That any attack, physical and otherwise which interferes with their person, i.e. against someone's will, is assault ? To penetrate a woman against her will is surely assault ?

Assault doesn't just mean 'causing injury', although even there, rape would surely cause an enormous amount of psychological injury ? Oh, you don't believe in such a thing ? It's all put on ? I only hope for your sake that you don't do a stretch in Long Bay.

Yes, of course, there is consensual sex with porn stars, as Trump exemplifies, even while his wife is giving birth to his half-wit son. Somebody mentioned Jimmy Savile, but that's probably not very tactful at this time, given Trump's record. Yes, power may be a great aphrodisiac for both giver and receiver, especially sweetened by money, and perhaps it would be indelicate to point out that Trump may be familiar with going rates, both for twosomes and threesomes, so I won't. But even in those cases, if Trump were to make demands which even the sluttiest porn star refused to comply with, it would still be rape if he went ahead, no matter how much he paid her afterwards, and even if he didn't injure her physically.

I only hope your wife or daughter aren't aware of your opinions on this subject.

Joe

To Not_Now.Soon

I am opposed to capital punishment and I justify this by the following arguments:

1. The taking of an innocent life is a terrible crime and a just punishment must be the consequence.
It is self evident that our criminal justice system is capable of miscarriages of justice.
Carrying out a death sentence provides no remedy for a miscarriage of justice.
2. Executing a person who is subsequently found to be innocent, can undermine confidence in the judicial system, and the rule of law more generally. This is a circumstance to be avoided.
3. Executions do not act as a deterrent.
4. Executions only satisfy one aspect of sentencing - retribution. Vengeance, alone, should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes.
5. Life without parole is an available sentence that satisfies 1,2,and 4 above.

Not-Now.Soon, I'm a mix of optimism, pessimism and fatalism. I am a realist and a pragmatist all roped in together.

This may help others on 'The Forum', understand me better. If anyone wishes to look up the meaning of 'pragmatist', it will go a long way understanding me, for those who find it hard to do so.

The argument against capitol punishment is an emotional one. We must not introduce emotion into a debate or discussion. It provides no value.

We should not avoid undermining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law. This is a circumstance we MUST encourage.

At least you are not totally abolishing the idea of the death penalty.

Life without parole also gives the crims the opportunity to get pardoned because of some scum-bag lawyer and plenty of money.

I believe executions ARE a deterrent.

We must focus all our attention on where the faults are.

When an innocent person is executed, ALL the people involved with him getting to that end should ALL be arrested and charged with manslaughter/murder.(which ever is applicable)

As it is now is moronic. We have morons for police, who constantly need help from the public 'to call crime stoppers' because they are SOOOOOO useless. All they're good for is tax collecting.

We should be challenging them rather than fear them. That's what they want, thereby having control over us. If people started standing up to them, it would help if you read up on the police act, you will find they will not be so quick to charge someone knowing they could end up in jail themselves.

I've always hated the laws in this country. We get charged for the 'possibility' of us doing something wrong. Not for doing something wrong, why? Because it is easier to find fault and make money from a passive act of non-compliance.

For example, I am fined for exceeding a speed set for that particular road. I did nothing wrong, I did not kill or injure anyone or damage any property. I did nothing!

ALTRAV,

The case against the capital punishment need not be an emotional one. As the link I provided earlier shows, virtually none of the data supports the use of capital punishment.

Around 85% of criminologists are against the death penalty. Interestingly, you tend to find that since most of the data do not support the use of the death penalty, criminologists who support the death penalty do so for philosophical or moral reasons rather than what the data shows.

<<Life without parole also gives the crims the opportunity to get pardoned because of some scum-bag lawyer and plenty of money.>>

No, life without parole (LWOP) means exactly that. No amount of money or lawyer cunning can change that.

<<I believe executions ARE a deterrent.>>

Of course they are. However, the vast majority of the data suggests that they are no more of a deterrent than LWOP.

<<When an innocent person is executed, ALL the people involved with him getting to that end should ALL be arrested and charged with manslaughter/murder.>>

Then either no-one would become a criminal-lawyer/investigative cop/juror, or the death penalty would never be issued out of fear that those involved got it wrong.

You have not yet overcome this fatal problem with your proposal here.

<<We have morons for police, who constantly need help from the public 'to call crime stoppers' because they are SOOOOOO useless.>>

This would have to be one of the most moronic things you’ve ever said. You think you can do a better job? Do you think that the Crime Stoppers hotline is a sign of incompetence? Has it ever occurred to you that Crime Stoppers exists because police can’t know everything?

<<… I am fined for exceeding a speed set for that particular road. I did nothing wrong, I did not kill or injure anyone or damage any property. I did nothing!>>

Yes, you did. You sped, and put lives at risk in the process - even if only your own. There goes that moral disengagement of yours again. I take it you’re happy for others to put your life at risk?

Philips, take everything you said and reverse it. You quote articles and laws as if they are gospel.

It is precisely because they are ALL based on humans that they are flawed.

I can find data totally contradicting your data.

NO lWOP means nothing. You are not the law nor do you know the law.
I am telling you that it is possible to overturn LWOP.

'executions ARE a deterrent', You should have stopped there because again there IS data to back it up with.

The idea of ALL these ignorant people of the judiciary not stuffing up any more is exactly what we need. Drain the swamp.

No this is one of the most moronic things YOU have ever said. And yes I could do a better job. Don't you dare try to tell us that the cops 'can't know everything'. THEY DON"T KNOW ANYTHING!

There goes your moronosity again. Yep you read it right. Being just as stupid as the law you miss the point.

My point is that by speeding it is implied that you MIGHT do something wrong. If you do then throw the book at you and they will be justified in charging you accordingly.

On the other hand I speed and get to my destination without incident or a trail of death and destruction then, leave me alone and get on with some real crime, oh that's right their too stupid to do that.

I do not care about this law or that law, the bad guys don't so at least I will be on a level playing field.

When I break the law, I want to know I have done something, actually wrong, not the 'possibility' of 'maybe' doing something wrong.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You indicate that the first and foremost reason for your opposition to capital punishment is:

« Our criminal justice system is capable of miscarriages of justice… a death sentence provides no remedy for a miscarriage of justice »

Does this mean that in cases where there is no risk of miscarriage of justice, you are not opposed to the application of the death penalty ? Consider, for example the following:

• The assassination by Jack Ruby, in public, of Lee Harvey Oswald (accused of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy), filmed live by television cameras and projected around the world.

• The assassination of John Lennon of The Beetles, shot four times by Mark David Chapman who dropped his weapon and sat on the street, waiting to be arrested.

• The assassination of US Senator Robert F. Kennedy, shot four times at point-blank range by a Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan,

• The assassination of Martin Luther King by an escaped convict, James Earl Ray, a white man who was opposed the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

• The assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth who shot the President in the head while the he was watching a theatrical performance.

• The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, shot and killed by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu radical (with the help of his co-conspirator, Narayan Aptew), while having his nightly public walk on the grounds of the Birla Bhavan (Birla House) in New Delhi.

These are just some of the more famous cases of “premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed” which I consider perfectly legitimate for society to deprive those found guilty of their lives.
.

You affirm:

« Executions do not act as a deterrent »

As I indicated to AJ Philips on page 28 of this thread, the US National Research Council warns against affirmations of this nature. There is no conclusive evidence. Perhaps executions are a deterrent. Perhaps they are not.
.

You also affirm:

« Executions only satisfy one aspect of sentencing - retribution. Vengeance, alone, should -

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

... only be reserved for the most heinous crimes »

I grant you that the difference between retribution and vengeance is razor-thin but retribution is a punishment mandated by law and revenge is a personal punishment, one not legally authorized.

Courts of justice in modern democracies such as Australia are not concerned with vengeance. They seek to identify law breakers and their victims, evaluate prejudices and responsibilities and decide appropriate sanctions and reparations.

In criminal law, a sanction is the punishment for a criminal offense. The criminal sanction for a criminal defendant varies according to the crime and may include such measures as death, incarceration, probation, community service, and monetary fines.

As I indicated to you on page 26 of this thread, anybody who, for whatever reason, happens to be within the geographic jurisdiction of Australia, is automatically subject to Australian law.

The simple fact of being within that jurisdiction (even if only temporarily) implies that he accepts the terms and conditions of Australia’s democracy. He is deemed to voluntarily subscribe to the “social contract” of Australian society. Like all contracts, the social contract contains rights and obligations together with corresponding sanctions that apply if those rights and obligations are not respected – and the legal principle of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” applies.

So, if we were to authorise the judiciary not only to deprive those found guilty of crimes, of their freedom, but also those found guilty of “atrocious” crimes, of their lives, we would simply be applying the terms and conditions of the social contract which the criminals would be deemed to have fully understood and voluntarily accepted.

An independent court of law in a modern democratic country simply applies the terms and conditions of the social contract as defined by the sovereign people.
.
You then declare :

« Life without parole is an available sentence that satisfies 1,2,and 4 above »

No, it does not, Ashbo. Depriving an innocent person of his freedom for the rest of his life provides no remedy for a miscarriage of justice.

.

Only if they’re reliable, ALTRAV.

<<… You quote articles and laws as if they are gospel.>>

Not everything on the internet is rubbish. The articles/sites I link to are usually peer-reviewed and/or scholarly, with references to the primary sources of data. You are the only one here who has cited a webpage as though it were gospel - even telling me that I should not question its claims.

<<It is precisely because they are ALL based on humans that they are flawed.>>

This is where raw data comes in handy. It helps to reduce the flaws in human subjectivity.

<<I can find data totally contradicting your data.>>

For some of it you could, yes. Most data, however, is heavily weighted against the use of the death penalty.

<<NO lWOP means nothing.>>

Yes, it does mean something. Most important of all, it means that it can be stopped when necessary, unlike the death penalty.

<<You are not the law nor do you know the law.>>

No, I’m not the law, but I do have a law degree. So, I think it’s safe to say that I know a damn sight more about it than you do.

<<'executions ARE a deterrent', You should have stopped there because again there IS data to back it up with.>>

I have never denied that executions are a deterrent.

<<The idea of ALL these ignorant people of the judiciary not stuffing up any more is exactly what we need. Drain the swamp.>>

And how do you propose to do that? Your last suggestion was a flop.

<<… yes I could do a better job [than police].>>

That’s funny. And how would you do a better job?

<<Don't you dare try to tell us that the cops 'can't know everything'.>>

(And if I do?)

Well, it is true. Do you have evidence against this?

<<THEY DON"T KNOW ANYTHING!>>

Clearly they know some things. But I guess your capitals make you right.

<<My point is that by speeding it is implied that you MIGHT do something wrong.>>

No, you have already done something wrong. Endangering lives is wrong.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Like science, the law does not deal in absolute certainties (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is as far as it goes). So, to speak of a particular punishment being meted out only in cases where there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice (e.g. Jack Ruby) is a legal nonsense.

From a strictly legal point of view, there is no distinction between a Jack Ruby and the criminal who was convicted, with no eye-witnesses or cameras, for a murder he committed in the desert 20 years ago. Either an accused’s guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, or it is not. In sentencing, for example, a judge does not consider the strength of the evidence. To ask that they start doing this in cases warranting the death penalty sets a worrying precedence.

<<Depriving an innocent person of his freedom for the rest of his life provides no remedy for a miscarriage of justice.>>

True, but sentencing an innocent person to life without parole does provide the opportunity to cease the punishment and award a remedy.

The risk of executing innocents will always remain a thorn in the side of those who support capital punishment. To date, The Innocence Project has helped to free 505 innocent people on death row since it first started in 1992. That’s a shocking figure.

http://www.innocenceproject.org

It’s all good and well to talk about support for the death penalty only in certain cases. Heck, I’d probably warm to it, too, if it were possible to apply the strict conditions that the most thinking and rational supporters of the death penalty speak of, and without the inevitable creep. But it’s all for nothing for so long as that’s not possible. We're just speaking in hypotheticals.

To Banjo.
You are quite right in picking up the sloppy choice of words in my argument, for which I thank you.

After considering your response, perhaps the following re-wording is better:

1. The taking of an innocent life is a terrible crime and a just punishment must be the consequence.
It is self evident that our criminal justice system is capable of miscarriages of justice.
Carrying out a death sentence provides no opportunity for a useful remedy for a miscarriage of justice (To be "useful", in the sense that I use it, requires the victim of the miscarriage to be alive).
2. Executing a person who is subsequently found to be innocent, can undermine confidence in the judicial system, and the rule of law more generally. This is a circumstance to be avoided.
3. Executions do not act as a deterrent.
4. Executions only satisfy one aspect of sentencing - retribution. Retribution alone should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes.
5. Life without parole is an available sentence that satisfies 1,2,and 4 above.

I will accept your argument for the time being that there is no compelling evidence, one way or the other, as to the death penalty, and its observance, acting as a deterrent - I will make my own inquiries as to the matter.

In reply to your examples showing irrefutable proof of quilt - as an argument it can be refuted by AJ Phillips response. Deciding upon irrefutable guilt requires a judgement as such, and, as we agree, human judgement can be fallible (even if the likelihood of fallibility is vanishingly small).

Sorry, I need to make a correction. The number of people on death row in the US who have been found to be innocent is 20. I thought my last cited figure seemed far too high. Still a terrible statistic, though.

. Dear AJ Philips, . You wrote : « Like science, the law does not deal in absolute certainties (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is as far as it goes) … Either an accused’s guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, or it is not. In sentencing, a judge does not consider the strength of the evidence » . Yes, I agree, except for your point that “a judge does not consider the strength of the evidence”. My understanding is that a judge is independent and free to consider whatever he chooses, without any obligation to reveal his thoughts to anyone. The jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case through the adversarial process of contradictory debate between prosecution and defence, while the judge determines the law. As the maxim puts it : the judges answer to the law, the jury to the facts (“de jure judices, de facto juratores, respondent”). In Australia, the jury only judges guilt or a verdict of not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge. . As Ashbo indicated that he was opposed to the death penalty because “our criminal justice system is capable of miscarriages of justice” I asked him if he was not opposed to it in cases where there was no such risk, and I cited a number of well-known cases of famous people who were assassinated. Your comment “ Like science, the law does not deal in absolute certainties (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is as far as it goes) …” is an allusion to this. While, as you say, “the law does not deal in absolute certainties”, the legal term “beyond reasonable doubt” refers to the opinion of the jury as to the guilt or innocence of the accused on the basis of the evidence produced at the trial. That evidence can take many different forms, but it rarely consists in allowing the jury to be an eyewitness to the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, as it was by seeing it live on television. US justice is not for poor, black or uneducated ! . (Continued …) .

(Continued …)

.

The evidence in the cases I cited in my post to Ashbo qualifies as what is known by the legal term “conclusive evidence”, i.e., “evidence that may not be disputed and must be accepted by a court as a definitive proof of a fact” (Legal IQ), or “that which is incontrovertible, because it is so strong and convincing as to overbear all proof to the contrary and establish the proposition in question beyond any reasonable doubt” (Black's Law Dictionary).

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

Thank you for your response, but you did not reply to my question : “Does this mean that in cases where there is no risk of miscarriage of justice, you are not opposed to the application of the death penalty ?” – followed by half a dozen famous examples for you to refer to and consider.

Also, on the question of “evidence, one way or the other, as to the death penalty, and its observance, acting as a deterrent”, here is a link to the National Research Council report which I mentioned :

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-national-research-council-concludes-deterrence-studies-should-not-influence-death-penalty

I look forward to your further comments on these two points.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

No, having the judge state the reasons for their decision is an integral component of the fair trial. A person found guilty deserves to know why they are being sentenced in the way that they are. Furthermore, the ‘sentencing remarks’ (as they are referred to) allow the prosecution and defence to understand where the strengths in their cases lain (in the judge’s view), and provide each party with the information they require to mount an appeal, if an appeal is warranted.

Section 10(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) requires that judges state the reasons for the sentences they hand down (other states have the same requirement codified in their legislation):

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-10-27/act-1992-048

Judges are also not free to based their decision on whatever they choose. There are sentencing guidelines which they must follow. Here in Queensland, these are laid out in s 9(2) in the above Act.

Just think of what the implications could be if a sentence were to be based (at least consciously and openly) on the weight of the evidence:

“Since there cannot be any doubt as regards to your guilt, I hereby sentence you to death…”.

Such a consideration implies that there is SOME doubt as to the guilt of those not sentenced to death for similar crimes (which DOES happen in the US and, co-incidentally, the disparity in sentencing strongly correlates with wealth, status, and the ability to afford a good defence). This would open the door to frivolous appeals and would condone the finding of guilt on various levels of doubt where a binary a ‘beyond reasonable doubt or not’ is more appropriate and less fraught with complexities.

<<The jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case through the adversarial process of contradictory debate between prosecution and defence, while the judge determines the law.>>

This is correct, and does not contradict what I have been saying.

Continued…

…Continued

<<The evidence in the cases I cited in my post to Ashbo qualifies as what is known by the legal term “conclusive evidence”>>

Black’s Law Dictionary is American. I double-checked my Oxford Australian Law Dictionary (2nd edition) and there is no equivalent in criminal law here (the defence lawyers in the US must have a field day with cases not comprising "conclusive evidence"). In Australia, “conclusive evidence” is a term only used in administrative law to prevent vexatious litigants. The central principle in Australian evidence law is ‘relevance’, and evidence is usually divided into two categories: direct and circumstantial. ‘Direct evidence’ would be the closest equivalent we have to ‘conclusive evidence’.

But I digress. Going back to the point I made earlier, if a person found guilty could only be sentenced to death in a case where “conclusive evidence” exists, then that implies that none of the evidence was conclusive in other similar cases where the death penalty could not be applied. The totality of the evidence may still be weighted against the accused in such cases, but if none of it is ‘conclusive’, then that opens the door to all sorts of questions, complexities, and frivolous appeals. It may also close the door on appeals that should be heard.

The notion of conclusivity in evidence is fraught with problems where criminal law is concerned, and I think the Australian Criminal Justice System is better for avoiding it.

One point of your points that I didn't address before, Banjo Patterson, was the independence of judges.

While it's important that judges remain independent, there is still the sentencing principle of consistency which must be applied. Statutory sentencing guidelines help to ensure that similar sentences are handed down for similar crimes.

Such guidelines may sound like they run counter to the doctrine of the separation of powers, and to some extent, they do. But they are necessary to ensure that individuals found guilty of a crime are not subject to the whim of a judge’s mood that day or how much they may or may not like the accused - which you could guarantee would happen if judges had no guidelines and did not have to provide reasons for their decisions.

The doctrine of the separation of powers is a good principle to abide by in order to prevent dictatorships. But it's impossible to apply as a strict, hard and fast rule without creating injustices and absurdities in certain areas. There will occasionally be some unavoidable overlap. Former Queensland premier, Campbell Newman, even went as far as to say that the doctrine of the separation of powers didn't really exist and was "more of an American thing". Needless to say, he was widely criticised for such a foolish gaffe

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

Thank you for those interesting and well documented posts. I agree with just about everything you write. If we are not exactly on the same wave length, I think it is essentially for three reasons :

(1) as Australia no longer allows the death penalty, for the sake of discussion, we are juggling between reference to American law and practice and Australian law and practice,

(2) the half dozen examples of famous cases I cited were all American, as were the 20 innocent people on death row that you referred to,

(3) where I have in mind the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australian law based on the US model, you point out the differences between American and Australian laws as they stand today.

I hasten to add that while I am in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australian law, based on the American model, I consider that it should only be applied to those “atrocious crimes” indicated in my previous posts. However, the law is one thing and justice is another. Under no circumstances do I suggest that our justice be practised and administered as justice is practised and administered in the US (where justice is not for the poor, black or uneducated ; inhuman methods of execution, etc.).

I understand the reserves you expressed regarding the legal notion of “conclusive evidence”. Quite frankly, I think the same could be said about “ beyond reasonable doubt”. We have ample evidence almost every day on this forum that where many of us doubt there is a god, others have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is one, while yet others are adamant that it’s just a lot of hogwash. Who is right and who is wrong, we’ll never know.

According to some jurists, in criminal law suits, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, also known as “a preponderance of evidence”, can be thought of as “95% sure”, whereas in civil law suits, “the balance of probabilities”, often referred to in judgments as “more likely than not”, means

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

more than 50% sure. I see “conclusive evidence” as a micron less than absolute certainty.

All these notions are, nevertheless, highly subjective, because every human being is different from every other human being. Human justice is by no means an exact science and, hopefully, never will be. I hope it will always remain human.

Allow me to add, whilst on this subject, that I see a lot of wisdom in Montesquieu’s magnum opus, “L’esprit des lois”. By drawing on this it appears evident that we should not just content ourselves with applying the law literally, to the letter, but look beyond that to its broad underlying principles, to the spirit of the law, its intent, and apply it in this sense, in the broader context.

In my view, whether we incorporate the notion of “conclusive evidence” in the law or not, it is inconceivable that judge and jury would not consider such evidence (like watching the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, live on television) as “conclusive evidence”, i.e., with an even greater degree of confidence than simply “beyond reasonable doubt”. Who could possibly imagine that he made a terrible error in finding Jack Ruby guilty of a crime that he did not commit ?

As you say, under Australian law, Supreme and District Court judges are required to issue sentencing remarks on their judgements. It would facilitate matters, if a prerequisite of the death penalty were that the jury hand down a verdict of guilty on the basis of “conclusive evidence” as stipulated in the law. Anything less than that would not qualify for the death penalty.

Nor can I imagine anybody complaining because the jury considered that his guilt was not based on “conclusive evidence” but simply “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The average sentence for murder in Australia is 22 years. The average waiting period in the US for execution was 15 years and 10 months in 2012 (up from 6 years and 3 months in 1984).

Time on death row in the US :

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

.

To Banjo.
To answer your question: I oppose the death penalty without exceptions.
Let me accept that the 6 examples you site do provide cases where doubt as to guilt cannot exist (I remember seeing on television Jack Ruby shooting Oswald - in the days of black and white TV).
So:
1. A J Phillips concerns seem persuasive to me particularly on the question of where the crime sits between conclusive and beyond reasonable doubt. I have accepted that the 6 examples you have given do not require a judgement (conclusive v's beyond reasonable doubt) however it is not difficult to imagine trials where this judgement would be more difficult to arrive at and therefore open to error.
2. The doctrine of the sanctity of a human life.
I bring this up in a more narrow sense - State executions degrade the doctrine to meaninglessness thereby removing a sanction (albeit a weak one) to murder.
3. Denial of the possibility of redemption - a strong argument from theology; In a secular form, the denial of the possibility of remorse and making a useful contribution to society (I acknowledge this is not a strong argument from the secular viewpoint).
4. In cases where there is no possibility for doubt there still remains the question of culpability (I accept that you might say this is not to the point of your question but perhaps there is an indirect relationship insofar as, for example, what if Jack Ruby was shown to be stark raving mad at the time of the shooting of Oswald?)

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

Thank you for your reply, which I appreciate.

It seems to me that the principal justification for your position on the death penalty is to be found in the tenants of the Christian religion, which, as I am sure you are aware, have changed quite radically over time. One simply has to refer to certain passages of the Bible, in particular, John 19:11 – at the moment that Pilate has to decide whether or not to crucify Jesus, Jesus tells him that the power to make this decision has been given to him by God.

According to Jesus, God himself gave the power to Pilate to take the decision on the possible application of the death penalty. This would appear to indicate that the Christian God approves the application of the death penalty.

In fact, 400 years prior to the birth of Jesus, the Ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, also accepted the death penalty and willingly carried out his condemnation to drink a cup of poisonous hemlock in 399 BC with calm and dignity.

Socrates is credited with trying to free people from the tyranny of established creeds and, according to the philosopher, Susan Neiman :

« Socrates was the first to insist that we should rise above whatever particular mire happens to grip us, in order to seek something better and truer. He was thereby the first to introduce moral concepts backed by no authority but our own ability to reason ».

According to the German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, “a society that does not sentence a murderer to death turns into an accomplice of this crime”.

He also wrote :

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« Life imprisonment is an extremely shameful measure, worse that a death penalty. Suppose there are two prisoners sentenced to death. One prefers death and the other is ready to accept shameful life in prison to survive. Which one of the two is better? Kant thinks that the first: "I say that the man of honour would choose death, and the knave would choose servitude".

Any person who can feel shame would prefer death to a lifelong imprisonment, while the life of those who have no dignity or shame is worthless »

John Locke wrote in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government” :

« A criminal who, having renounced reason ... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security »

And, regrettably, perpetrators of “atrocious crimes” are not known to express any sign of remorse for their acts :

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/victims.reax/

http://corsinet.com/braincandy/dying2.html

.

Anyway, BTT: I'm an atheist, but I strongly support the right of anybody to hold whatever beliefs they like, provided they do not involve the killing of homosexuals, the confinement of women or the abuse of children.

I'm sure many believers honestly hold beliefs which are based on what they perceive as the divine, the unknowable but the rock of a good god/goddess. I'm easy with all that: one problem in society today may well be the withering away of a strong belief in the primacy of doing no harm, of trying to live a good life, putting more in than one takes out.

We all need strong and positive principles to live by, which don't involve hurting anybody else, or trying to win cheap points by shoving a stick up the arses of some other section of society. It does seem sometimes that, for many people, even some on OLO, 'virtue' depends on bringing others down and believing the worst about them, in a sort of zero-sum game: strangely, such people see to actually do very little for their fellow-humans, being content to exhibit their virtuousness in a sort of mutual echo-chamber (if that's not mixing metaphors too much), but almost consciously avoiding having to mix with the objects of their compassion. I guess I'm thinking of some of the Green supporters here, well-off, in leafy suburbs, pitying all those helpless Aborigines conveniently far away.

So no, I don't mean THOSE principles, which seem to pump some people up while diminishing the autonomy of others. Whether people think of themselves areligious or not, I applaud their honest search for values which do not demand anybody else.

This thread has now been going for a month: hopefully contributors can tackle its original issues. Although I learn so much even from the side-tracks :)

Joe

To Banjo.
I'm an atheist by the way - god does not exist for me (nor the bible as an authority).
As to Locke and Kant I must beg to differ from their views (at least to the extent from what you have quoted).
Anyway, you have my arguments as to why I oppose capital punishment.
I have still not had an opportunity to look at the research around the deterrent effect, or otherwise, of capital punishment.....to come..

Sorry to be a nitpick Banjo Paterson. But Jesus didn't say that Pilate has the power to descide Jesus's fate. Jesus actually said that Pilate could not stop it, but that the greater guilt for Jesus's cursifictiodeath lands on those who placed Jeses there. Pretty much the religous leaders of Israel. After that point it seems Pilate seems to try and not crusufy Jesus. Even to try and let Jesus go as was the custom to let one prisoner go before Israel celebrated Passover.

That said, Jesus's message of forgiveness and turning from your sins, doesn't mean He was against the death penalty. The way I figure, Jesus preached and taught a lot to keep people from the the ultimate death penalty. And he warned that those who continued in several sins would find their way to hell.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You wrote :

« I'm an atheist by the way - god does not exist for me (nor the bible as an authority). As to Locke and Kant I must beg to differ from their views (at least to the extent from what you have quoted) »
.

Thanks for your clarifications.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« … Jesus didn't say that Pilate has the power to decide Jesus's fate »
.

You are quite right, Not_Now.Soon. It was Pilate himself who said that he had the power to decide Jesus’ fate. Jesus replied, as I indicated in my previous post to Ashbo, that the power to make this decision had been given to him (Pilate) by God.

Here is the text of their conversation as related in John 19:10-11 New King James Version (NKJV) :

10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”

11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore, the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

The "Biblehub" offers the following explanation of this text :

[ Pilate had twice said, with something of the pride of his position, “I have power.” Jesus says that he (Pilate) had of himself neither power of life nor power of death, that he (Pilate) had no power against Him but that which was given to him (Pilate) from above … that power was given to him (Pilate) of God for ...

.

(Continued …

.

.

(Continued …

.

... the carrying out of the Messianic purposes which rendered the death of Jesus necessary. The position of Pilate was that of a half-conscious agent wielding this power. He indeed had sin, for he acted against his own better nature; but not the greater sin, for he did not act against the full light of truth.

“The one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin” — This cannot mean Judas, who is nowhere mentioned in this connection, and is excluded by the words “to you.” Judas delivered our Lord to the Jews. It was the Sanhedrin, and especially Caiaphas, the high priest, who, professing to represent God on earth, had delivered up the Son of God, and had declared that by the law He ought to die. (Comp. John 11:49; John 18:14-28.) ]
.

For much of history, the Christian Churches accepted that capital punishment was necessary. In recent times many Christians have argued against the death penalty on the grounds that Christianity should support life.

Here is a well-documented article on the subject by the BBC :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml

.

Oh well, I tried.

To Banjo.
Done the research and I'm more than happy to defer to you on the question of deterrence and capital punishment.
I have therefore amended my arguments as follows:

1. The taking of an innocent life is a terrible crime and a just punishment must be the consequence.
It is self evident that our criminal justice system is capable of miscarriages of justice.
Carrying out a death sentence provides no opportunity for a useful remedy for a miscarriage of justice (To be "useful", in the sense that I use it, requires the victim of the miscarriage to be alive).
2. Executing a person who is subsequently found to be innocent, can undermine confidence in the judicial system, and the rule of law more generally.
3. There are no robust studies that support the view that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, or otherwise - that capital punishment does not have a deterrence effect.
4. Executions only satisfy one aspect of sentencing - retribution. Retribution alone should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes.
5. Life without parole is an available sentence that satisfies 1,2,and 4 above.
On the matter of conclusive proof:
6. A J Phillips concerns seem persuasive to me particularly on the question of where the crime sits between conclusive and beyond reasonable doubt. It is not difficult to imagine trials where this judgement would be more difficult to arrive at and therefore open to error.
7. The doctrine of the sanctity of a human life.
I bring this up in a more narrow sense - State executions degrade the doctrine to meaninglessness thereby removing a sanction to murder.
8. Denial of the possibility of redemption - a strong argument from theology; In a secular form, the denial of the possibility of remorse and making a useful contribution to society (I acknowledge this is not a strong argument from the secular viewpoint).
9. In cases where there is no possibility for doubt of quilt there still remains the question of culpability. Determining culpability is open to human error and therefore the possibility of miscarriages of justice.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

I see that the number of your arguments against capital punishment has almost doubled in 5 days, to a total of 9. There were only 5 on the original list you indicated to Not_Now.Soon on 16 January 2018 5:44:04 PM.

However, I see no change in your principal argument which appears to be what you describe as : “the doctrine of the sanctity of a human life”. Is it because you are a pacifist ?

According to the latest statistics, during the past 5 years, there were 109 terrorist attacks in democratic countries, resulting in 5,041 deaths of innocent people and 15,396 injured.

That is an average of 22 terrorist attacks per year, resulting in 1,008 deaths and 3,079 injured. Do you consider that the deaths of these innocent people are exactly the same as the deaths of the terrorists ? That there is no difference ? That the lives of terrorists are just as sacred as the lives of the innocent people ? That they all deserved to die ?

Do you consider this constant massacre not more “desecrating” of human life than the death of the terrorists who commit such massacres without the least respect for human life ? The same question applies in respect of the execution of somebody found guilty of deliberately committing an “atrocious crime” such as the rape and torture of some innocent young person to death ?

Most of the terrorists either blow themselves up or are shot and killed by the police without a fair trial. Do you think that the police should exercise restraint out of respect for “the doctrine of the sanctity of a human life”, show greater empathy and be more lenient ?

Do you consider that the warmongers, the terrorists, and the criminals should have the sole right (both de facto and de jure) to deprive innocent people of their lives, and if they had the misfortune to be captured, all they should risk is life imprisonment – in the hope that they might possibly seek redemption ?

.

To Banjo.
I won't respond in kind (to your last post).
Your position is more than clear and my arguments, opposing capital punishment, have proved ineffective.
May I thank you for your posts (and your corrections of mine)- I've learned a lot.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You wrote :

« I won't respond in kind (to your last post). Your position is more than clear and my arguments, opposing capital punishment, have proved ineffective »
.

As you wish, Ashbo.

On the question of terrorists seeking redemption in prison, there was an interesting study carried-out in 2010 by the ICSR (International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence) in the UK, in partnership with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), covering 15 countries.

You may like to take a look at it. Here is the link :

http://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1277699166PrisonsandTerrorismRadicalisationandDeradicalisationin15Countries.pdf

In a slightly broader perspective, you might also be interested in a couple of articles I wrote on the subject of justice generally and life and death in particular. Here are the links :

file:///C:/Users/Pama/Downloads/sub133%20(75).pdf

http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=742086529469277;res=IELAPA

.

To Banjo.
Just spent my $4.40 to download your article: Justice - A Matter of Life and Death.
I'll let you know what I think of it.
The ICSR report will take a little longer!

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

I just checked the link I provided for my article “Justice – A Matter of Life and Death” and it opened without having to pay.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work by clicking on it. You have to copy and paste it into your browser to open it.

I discovered it on the web a couple of years ago by pure chance. The Australian Greens apparently submitted my article in their Exposure Draft of the Medical Services (Dying with Dignity) Bill 2014 as Submission 133.

Strangely enough, when I type it on the forum it appears as a hyperlink but as soon as it is actually posted it is no longer a hyperlink but just an ordinary link. Here it is once again :

file:///C:/Users/Pama/Downloads/sub133%20(75).pdf

I see that the hyperlink to the other article, “Justice – The Achilles’ Heel of Democracy” is working normally. It opens by clicking on it and takes you to the editor’s site. That’s the one for which you must have paid $4.40.

.

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

I just found "Justice - A Matter of Life and Death" on the Australian government web site. Here is the link :

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115&subId=300148

I hope it works ...

.