The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > re-balance

re-balance

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
Men support the empowerment of women because an imbalance of male power brought life on Earth to the brink and it's perfectly obvious the imbalance is self-correcting.

A referendum on governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees re-balances power, a certainty with hardly anyone left who doesn't support equal rights between women and men
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 7:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh is THAT what I think. Must write that down so I don't forget. What do I think about gay marriages?
Posted by StG, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 11:16:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A referendum on governance"? Isn't governance a male idea?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 18 November 2010 12:12:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistfull..quote..<<..Men support..the empowerment of women..because an imbalance..of male-power HAS brought life on Earth to the brink>>

the only trouble being...the woman...we then chose..try to out man the men...[thus we get the thatcher type matriarchal types...that out testosterone..the men...and the men turn into..[as awartzneiger puts it...'girly girls'..

the real cure..is to change governance..away from the patriarchal model..that decree's instant/blind..*obediance..to ever more oppressive rule..

into a MOTHERLY matriarchal corerction...where govt becomes like a loving mother..not the disiplinarian father...seeing each gets a fair share...where the weakest mosdt innocent child[citisen]..is protected and given a fair share...not a shakeup

<<and it's perfectly obvious..the imbalance is self-correcting.>.
its perfectly obvious..the system is a patriarchy of domination..be it feminine yes men..or go get tough on em thatcher-rights..in femail masks..

but with male brains...male thinking...making war..dividing con-queering..stiffiling..[destroying..[making pieces]...in lue of seeking ways to make peace..seeking fairnes..equality..a fair deal for all

<<A referendum..on governance..conducted by agreement>>>FULL-STOP

a ref..<<between women's and men's legislatures>>.this dosnt egsist,

and wouldnt be any cure..if its only the girls out maning the men

stop taking testy-tosserterone...
let the motherly horemoans..do thier living loving nurture
do we not attract more flies with honey?

we need less standing urinating upon those smaller than the urinators
and more taking the seat...at a table of equals..comming to serve the people..

not bullies butting each other...head to head..
butt..to end the the boys-own club..of patriarchal similtude
know nuthin..do nuthin sheep..following the patriarchal/party-line

MATRiarchal-courts and matriarchal-corporate committees THAT seks to re-balance power,..that realises a fair share...a fair way...for all equally

creating..<a certainty..with hardly anyone left>.and barely any on the extreem right

<<who doesn't support equal>>-LY..<rights between women and men>>
duties between rich/poor...obligations between worker/em-ploy-er..the clear difference between service...and abuse
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 18 November 2010 1:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been fortunate that i grew up in a liberated house hold as a child. My mother was a liberationist. Not the bra burning type, the beat them at their own game type. My father required complete respect and equality between my brothers and sisters. He did this with leadership, the girls interests were treated with as much importance as ours and we were all expected to pull our weight equally around the home, and our say on family matters was held with equal importance. He did his share of the cooking and house work, no biggy, remember this was the seventies.
The down side has always been that i am somewhat blind to much of the prejudice that is in society. I never seem to expect it and am always caught off guard when it occurs. It seems so ridiculous to me and is usually caused by fear and ignorance. This goes both ways of course, i have found just as many women discriminatory toward men when they get the chance.
Don't think any great change in legislation is required rather it is time for men to have their great liberating adventure. We to can through off the shackles that hold us to the negative stereo type that we seem to be cast in. Mostly it is unjust as we as men are not like society seems to project and only appreciate the same levels of respect and consideration as anyone else.
Posted by nairbe, Thursday, 18 November 2010 6:01:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god, that was a particularly sexist and ugly post.

The wording of much of your post highlights one of the problems. "Alpha" behaviors get labeled as male behaviors rather than alpha (or some other term which describes combative types with a desire to dominate others).

There may be some truth to relating the characteristics to genders but there are enough breaches and enough socialization involved that I think it does way more harm than good. I've never felt the need to stand urinating on those smaller than me and I don't seek the lack of desire to do so as a female characteristic.

People of both genders have good and bad in them, both genders can be corrupted by power, both can be impacted by the messages they are taught about how to be their gender (but not all).

What you have done is something similar to what I saw in a lot of the feminist literature I read when trying to answer vanna's challenge. You label aggressive uncooperative behaviors as male, the cooperative ones as female and go from there.

Rather it would be much more useful to identify the aggressive behaviors as aggressive behaviors and then think about how society rewards and reinforces those behaviors.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 18 November 2010 7:04:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good to see that you started the thread, whistler.

It might give the rest of us a chance to understand your position a little better.

Brevity, as Polonius explained, is the soul of wit. And you clearly believe that your pared-down aperçus should be sufficiently self-explanatory for us peasants to grasp your meaning.

But to help me along, could you please humour my ignorance for a moment, and expand a little on the key points?.

>>Men support the empowerment of women because an imbalance of male power brought life on Earth to the brink...<<

You stopped at the really interesting part. The brink of what?

But even before that, you make the sweeping assumption, that men support the empowerment of women.

Well of course we do, silly.

Or we think we do.

Or we do, under certain circumstances - let's be honest, no-one wants to be a slave, which would be at the far end of the "empowerment" spectrum.

So, can you tell us what you mean, when you use the word "empowerment". Some examples of how women are not currently empowered would help, I think.

And this is puzzling, too:

>>...it's perfectly obvious the imbalance is self-correcting.<<

Surely that's a good reason not to interfere? If the imbalance is self-correcting, all we need to do is step back and watch.

Once we have sorted that out, I'd appreciate an explanation of how "women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees" will work. You know, who will elect them, what powers they will have, that sort of stuff.

But that can wait.

Because obviously I won't be able to understand the solution, until you have explained what problem it is setting out to address.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 November 2010 7:37:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi one under god, male genius has its downside but ultimately the transformation of governance from family groups to that of the entire world, largely with the support of women, has contributed substantially to human achievement, but there's unfinished business. A women's legislature is a vote next Saturday away.

hi nairbe, the proposal is not for new legislation but to update existing legislation, the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901, Australia's Constitution, to achieve the same 'liberational' equality between women and men as you suggest was your formative experience.

hi Pericles, the online BBC News Style Guide p67 suggests that "[S]implicity is the key to understanding. Short words in short sentences present listeners and viewers with the fewest obstacles to comprehension". http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsStyleGuide.pdf.

The phrase 'to the brink' is used in both it's senses, to describe a crucial or critical point beyond which catastrophe occurs, since the world has been living with the prospect of environmental catastrophe for the past half century, as well as to describe a crucial or critical point beyond which success occurs, with the imminent completion of the transformation of the governance of family groups to that of the entire world.

On empowerment, by original intent Australia is governed by fifteen federal and state men's legislatures, a solitary men's jurisdiction at law and a proliferation of men's local councils and corporate committees all of which which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership. Governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees empowers women with exactly the same authority men exercise in a democracy and completes the transformation to global governance.

On self-correction, modern governance is out of synq with the modern world. The Constitution was written when women were prohibited from parliament, no woman spoke to the bill, women were powerless at the source of governance. Power has re-balanced, women are now perfectly competent to operate their own legislatures, to exercise exactly the same powers men granted themselves.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 18 November 2010 12:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, equal rights governance rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women enrolled to vote and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men enrolled to vote, each legislature with exactly the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.

A cabinet of equal numbers of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the parliament and provides leadership, while sovereignty resides with a cabinet nominated council of governors-general comprised of equal numbers of distinguished senior women and men.

The States and Territories follow suit, their interests preserved through women's and men's lines of communication, while the courts interpret legislation and deliver justice by agreement between women's and men's jurisdictions, reconciled by judicial councils comprised of equal numbers of women and men. Local councils and corporations administer legislation by agreement between women's and men's committees, reconciled by boards of directors, again comprised of equal numbers of women and men.

Change is a simple reorder of what already exists, a referendum gives effect, an equitable outcome is certain
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 18 November 2010 12:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, whistler, that's quite a lucid contribution.

Just a few small questions, though.

>>the world has been living with the prospect of environmental catastrophe for the past half century<<

Have you selected the last fifty years for a reason? What happened in the 1960s that moved us from a catastrophe-absent status, to catastrophe-in-prospect?

And about that potential catastrophe.

How might it have been avoided, if women had had the vote? Oh, wait a moment...

Try again. How might it have been avoided, if there had been "women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees" in existence, during the past half century?

As I have mentioned on this Forum before, Australia has a female Head of State, a female Governor General, and a female Prime Minister. My State of NSW has a female Governor, a female Premier, and my local Council is headed by a female mayor.

Which of these will need to be replaced by men, in your revised set-up?

And on much the same theme...

>>...women are now perfectly competent to operate their own legislatures, to exercise exactly the same powers men granted themselves<<

Which are the powers that men granted themselves, that now need to be granted to women? I can't think of one. Can you?

Now, to the meat of your proposal.

>>...equal rights governance rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women<<

How can that possibly be regarded as "equal rights"?

Surely, it is exactly the opposite - selected, segregated rights.

And why the Senate? Why shouldn't women do the hard yards in the Reps, and let the blokes lounge around in the red seats?

Fair's fair.

>>A cabinet of equal numbers of women... and men... reconciles the business of the parliament and provides leadership<<

Sounds good, on paper. Dishing out portfolios could be a problem though. The devil, as always, will be in the detail. And Party Politics will ensure that we are still served up with the same mish-mash of populist tosh.

Or will you do away with political parties too?

Now that's an idea...
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 November 2010 1:58:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've got a better idea. Why not a women's legislature passing laws that apply only to women, and a men's legislature passing laws that apply only to men?

In fact, for more perfect equality, we could have one legislature per person. I could be the Independent Republic of Peter Humistan. I would wear one of those hats that Mohammed Karzai wears, and as I walk down the street, munching a sandwich, I could reflect on the glory of my own ineffable sovereignty.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 18 November 2010 3:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles Whistler gave a bit more detail about one aspect in a reply to me recently at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11131#187482

"With complementary state legislation a majority of Australia's parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members, including a woman Prime Minister, and prohibiting all women the vote. "

I can't really see a majority of state parliament's feeling that was a politically safe thing to do although I expect that the QLD and NSW premiers might have been tempted in recent times given comments by the PM about them.

If the provisions are as whistler describes then they are legislative oddities which should be cleaned up but I don't see how they are real issues likely to be ever used.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 18 November 2010 3:51:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for starting this thread, whistler. I'm looking forward to gaining a clearer understanding of your stance.

From what you have said so far, I do have a couple of points that I hope you can clarify.

Firstly, I am guessing that your re-branding of the senate would in fact convert it to a second lower house - am I right? The two lower houses (men's and women's) would act as upper houses for each other, requiring agreement before legislation is passed. Correct me if I have misunderstood.

Secondly, would there be two cabinet members for each portfolio, or would the portfolios be divided equally among men and women? If the latter, how would the 'big ticket' portfolios be divided?

I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from but, from a social point of view, I can't help thinking it would do more harm than good. It legalises a divide that we are trying to break down. It says that men can never stand up for women and women can never stand up for men. I don't like that too much. What of the other arbitrary divisions in our society - black/white, native-born/immigrant, young/old, blue collar/white collar? If we give up on integrating genders, then what's to stop us giving up on bridging these other gaps? We could end up with a truly enormous government.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 18 November 2010 7:52:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, small questions? i've answered them all, at least to my own satisfaction! What about the biggies, like re-balance from what? for there to be re-balance there must have been balance in the first place. Or the monster, why are there women and men? i could use the practice.

My take on environmental catastrophe begins with nuclear winter, much discussed during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 [sort of solved], progresses through acid rain [solved], the hole in the ozone layer [solved by 2030] to global warming [we live in hope], not to mention overcrowding [projected to decline after 2050 from ninish billion - how? by having given women access to education!]. The coincidence of a surge of women's liberation with the moment men achieved the dubious honour of being able to extinguish life on Earth is a demonstration of the balance in nature which drives evolutionary theory. The question is not what was avoided with the vote, but what might be avoided with a legislature? Perhaps we're moving from a world which men can extinguish to one which is extinguishing men unless men re-balance habitation by sharing power equitably with women.

Each position you nominate needs to be shared conjointly with men to achieve equal rights governance, which is eminently achievable since women having already proven competent at each. Men granted themselves fifteen legislatures, sixteen actually but then abolished the Queensland Legislative Council, which are the source of all powers exercised by the citizens of Australia. There are no women's legislatures.

A women's legislature with members elected by women can be regarded as "equal rights" if you extend your quote nine words further along in the sentence which mentions "a men's legislature with members elected by men". Women and men have exactly the same right to elect members to their own legislature uncontaminated by ballots from the other, equal as it gets! Segregated rights applies to the same, not different constituents, so that only constituents who are the same get rights, constituents who are different miss out. Women and men are different not the same.

[cont.]
Posted by whistler, Friday, 19 November 2010 8:01:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The day it really matters whether the blokes sit on red, green or technicolour seats is the day my work will have already been done, although i would suggest men should occupy the green seats because those seats currently form government so if the men remain on the green seats and the women occupy the red seats there is continuity in sharing the capacity to form government between both legislatures.

hi Peter Hume, i wouldn't support your counter proposal for gender specific laws because governance which empowers its principal constituents equitably should be inclusive not divisive.

hi R0bert, I sometimes wish there were sufficient men in the parliaments of Australia with the guts to do more than just give lip service to equality with women by actually passing the necessary legislation to remove all women from all parliaments, Ms Gillard and Ms Keneally included, and prohibit all women from voting at all elections in perpetuity, just to show the skeptics the second-class status women actually occupy in Australia, albeit a wake-up call i trust my powers of persuasion can avoid.

hi Otokonoko, your comprehension of my proposal is perfectly correct. Cabinet is conducted by convention, not really the business of a referendum which is conducted to enable a Constitution with a framework for equal rights governance. The business of government is best left to those governing, within guidelines, although i would expect each portfolio would have conjoint Ministers appointed from each legislature and i'd probably prefer a smallish cabinet with Ministers from say, half a dozen key portfolios, than a massive cabinet inclusive of a large outer ministry.

The good news is the divide has long since broken down, the genders are fully integrated and there's no turning back. It's now time to take advantage of difference. And if the principal constituents of governance achieve equality all demographics under governance achieve equality.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 19 November 2010 8:01:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, whistler.

>> Pericles, small questions? i've answered them all, at least to my own satisfaction!<<

I hope you didn't try the same trick at school. "You may think it a touch thin on the ground, sir, but in my view I have completed my homework to my own satisfaction."

Wouldn't have worked for me.

Or more accurately, it didn't work for me.

This sort of thing would not have gone down well either.

>>The question is not what was avoided with the vote, but what might be avoided with a legislature?<<

Substituting your own question for the one that was asked is generally considered poor form.

Especially when, having posed the revised version, you don't even bother to answer it.

And forgive me for stating the obvious, but without a proper explanation of the basic need that is being fulfilled, your argument is entirely circular...

>>There are no women's legislatures.<<

No. But there are people legislatures, in which women are represented. What you haven't yet explained is why you have a problem with people.

This sounds uncommonly like apartheid:

>>Segregated rights applies to the same, not different constituents, so that only constituents who are the same get rights, constituents who are different miss out.<<

Are you old-school, separate-development South African, by any chance?

And again, it is necessary to state the bleedin' obvious:

>>if the men remain on the green seats and the women occupy the red seats there is continuity<<

If you happen to be a woman on a green seat, or a bloke on a red seat, there is no continuity whatsoever.

And this is a blatant self-contradiction:

>>The good news is the divide has long since broken down, the genders are fully integrated and there's no turning back.<<

Surely, if there is no longer a gender divide, creating one is exactly that: turning back.

>> It's now time to take advantage of difference.<<

What advantage?

Or have you already answered that to your own satisfaction?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 November 2010 10:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you enjoy this too much Pericles.

I was just about to say, right.. so it's all settled then. No need to mention it any more.

I am curious about one thing. How would the mechanism to evict all women from parliament work in practise and would the female PM Governor General and Queen have to be involved?

I do like the idea of getting rid of outdated laws and it would be good to get rid of many of them, but it takes someone obsessed with symbolism or an extraordinary pedant to really care enough to bother when there are more pressing concerns.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 19 November 2010 10:14:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, change your tone and i'll answer your questions.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 19 November 2010 12:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
D'you know, whistler, I'd really like to believe that.

>>hi Pericles, change your tone and i'll answer your questions<<

But history tells me otherwise.

Everyone here has been gently tolerant of own dismissive tone, right back to your "absent womens legislature" days.

Given that, back then, you were reluctant to provide even the most rudimentary support to any of your assertions, I think everyone has been remarkably patient, myself included.

So for you to suddenly take exception to my patient and polite - if a touch searching - questioning technique, is exceptionally precious.

You are of course free to ignore my questions, or to present some rebuttals. It is entirely your choice.

Either way, have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 November 2010 12:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Houellebecq, the mechanism works by rescinding legislation which men passed to enfranchise women. A majority of votes in a majority of states at a referendum can remove men. The female PM Governor General and Queen would become involved if legislation was coupled with a call for a republic.

There's a massive difference between representation conducted by members under legally enforced supervision and representation conducted unilaterally. The former is banana democracy.

hi Pericles, better thanks. I actually did do that. When i studied third form French i completed every exercise in the back of the text book by mid year and spent the rest of the year responding to the weekly task the teacher set for homework with the words ... c'est comme si c'était ... 'done that'! . But of course my comment on this forum was tongue in cheek. I was actually reprising President Kennedy in the context of the Cuban crisis ... "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". The vote raised the status of women from abject powerlessness to empowerment under male supervision and probably saved a nuclear winter, fallout shelters were built all over America. Now for global warming!

By the legal doctrine of original intent Australia is governed by fifteen men's legislatures which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership. There are no women's legislatures and there are no people's legislatures, that's the law. Gender apartheid is when men have legislatures and women don't which is how Australia has been governed since Federation. Equal rights governance eliminates gender apartheid.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 19 November 2010 7:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hey Pericles, in good humour, whatever else happens in my life i'll always remember you as the bloke who brought up the issue of the colour of the seats upon which men might sit, thanks!
Posted by whistler, Friday, 19 November 2010 8:15:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not let women be women and men be men... let the one compliment the other in an environment that promotes equal consideration and equal opportunity.

It does mean accepting that women and men will dominate different occupations with a minority who cross over into the other's field of interest; that most often men are stronger and smarter but equally, that the manly strength of yore and the need for this level of strength is rare; that the aggregate difference in the Intelligence Quotient of females and males is negligible and has minimal impact; that there is always a minority who cross over the gender boundaries in strength and smarts as it is in work interests and most other things.

More radically, it means accepting that a one leader government is not equitable in comparison to a two leader government representing the two genders and their respective interests being mindful that they would both be powerful and directed to compliment one another in the interest of society as a whole.
Posted by George Jetson, Saturday, 20 November 2010 11:06:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All red/green seat trivia aside, whistler, I still believe that the issue that you have raised is an entirely manufactured one. Resting, as it does, on a confection of your very own: "legally enforced supervision".

It is a phrase that appears nowhere else in our constitution, legislature or parliamentary proceedings, yet you scatter it about these discussions like so much confetti.

The phrase "legally enforced supervision" is appropriate for such bodies as APRA, ASIC, ACCC etc., which provide governance in a well-defined, carefully executed manner. To apply it in the context that you do, requires a little more explanation than you have provided.

Where, for example, are the "legislatures which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership"?

Given that we have such a preponderance of female leaders, surely the shackles of "supervision" would be visible to the naked eye, rather than resting solely in the eye of one beholder.

I suspect that you have confused the issue of "women in power" far more than you have clarified it, whistler.

It goes back a long way, you know.

Here's the Chorus of Women in Aristophanes' Lysistrata:

"It should not prejudice my voice that I'm not born a man,
If I say something advantageous to the present situation.
For I'm taxed too, and as a toll provide men for the nation
While, miserable greybeards, you,
It is true,
Contribute nothing of any importance whatever to our needs;
But the treasure raised against the Medes
You've squandered, and do nothing in return, save that you make
Our lives and persons hazardous by some imbecile mistakes
What can you answer?"

Interestingly, the Magistrate clearly believed that the problem stemmed from the extremely poor supervision that men exercised over women...

Plus ça change, eh.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 November 2010 10:55:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the politicians who occupy Australia's federal and state legislatures, dedicated men's legislatures by original intent, can remove all women members, including the current Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote by rescinding legislation which granted women franchise. Only a vote of the people can bring into effect the same for men.

The rule of law in Australia is very specific, men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens.

While "Modern democracies do not use institutions that resemble the Athenian system of rule"
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy], a majority convene a women's caucus, a preparatory step to a women's legislature, to advise their legislatures. Australia boasts the Country Women's Association as a quasi women's caucus and not much more.

"Interestingly, Australia’s parliament has no formal women’s caucus, which puts us in a minority among the world’s democracies. The US congress has one, and so does the British parliament. Around the world the number of women’s caucuses continues to grow. [Former Australian Senator Lyn] Allison, who has visited Vietnam, speaks about the caucus there, and the fact that in most of the “baby-step” democracies, women’s caucuses are a permanent and significant feature. [http://inside.org.au/a-different-kind-of-politics].
Posted by whistler, Monday, 22 November 2010 12:23:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a very odd argument, whistler. In fact, it is a non-argument.

>>...the politicians who occupy Australia's federal and state legislatures, dedicated men's legislatures by original intent, can remove all women members, including the current Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote by rescinding legislation which granted women franchise. Only a vote of the people can bring into effect the same for men.<<

I understand that parliament can introduce a bill to rescind existing legislation, that much is clear.

But what I cannot understand is what you consider to be "the same for men", in your statement "Only a vote of the people can bring into effect the same for men".

Is the "effect" that you are looking for the disenfranchisement of men? Under what circumstances do you see that being required?

Would those circumstances not be the same for women? Or do you seriously think there is the remotest possibility that someone would introduce a bill that rescinds the legislation that "legitimizes" women?

Let's be realistic for a moment. A bill to disenfranchise women is just as likely, statistically speaking, as a referendum to disenfranchise men, would you not agree.

As a result, the entire foundation upon which you build this "men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens" is purely theoretical, and therefore a thoroughly unsound base upon which to create the notion that "separate legislatures" are somehow a requirement.

There is, of course, absolutely no impediment to the foundation here of a women's caucus. As you point out, the US has had one for more than thirty years. Interestingly, far from it being "a preparatory step to a women's legislature", they seem sublimely indifferent to the concept.

Given that there is little interest among women Senators in the foundation of a Women's Caucus, combined with the fact, as I noted before, that we have a preponderance of women in power right at this moment, don't you think you might be advocating that we run, long before we have even thought about dragging our nappy-covered bottoms across the carpet?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 November 2010 4:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the citizens of Australia would remove men from governance at a referendum if a majority decided male privilege is untenable. Since an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly, a majority in support is a certainty as a last resort to secure human survival. A referendum isn't required to remove women because women and men are not equal under the law. The representatives of the people in the nation's parliaments can remove women to prove the intractable nature of male privilege under the Federation Constitution. There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced. Women Senators in Australia caucus informally and on occasion formally, all the time, A caucus is preparatory not a precondition of a legislature. Australian women already have sufficient experience of parliament to assemble legislatures of their own. Neither is there a preponderance of women in power right at this moment in Australia. The nation is not one of the 28 countries which have achieved the 30 percent target for women in decision-making positions set by the United Nations in the early 1990s, considered critical mass for the prosecution of a women's perspective. The rule of law is more than theory, it's the difference between modern democracy and mayhem. If you find the rule of law too theoretical go live in the backblocks of Somalia. The rule of law in Australia privileges men. That was fine at Federation but is no longer acceptable.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Collective bargaining is one of the pillars of modern democracy. The Senate and the House of Representatives are convened on the principle of collective bargaining between the States and the Commonwealth. Collective bargaining between the primary components of community, women and men, is replacing collective bargaining between primary components men conceived in the formulation of modern govenance, a process which culminates in the provision of women's legislatures enacting law in agreement with existing men's legislatures globally.

George Jetson nailed it:

"a one leader government is not equitable in comparison to a two leader government representing the two genders and their respective interests being mindful that they would both be powerful and directed to compliment one another in the interest of society as a whole".
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:47:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It still doesn't hang together as an argument, whistler.

>>the citizens of Australia would remove men from governance at a referendum if a majority decided male privilege is untenable<<

You have already presupposed male privilege. None exists. We are all citizens, with equal right to vote.

>>Since an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly<<

Again, where's the imbalance? All Australian women have had the same right as men to vote, and to stand for political office, since 1902.

The only position that you can realistically hold in the face of this evidence is that democracy itself does not work. That is, despite the fact that women's votes and men's votes have equal weight, and that women can bid for those votes with the same standing as men, somehow the outcome is not representative of the will of the people.

How exactly does it fail, in that respect?

As I asked before, what decisions would women have made that avoided the "irreparable harm" you allude to (but do not specify), when would they have made those decisions, and how would they have been implemented?

Just one example would suffice.

>>A referendum isn't required to remove women because women and men are not equal under the law.<<

But they are indeed, completely equal under the law. Show me a law that denies this.

And frankly, this following sentence of yours is completely obscure. To the point where I suspect that you intended it to be.

>>There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced.<<

Care to elaborate?

>>Women Senators in Australia caucus informally and on occasion formally, all the time<<

But you told me that the Country Women's Association was our only women's caucus...
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 2:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[contd.]

>>Neither is there a preponderance of women in power right at this moment in Australia<<

We've been through this.

My own "journey to the top" starts with my local mayor, through my State Premier, then to State Governor, through to Prime Minister, Governor General and Australia's Head of State.

Our day-tripping Martian visitor would be forgiven for thinking that we are already a matriarchal society, with men as also-rans.

>>The rule of law in Australia privileges men. That was fine at Federation but is no longer acceptable.<<

At Federation, South Australia and Western Australia already enfranchised women. The year after Federation, the Commonwealth Franchise Act (1902) was passed. There is no rule of law that privileges men in Australia.

Not one.

>>George Jetson nailed it<<

Who?

http://www.scarlet.nl/~ivo/photo_GEORGE.html

And he should learn to spell...

"they would both be powerful and directed to compliment one another in the interest of society as a whole"

Although I guess saying "you look nice today" is a good start...
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 2:06:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My own "journey to the top" starts with my local mayor, through my State Premier, then to State Governor, through to Prime Minister, Governor General and Australia's Head of State." - mine too but I think my local mayor and State Premier are different to your's.

It's those dammed men unreasonably oppressing women plus a few manly women appointing women to positions that's the created a total lack of female representation in government.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 2:30:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, male privilege is a fact of the rule of law in Australia. By original intent there are men's legislatures only. Pirates and buccaneers may argue otherwise but the fact remains. You're asking a bloke which decision women would have made? I'm with George Jetson.

hi R0bert, Australia celebrates extraordinary achievements with women's rights other than legislatures and a jurisdiction at law.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 10:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've asked a couple of times, whistler, but have yet to receive a response. You insist that...

>>...male privilege is a fact of the rule of law in Australia.<<

...but you haven't explained which law - or laws - demonstrate this.

Given that they all tend to be written down somewhere, I would have thought that it would be a simple exercise for you to provide just one?

>>By original intent there are men's legislatures only<<

Men's legislatures that contain women.

A situation that was specifically enacted through legislation. Why do you keep pretending that they are for men only?

>>Pirates and buccaneers may argue otherwise but the fact remains<<

I don't see that piracy is particularly relevant. But I do strongly suggest that you use your buccaneers, and listen harder to the arguments.

>>You're asking a bloke which decision women would have made?<<

Just one "for-instance" would do, whistler. Only so that you can illustrate your fanciful suggestion that "an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly"

You must surely have some foundation for this bizarre claim?

Given that women voting, women in parliament, women Prime Ministers and so on, must have had some impact on the turning of the democratic wheels over the years?

>>I'm with George Jetson.<<

Which particular assertion? This one, perhaps...

>>It does mean accepting that women and men will dominate different occupations with a minority who cross over into the other's field of interest<<

More probably, this one...

>>...a one leader government is not equitable in comparison to a two leader government representing the two genders and their respective interests<<

Significantly, no justification for this assertion is provided.

Why is it wrong to have a female Prime Minister? Why complicate matters by insisting that a man should stand alongside her?

I thought we had overcome the "little woman" syndrome a long time ago.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 8:38:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, George Jetson rightfully points out women and men represent different interests. Women would never have been discriminated against in the first place if they represented the same interests as men. It's preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, legislation which is Australia's primary instrument of governance, were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women. It's even more preposterous to suggest that state legislatures enabled when the law considered men were people and women their property are anything other than dedicated men's legislatures. Men have a superior quality of tenure than women in Australia's legislatures. Members can remove women, only a vote of the people can remove men. The rule of law privileges men, plain fact. Only the lawless would raise the Jolly Roger and insist otherwise. The remedy is the provision of women's legislatures, courts and corporate committees at a referendum which would succeed next Saturday because there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equality between women and men. The military prosecuting wars globally, the finance industry which collapsed the global economy and the board of BP Global, the company responsible for the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst in history, are all saturated with male decision-making, and that's just the legacy of the past three years. Coincidence, few would agree. The US congress has already enacted fair inclusion legislation to include women more equitably in the finance industry as the ASX is doing having flagged the introduction of quotas for women on the boards of directors of Australian companies, including BP Australia, while the recruitment of women into the military is ongoing.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 12:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
erratum: the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 12:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, call me preposterous, whistler.

>>It's preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, legislation which is Australia's primary instrument of governance, were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women.<<

I do suggest it. In fact I insist upon it.

A mere eighteen months after Federation, the brand-new Commonwealth tidied up the detail of the composition of the legislatures, and the equal right of men and women to vote, via the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=88

You will also note - and this is very significant, so pin back those buccaneers - that the Constitution (yes, that one) had already provided for the women of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to vote, since they had already been enfranchised prior to Federation.

So, far from the intent being "dedicated men's legislatures", as you postulate, it quite specifically included women. Which is why you may be confident that the Franchise Act was merely a tidying-up operation, creating consistency across the new confederation.

>>It's even more preposterous to suggest that state legislatures enabled when the law considered men were people and women their property are anything other than dedicated men's legislatures.<<

You might have to run that past me again, I'm not sure your meaning is clear. Which laws considered women to be the property of men?

(More importantly, have they been rescinded? If not, it will provide some very interesting dinner conversation with my partner this evening)

>>The rule of law privileges men, plain fact.<<

Repetition does not make this any more true, whistler. In fact, it simply underlines the massive lack of anything that even hints at evidence.

>>there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equality between women and men.<<

At last, something with which I can agree, wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, my own view is that equality in the make-up of our legislative bodies has also already occurred, and that introducing gender apartheid is a fundamentally flawed proposal, and a quite considerable retrograde step.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 2:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the CWA is gender apartheid?
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 2:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi whistler.

>>hi Pericles, the CWA is gender apartheid?<<

The CWA is a legislature?

"Break out the pumpkin scones, Mildred. We're goin' to Can-berra"
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:14:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:""Break out the pumpkin scones, Mildred. We're goin' to Can-berra""

I think the Joh and Flo show tried that. Flo made it...

Bloody gender apartheid.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:17:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, where do you draw the line? The CWA is one of the few quasi women's caucuses in Australia in a world where a majority of modern democracies convene a formal women's caucus to advise parliaments, a preparatory step to a legislature but not a compulsory step where informal caucusing and parliamentary skills are strong. There has been no outcry, not even a mention in mainstream or alternative media, that these women's caucuses constitute gender apartheid yet you insinuate women's legislatures, and by association women's caucuses and quasi caucuses do constitute gender apartheid. If three women or more caucus informally at a supermarket checkout is that gender apartheid? Of course almost everybody else in the world would consider gender apartheid is when men have legislatures and women don't, that the world has been governed by gender apartheid for centuries now in the final stages of collapse. Governance in England until the mid nineteenth century when the only rights the law extended to women other than women of the aristocracy were derived from their status, like horses, cattle and sheep, as the property of men, was most certainly gender apartheid. Which doesn't mean you have every right to your opinion however perverse it may appear. There's certainly a remnant rump of men so desperate to cling to male privilege in the face of a tsunami of equal rights as to resort to the most inflammatory of language regardless of how meaningless it may be in context, to prosecute their cause.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 25 November 2010 12:00:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I am against equality, whistler. I have spent most of my time on this thread supporting it, in the teeth of your insistence that genders should be treated separately.

>>There has been no outcry, not even a mention in mainstream or alternative media, that these women's caucuses constitute gender apartheid yet you insinuate women's legislatures, and by association women's caucuses and quasi caucuses do constitute gender apartheid.<<

No such inference should be drawn.

Caucuses and legislatures have entirely different functions and responsibilities. I strongly support the idea of a women's caucus, but oppose the idea of introducing gender apartheid into the legislature.

My position is straightforward, and quite simple: we have enjoyed equality in our parliamentary system for over a hundred years, and I see no reason why we should begin, now, to introduce separate legislatures.

Such action would be both retrograde and needlessly disruptive.

>>almost everybody else in the world would consider gender apartheid is when men have legislatures and women don't<<

And I would absolutely agree with that. Fortunately, here in Australia we are not in that situation.

Let me see if I can summarize the position as I see it.

Men and women are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

There are no laws that describe, or allow for, women being the property of men.

Men and women are equally entitled to vote, and to assume public office.

Our Constitution, from the moment of its inception, recognized this, and ensured that the rights already earned by women in SA, NT and WA were enshrined in the finished product.

Immediately after the Commonwealth was formed, the franchise was extended, explicitly, in one of the first pieces of full legislation passed by the new parliament.

There is nothing in the present system that is specifically burdensome on women.

There is no problem that needs to be solved.

Have I missed anything?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, i'm encouraged you mention states which enfranchised women at Federation but what happens when states disenfranchise women? The rule of law is built on what's possible not what might be. If it can happen it's of concern. Who's to say sufficient men won't support women by demonstrating exactly what the rule of law says about equal rights. The remedy is a women's legislature.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 26 November 2010 12:00:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But there's more to it than that, whistler.

>>hi Pericles, i'm encouraged you mention states which enfranchised women at Federation<<

SA, NT and WA had already given women the vote, prior to Federation.

The Constitution was framed so that these rights were preserved. If the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 were to be rescinded for any reason, then the women of SA, NT and WA would still retain these rights.

So your argument that a referendum is only required to withdraw men's rights does not stand up. One would also be needed to take them from the women of SA, NT and WA.

Such pointless shenanigans would be beyond the scope of what one might consider even the remotest possibility, surely? Why would any politician even bother to suggest it. I cannot think of one single argument that could be offered in favour of such action.

>>The rule of law is built on what's possible not what might be. If it can happen it's of concern.<<

If you are basing your argument for separate legislatures on something that theoretically "can" happen, as opposed to something that theoretically "might" happen, I believe you are on pretty thin ice.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 26 November 2010 8:19:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pericles, you don't have to steal from your neighbour, however improbable that might be, to prove the rule of law prohibits stealing, the fact it's possible is sufficient. Neither are referenda required to disenfranchise women in the states. All that's required is to rescind legislation enfranchising women. In tandem with the Commonwealth, all women can be removed from all legislatures in Australia and all women prohibited from the vote at the collective whim of majorities of each of the fifteen dedicated men's legislatures governing the nation, a distinct possibility if these legislatures seek to prove Australian governance remains firmly under the doctrine of gender apartheid. Men can only be removed by referenda of the people, a much more difficult process. The word apartheid, used usually with race but may also be applied to gender, refers to segregation of political, legal, and economic rights. It doesn't mean segregating women and men with the same rights or segregating women and men to achieve the same rights. A women's legislature gives women exactly the same political, legal, and economic rights as men granted themselves when establishing the Commonwealth, state and territory legislatures [the NT became a territory on 1 January 1911 and its legislature achieved self-government in 1978].
Posted by whistler, Friday, 26 November 2010 11:58:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gender apartheid was at full bloom in England during the Victorian era when women could not vote, sue, or own property. "The role of women was to have children and tend the house. They could not hold a job unless it was that of a teacher, nor were they allowed to have their own checking accounts or savings accounts. In the end, they were to be treated as saints, but saints that had no legal rights." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Victorian_era. Apart from the right to a legislature which only men hold, gender apartheid has been largely dismantled, a process during which men encouraged women to gain experience in men's legislatures in preparation for convening legislatures of their own, a necessary step since women had no experience of lawmaking other than casting a vote in two of six states at Federation. If you support gender apartheid and don't believe women should have exactly the same political, legal and economic rights as women you will in all likelihood have the opportunity to vote no at a referendum on an equal rights republic in the not too distant future.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 26 November 2010 11:59:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But whistler. Surely, it is the other way around?

>> If you support gender apartheid and don't believe women should have exactly the same political, legal and economic rights as women you will in all likelihood have the opportunity to vote no at a referendum on an equal rights republic in the not too distant future.<<

I am in the corner fighting for equal rights.

You are in the corner fighting for gender apartheid.

Apartheid is Afrikaans for "separateness", or "apartness". It came to mean, in a political sense, separate development, in which there were different legislative structures for each group.

Your proposal that women form a separate legislature follows exactly these lines.

Your proposition, therefore, is for gender apartheid, while mine is for gender equality.

Just saying.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 26 November 2010 12:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, you nailed it for the women and men of Victorian England just like George Jetson nailed it for today. Apartheid means separateness or apartness from political, legal and economic rights which generates separate development. Do you collect antiques?
Posted by whistler, Friday, 26 November 2010 11:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The pejorative term gender apartheid (or sexual apartheid) has been applied to segregation of people by gender, implying that it is sexual discrimination" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation. "Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership (whether voluntary or involuntary) in a certain group or category" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination. Gender apartheid implies prejudicial treatment, like when men have legislatures and women don't. If you genuinely support equal rights like George Jetson, you'll vote YES at a referendum to provide women with exactly the same powers to make laws as men. If you only pretend to support equal rights but actually prefer gender apartheid like Pericles and consider men should have have more power than women you'll vote NO. Genuine equal rights or more of the same tired old well past its used by date gender apartheid that blossomed in the Victorian era and is now in its death throes, held up by little more than lame efforts to emasculate the meaning of words, it's up to you.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 27 November 2010 7:30:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, which of these statements is inaccurate, and why.

"Men and women in Australia today have equal access, to the same legislation, and are treated equally before the law."

"Laws are formulated, implemented and supported equally by men and women, who are equally able to vote, and to stand for representation in the legislatures."

"There remains no legislation on the statute books that allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men, or vice versa."

The above forms the background to the following observations:

>>Gender apartheid implies prejudicial treatment, like when men have legislatures and women don't.<<

There is no prejudice involved in a legislature in which women and men have equal rights. Such as that we currently enjoy.

>>If you genuinely support equal rights like George Jetson, you'll vote YES at a referendum to provide women with exactly the same powers to make laws as men.<<

A referendum is not required, since women already have exactly the same powers to make laws as men.

>>If you only pretend to support equal rights but actually prefer gender apartheid like Pericles and consider men should have have more power than women you'll vote NO.<<

Men and women have equal power in our present legislatures.

I genuinely cannot see that it is necessary to compromise the equality we have at the moment with the creation of gender-separate legislatures.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 27 November 2010 9:45:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the first two statements are a nonsense because men can remove women's suffrage at a whim. Australia's Constitution, which authorises this whim, is thus legislation which allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men. The Constitution currently obstructs equal rights between women and men and can only be amended by referendum to give women and men equal power in our present legislatures, or abandoned, the former more courteous to the Queen. Male privilege should be compromised because equality is a pillar of democracy.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 27 November 2010 11:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, that isn't the case, whistler.

>>the first two statements are a nonsense because men can remove women's suffrage at a whim.<<

Women's suffrage can only be removed by women and men, jointly, voting it down. There is no legislature in Australia that is "men only".

>>Australia's Constitution, which authorises this whim, is thus legislation which allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men.<<

Australia's Constitution, may I remind you, enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA. Clearly, there was no provision for women to be subservient to men, as you suggest.

>>The Constitution currently obstructs equal rights between women and men and can only be amended by referendum to give women and men equal power in our present legislatures<<

Women and men already have equal power in our present legislatures. It doesn't need to be given to them by referendum.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 27 November 2010 11:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, there is no legislature in Australia which cannot be made men only. Women have equal power in men's legislatures. Men's legislatures enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 28 November 2010 12:25:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey PERICLES... myyyyyyy oh my... I just discovered how much I appreciate you :)

Apparently you have not yet surcumbed to the temptation? to post in poor old CJ's *whinge* BLOG.

I can see why, you generally seek to persuade, and do some argumentation based on actual research rather than 'just' saturate your posts with 'fear/loathing' type comments.

See the predictable progression unfold below.

//Foxy said... (from Cyberia)
We all left OLO for a variety of reasons.
I feel rather strongly that if this blog
is going to be successful - we should leave
OLO behind us - and move towards trying to create a new discussion Forum. If we don't do that - we might as well have remained on OLO//

Morgan says:
//I just had a quick squizz at OLO, and I found the discussions generally too banal and one-sided to really miss.//

Yep..that's why his blog is called 'siberia' :) with a c

then this from our beloved Ginx

//And Mr Morgan? In an appalling and pathetic endeavour to show a difference between yourself and Graham Young- you choose to 'encourage' me to leave your site by taking the action you have done.

CJ/Severin/Andris/LeFoxy: there is NO difference between you and Graham Young. NONE.// (discussion?)

The rot setteth in.....destruction draweth nigh.....the end is near.

Balance.....that's a good idea.. but apparently some people prefer incestuous self indulgent mutual back scratching of intense loathing for anyone who is critical.

This is a bit off topic (apologies)...but I wanted to register my thoughts having only this morning seen the Cyberia site :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 28 November 2010 7:34:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brevity is all very well, whistler. But this is getting beyond brief, and well into cryptic.

>>hi Pericles, there is no legislature in Australia which cannot be made men only<<

But equally, there is no legislature in Australia which cannot be made women only. Parliament can decide, a referendum held, and lo! We have a women-only legislature. This is in fact - if I understand you correctly - exactly what you are suggesting.

The question is, why would anyone want to do this, when we have the various genders working together quite harmoniously under the banner of "equality before the law and parliament"

The concepts of separate decision-making processes, and equality in decision-making processes, are at complete odds with each other.

>>Women have equal power in men's legislatures.<<

There is no such thing in Australia as "men's legislatures". But it is nice to know that if there were, women would have equal power. That would surely be a good thing, right?

>>Men's legislatures enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA<<

And if they were to exist, that would also be good, right?

I am still having a problem coming to terms with the problem that you see in the present set-up, that requires such a divisive "solution".
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 28 November 2010 1:28:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles ">>...a one leader government is not equitable in comparison to a two leader government representing the two genders and their respective interests<<

Significantly, no justification for this assertion is provided.

Why is it wrong to have a female Prime Minister? Why complicate matters by insisting that a man should stand alongside her?

I thought we had overcome the "little woman" syndrome a long time ago."

Whistler has already provided the justification Pericles.
* It better represents the many gender specific social issues.
* It better represents the many non gender specific social issues.
* It puts checks and measures on the other leader.
* A two leader system is a tried and true method - res publica, or if you prefer, Sparta.
* The 'little woman' syndrome would have no currency, because the system proposed would not support it.

More significantly, there is no justification for the one leader approach to government, except to say that it was born of monarchy and imperialism, both of which promote inequity.
Posted by George Jetson, Sunday, 28 November 2010 2:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's all somewhat insubstantial, George Jetson.

>>It better represents the many gender specific social issues.<<

How so? What gender-specific social issues that require attention at the parliamentary level would not be equally well handled by existing processes?

It always helps to provide examples.

>>It better represents the many non gender specific social issues.<<

Same question. Give one example of how a non-gender-specific social issue might be better handled through separate legislatures for men and women.

>>It puts checks and measures on the other leader.<<

In what way? Who gets the "final" say, if one were required?

>>A two leader system is a tried and true method - res publica, or if you prefer, Sparta.<<

The Roman Republic, (if that's what you mean by res publica) did not require two leaders to enable it to function. And there were no women's assemblies at all.

While Sparta was, for a while, ruled by a pair of hereditary monarchs, as you know, that didn't last.

Neither example is particularly convincing.

>>The 'little woman' syndrome would have no currency, because the system proposed would not support it.<<

Nor does the existing system.

>>More significantly, there is no justification for the one leader approach to government, except to say that it was born of monarchy and imperialism, both of which promote inequity.<<

And as the Spartans proved, multiple monarchs didn't work either. Nor did Roman duumvirates survive. If there is no justification for a single leader, it would appear that there is even less for a pair.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 28 November 2010 10:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the doctrine of original intent holds Australia's legislatures are dedicated men's legislatures. The High Court would in all probability void referenda removing men from legislatures on grounds of original intent. Women and men undergo different life experience. Genuine leadership recognises difference, leadership in denial of difference is obstructive.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 28 November 2010 11:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wouldn't be too sure of that, whistler.

>>hi Pericles, the doctrine of original intent holds Australia's legislatures are dedicated men's legislatures. The High Court would in all probability void referenda removing men from legislatures on grounds of original intent.<<

For a number of reasons.

One is that original intent is not used in Australia. It is not even particularly strong position in other systems, although it does surface from time to time in the US.

Have you any examples where it has ever been used here?

There is also no evidence to support your suggestion that the intent of the Constitution was for men's legislatures. In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

The Constitution was entirely at ease with the enfranchisement of women in SA, NT and WA, and an early order of business was to formalize this in the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. This would indicate a strong original intent towards gender equality, in my view.

So even if original intent were admissible, your argument would not hold.

>>Women and men undergo different life experience. Genuine leadership recognises difference, leadership in denial of difference is obstructive.<<

Our leaders are presently predominantly women, as I have pointed out before. So who exactly is leading "in denial of difference"?

Again, it would help if you were able to provide just one instance where our system of gender equality before the law, in the legislature and within the electorate, has disadvantaged women.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 November 2010 7:46:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:"it would help if you were able to provide just one instance where our system of gender equality before the law, in the legislature and within the electorate, has disadvantaged women."

I can give you a few examples of how it has disadvantaged men...
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 29 November 2010 7:52:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, original intent is a founding principal of Statute Law which holds the intent of lawmakers is a significant consideration in the interpretation and administration of the law. Every judicial decision in every court in Australia takes original intent into account. On occasion the Courts discuss original intent, as former Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Anthony Mason indicates http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_constitu.htm. Original intent may be reinterpreted in a contemporary sense in some circumstances, as with laws governing the use of modern technologies.
It is preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women. It's even more preposterous to suggest state legislatures enabled during the Victorian era are anything other than dedicated men's legislatures.

NT was beclared a territory on 1 January, 1911. It didn't exist when the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was enabled. The Constitution refers to franchise granted by state legislatures, where original intent resides with regard to electoral arrangements, not to the enfranchisement of women per se. The original intent of the Constitution applies to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 not the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. By rule of law, Australia's women leaders remain under male supervision and can all be removed entirely at male whim by reason of gender. The same power does not attach to women.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 29 November 2010 4:30:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every instance of contact women have with the law in Australia is ultimately disadvantageous because the law fundamentally discriminates against women. Women are subject to, negotiate, represent, interpret, administer and enforce laws made in men's legislatures. Any perceived advantage obtained from prejudice reinforces the prejudice. Perceived disadvantage to men is of their own making and bears no responsibility on women whatsoever. Blaming women for the interpretation or administration of laws enacted exclusively by men's legislatures is an act of cowardice. Men are responsible for the law as it stands. Women are further disadvantaged by the irreparable damage to the environment, roller coaster economics and incessant warfare an imbalance of male power has caused.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 29 November 2010 4:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You might like to re-read your own reference material, whistler.

>>Every judicial decision in every court in Australia takes original intent into account.<<

Except, as Justice Kirby points out:

"...even an assertion that a particular construction of the text is 'settled' by many past decisions does not necessarily bolt the door against re-examination of the Constitution if new scrutiny is considered necessary by the majority of the Justices of the High Court."

He points to Sue v Hill as the clincher, where a determination on s 44 of the constitution was required.

The question was whether the UK should be regarded as a "foreign power", for the purpose of deciding who could stand for the Senate.

"Plainly, having regard to the political realities then, the Convention debates in the 1890's and textual provisions in the Constitution itself, such a classification of the United Kingdom as a "foreign power" would have been inconceivable in 1901. Yet the majority of the High Court expressed the conclusion that the Constitution, read today, had that consequence."

That pretty much nails "original intent", wouldn't you think?

>>It is preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women.<<

Colour me preposterous.

>>By rule of law, Australia's women leaders remain under male supervision and can all be removed entirely at male whim by reason of gender.<<

That quite plainly is not the case, Philip. There is no "supervision", except in your mind - I'm pretty sure Julia Gillard doesn't consider herself under any form of male supervision, nor that she holds her position on a male whim.

We have gender equality in Australia - in principle, at least, which is what we are discussing. To introduce a form of separate decision making process based solely on gender would appear to be a significantly retrograde step, on the arguments you present here.

I suggest that you find a more compelling rationale for your campaign, since this one has far too many holes.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 November 2010 5:05:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "That quite plainly is not the case, Philip. There is no "supervision", except in your mind - I'm pretty sure Julia Gillard doesn't consider herself under any form of male supervision, nor that she holds her position on a male whim."

In view of how Kevin07 lost his job Julia10 may not be quite so confidant about that but not for the reason's whistler is raising.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 29 November 2010 5:49:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, if the original intent with respect to the provision of legislatures of the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution was reinterpreted in a modern context, as Justice Kirby indicates can occur with other matters, the outcome in all probability would be the provision of women's legislatures as well as existing men's legislatures on grounds of difference because women are now fully qualified and experienced to convene legislatures of their own. Women were prohibited from the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution. The parliament proceeded on the basis women and men are different to the extent its chambers were comprised exclusively of men's legislatures, which thus enabled men's legislatures in the governance of Australia. The parliament did not have the option to enable women's legislatures in recognition of difference because women had no experience in convening legislatures.

With respect to difference and the capacity women now have to convene legislatures, the natural outcome of the reinterpretation of the original intent of the Westminster Parliament in 1900 would be governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees as a referendum of the people, a more appropriate option than application to the High Court with the direct inclusion of citizens in fundamental democratic reform, would confirm if conducted next Saturday because there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equal rights between women and men.

Australia is governed by dedicated men's legislatures which admit women under male supervision inclusive of leadership, as the capacity for the removal of women from governance altogether on grounds of gender attests. This is neither gender equality nor recognition of difference the parliament which enabled the governance of Australia held as a founding principle. You can't have it both ways. Either women and men are different or every bloke in Australia is a woman. The prospect of your counter argument to my proposal succeeding on the basis of convincing a majority of enrolled voters in a majority of states, or the High Court for that matter, that all men are women, is nil.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 12:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look, I know this is your hobby-horse, whistler. But you really shouldn't let yourself be defined by such a threadbare argument.

You're better than that.

>>hi Pericles, if the original intent with respect to the provision of legislatures of the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution was reinterpreted in a modern context, as Justice Kirby indicates can occur with other matters, the outcome in all probability would be the provision of women's legislatures... because women are now fully qualified and experienced to convene legislatures of their own.<<

I'm pleased that you have let go of the doctrine of original intent, at least. That was a dead end.

But you still miss the key issue.

Which is that women have been "fully qualified" for a very long time. Ever since, not to put too fine a point on it, they became educated en masse, and were able to marshal and present their arguments in a cogent manner. For more than a century, I'd say, wouldn't you?

>>Women were prohibited from the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution.<<

Only just, in historical terms.

John Stuart Mill began the process by initiating a debate in Westminster in 1867. And by 1869, women ratepayers were allowed to vote in local elections.

Admittedly it was a long-drawn-out battle, but the first female member of parliament was installed in 1919. (Actually she was the second to be elected, but the first was a member of Sinn Fein who never took her seat.) By 1923 she had piloted the first ever bill sponsored by a woman onto the statute book. By 1924 there was the first woman minister, who by 1929 attained Cabinet rank.

In other words, women have had demonstrable equality with men since my parents were at primary school. And that's a pretty long time.

The two situations - separate legislatures, and equal rights - are not one and the same. They do not even overlap.

We presently have gender equality. There needs to be a very strong argument why we should back away from that position, and so far you haven't given us one.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 4:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the application of the doctrine of original intent to the Constitution with reasonable certainty results in the requirement for a women's legislature regardless of the method of interpretation. It is extremely unlikely the High Court would accept an application to reinterpret original intent on the preposterous notion the Westminster legislatures which prohibited women when enabling the Constitution were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures intent on enabling men's legislatures, as preposterous as the assertion gender equality exists when men can remove women from legislatures at whim. Even if the High Court did reinterpret original intent the likely outcome is the requirement for a women's legislature with regard to difference. You're on a hiding to nothing to argue against original intent on gender.

160 days ago Australia's first female Governor-General appointed Australia's first female Prime Minister. Would you fly in an aeroplane with pilots who'd never flown before? Men deserve a medal and everlasting world peace and sustainable prosperity for the skills women have achieved. It's not rocket science we can't do it alone.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 12:26:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are fated to continue to disagree, whistler.

>>the application of the doctrine of original intent to the Constitution with reasonable certainty results in the requirement for a women's legislature regardless of the method of interpretation.<<

As I see it, the application of original intent to the Constitution would clearly reveal the intention to include women, at all levels of government. The evidence for this, as I have stated before, is found in the progress Westminster had already made towards women's suffrage, and in the specific acceptance of the foothold in SA, NT and WA. The framers had a perfect opportunity to insist upon a male-only environment, but they chose not to do so.

>>It is extremely unlikely the High Court would accept an application to reinterpret original intent<<

Even if we assume your version of original intent, I would suggest that High Court judges who are able to redefine UK citizens as aliens for Constitutional purposes, are perfectly capable of redefining the people of Australia as being equally composed of women and men.

It is crystal clear that with or without asserting original intent, women and men are treated equally under the Constitution.

>>...as preposterous as the assertion gender equality exists when men can remove women from legislatures at whim.<<

It is "preposterous" to suggest that men are able to remove women from legislatures on a whim. It most certainly stretches the definition of a "whim" far beyond any linguistic boundaries that I have encountered.

But your observation on our female Governor General appointing a female Prime Minister is quite confusing.

>>Would you fly in an aeroplane with pilots who'd never flown before?<<

As I mentioned earlier, women have been holding the reins of power for many years, in many places around the world. In whose eyes are they suddenly just learning to fly?

We have enjoyed gender equality before the law, at the ballot box and in all legislatures for a very long time. What puzzles me is why you would want to re-introduce gender separation?

Have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 8:36:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the application of original intent to the Constitution reveals with reasonable certainty the intention to include women equitably in governance with provision of a women's legislature, not by male whim which is the current arrangement. The framers of the Constitution accepted standing electoral arrangements which enabled the removal of women's franchise in the two states which had granted women limited franchise, simply by rescinding legislation which granted the franchise in the first place. The framers did not consider existing electoral arrangements in NT because NT did not exist when the Constitution was framed. The recognition of difference which supported male privilege in 1900 supports the provision of a women's legislature in 2010.

Women have never held the reigns of power in Australia in their own right since governance is entirely and exclusively under male control as the capacity to remove all women from all legislatures attests. Neither have all Australians ever enjoyed gender equality before the law because the law privileges men as is demonstrably evident. Recognition of gender difference is a founding principle of Common and Statute law. Women were once excluded and are now perfectly capable of being included equitably with governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 December 2010 12:43:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a pretty major shift in your logic, whistler.

>>hi Pericles, the application of original intent to the Constitution reveals with reasonable certainty the intention to include women equitably in governance with provision of a women's legislature, not by male whim which is the current arrangement.<<

I disagree. To me, it is clear that original intent, if ever applied, would cover the inclusion of women as voters and participants in a single, gender-neutral legislative environment. I can see no evidence, whatsoever, that there was any consideration of separate legislatures. It quite simply had never formed part of the thinking either in Westminster, or here. An examination of the history of the creation of the Constitution in the 1890s will confirm this. As such "original intent" is a dead letter.

>>The framers did not consider existing electoral arrangements in NT because NT did not exist when the Constitution was framed.<<

Right. But it was considered part of South Australia, for the purposes of legislation.

>>The recognition of difference which supported male privilege in 1900 supports the provision of a women's legislature in 2010.<<

Exactly the opposite, I would suggest. The recognition was for gender equality, an approach that was underlined by the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 that immediately followed the Constitution. There was no indication, anywhere, that the legislature should be seen as a "male privilege", since it actively worked towards full equality.

>>Women have never held the reigns of power in Australia in their own right since governance is entirely and exclusively under male control as the capacity to remove all women from all legislatures attests.<<

This is simply repetition of your previous position. You have yet to demonstrate, however, that "male control" is being exercised, while there is a whole raft of evidence, all around you, that you can see every day, to the contrary.

>>Recognition of gender difference is a founding principle of Common and Statute law.<<

A "founding principle?"

I doubt that you could support that statement with any evidence. The entire legal edifice is built upon gender equality, not gender difference.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 2 December 2010 1:54:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, the application of original intent to the Constitution reveals with reasonable certainty the intention to include women at all levels of government equitably with provision for women's legislatures, rather than at male whim which is the current arrangement, as discussed here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116&page=0#103449. It is preposterous to assert legislatures which prohibited women enabled anything other than men's legislatures which admit women under supervision, inclusive of leadership. There's no such thing in the rule of law as a gender-neutral legislative environment, never has been and never will be because the law has always recognised women and men are different and always will. Machines are gender-neutral. The rule of law applies to the behaviour of people and their use of machines, not to machines per se. The assertion the law treated women and men the same when Australia's dedicated men's legislatures were enabled or that the law has ever treated women and men the same having enabled men's legislatures only, is simply absurd. Women have never held the reigns of power in Australia in their own right since governance is entirely and exclusively under male control as the capacity to remove all women from all legislatures including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers attests. Neither have all Australians ever enjoyed gender equality before the law because the law privileges men as is demonstrably evident. The only way the rule of law can recognise both difference and equality between women and men is with governance comprised of women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 3 December 2010 12:42:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest that this "discussion" may have run its course, Philip.

Simply repeating the same mantra in the manner that you do, renders pointless any attempt to shed light on the topic.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence, as opposed to slogans, I think it best that I simply let you get on with it.

Have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 3 December 2010 1:16:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, you don't have to steal from your neighbour to provide evidence the rule of law prohibits stealing. Australia's prisons are bulging with inmates who sought evidence of the rule of law. The proposition is silly and insouciant. It can also be a criminal offence to incite the provision of evidence of the rule of law. George Jetson didn't need evidence all women in all fifteen legislatures which govern Australia can be removed, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and all women prohibited the vote under the terms of Australia's sham Constitution and its state counterparts simply with majorities rescinding legislation which granted women franchise in the first place. Or that men can't be removed in the same way, or in all probability any other way, since legislation which enabled all fifteen legislatures assumes male privilege. Neither would the overwhelming majority of Australians who respect the rule of law. Only the lawless seek evidence of the rule of law. George Jeston saw through that nonsense and made a positive and well thought out contribution. Respect for the rule of law brings its own rewards.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 4 December 2010 12:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

You wrote: "It can .... be a criminal offence to incite the provision of evidence of the rule of law."

So .... are you saying that to test the law is to commit an offence ? That to defend oneself, by demanding the provision of evidence of one's wrong-doing, is evidence of wrong-doing ? That it's wrong to defend yourself in law ? To question the legality of a charge is actually to break the law ?

So the only way not to break the law is never to question it, or whatever purports to be the law ?

And there I was, thinking that habeas corpus was a corner-stone of our legal system.

Maybe in China, and other absolute dictatorships, but surely not in Australia ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 9:51:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And this insight:

" .... all women in all fifteen legislatures which govern Australia can be removed, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and all women prohibited the vote under the terms of Australia's sham Constitution and its state counterparts simply with majorities rescinding legislation which granted women franchise in the first place."

And, as you say, so can men. So can fat people. So can anybody over or under a certain age, manic-depressives, stamp-collectors, pawpaw-growers, closet Trekkies. Conceivably: all of the above can be barred from parliament, not just women. What's sauce for the goose ....

If representatives who were men/women/thin people/people of a certain age etc. were in a majority and ALL voted that way, yes. Conceivably, the House of Reps could vote to bar all red-heads from standing for parliament, if they had a mind to - they might have a job getting it through the High Court, but they could vote that way. Conceivably.

As that Ancestry.com woman says, 'it could happen'.

But would it ? Just because it is conceivable, will it ever happen ?

And you are going to build an entire ideological edifice on this hypothetical possibility ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 10:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, evidencing the existence and the effect of the rule of law are two different propositions. George Jetson didn't question the effect that by the rule of law in Australia all women in all fifteen legislatures which govern the nation can be removed, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and all women prohibited the vote under the terms of Australia's sham Constitution and its state counterparts, simply with majorities rescinding legislation which granted women franchise in the first place. Or that in all likelihood men can't be removed in the same way, or in any other way, since legislation which enabled all fifteen legislatures assumes male privilege. Yet Pericles did question whether effect of the rule of law, in this instance, would ever occur, here: "Let's be realistic for a moment. A bill to disenfranchise women is just as likely, statistically speaking, as a referendum to disenfranchise men, would you not agree. As a result, the entire foundation upon which you build this 'men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens' is purely theoretical, and therefore a thoroughly unsound base upon which to create the notion that 'separate legislatures' are somehow a requirement'. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102792 , here: "If you are basing your argument for separate legislatures on something that theoretically "can" happen, as opposed to something that theoretically "might" happen, I believe you are on pretty thin ice."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103106, here: "It is 'preposterous' to suggest that men are able to remove women from legislatures on a whim." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103473 and here: 'This is simply repetition of your previous position. You have yet to demonstrate, however, that "male control" is being exercised, while there is a whole raft of evidence, all around you, that you can see every day, to the contrary. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103602,
[cont.]
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 9 December 2010 7:51:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... to which I responded, at first instance, "There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102876. Australia's federal and state constitutions provide explicitly for the removal of all women members and the prohibition on all women exercising a vote at elections by reason of their gender, not for the removal of fat people, anybody over a certain age, manic-depressives, stamp-collectors, pawpaw-growers or closet Trekkies. Common and Statute law has distinguished between women and men since before the Magna Carta was signed, consistently inequitably by more or less degree. Men and women comprise the primary constituents of community. If women and men obtain equal rights all demographics comprised of women and men obtain equal rights
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 9 December 2010 7:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On at least twenty-six occasions on this thread Perciles posted in support of the demonstrably erroneous proposition women and men have equal rights in Australia when majorities of the fifteen legislatures which govern the nation can remove all women members on grounds of gender and prohibit all women the vote, while the same does not apply to men, here: "You have already presupposed male privilege. None exists. We are all citizens, with equal right to vote." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "Again, where's the imbalance? All Australian women have had the same right as men to vote, and to stand for political office, since 1902." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "The only position that you can realistically hold in the face of this evidence is that democracy itself does not work. That is, despite the fact that women's votes and men's votes have equal weight, and that women can bid for those votes with the same standing as men, somehow the outcome is not representative of the will of the people." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "But they are indeed, completely equal under the law. Show me a law that denies this." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "There is no rule of law that privileges men in Australia." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "My position is straightforward, and quite simple: we have enjoyed equality in our parliamentary system for over a hundred years" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050,here: "Men and women are treated equally in the eyes of the law." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "Men and women are equally entitled to vote, and to assume public office." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "There is nothing in the present system that is specifically burdensome on women." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "I am in the corner fighting for equal rights." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103148, here: "Your proposition, therefore, is for gender apartheid, while mine is for gender equality." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103148, here: "Men and women in Australia today have equal access, to the same legislation, and are treated equally before the law'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "'Laws are formulated, implemented and supported equally by men and women, who are equally able to vote, and to stand for representation in the legislatures'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228,
[cont.]
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 9 December 2010 7:52:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... here: "'There remains no legislation on the statute books that allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men, or vice versa'."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "There is no prejudice involved in a legislature in which women and men have equal rights. Such as that we currently enjoy." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "A referendum is not required, since women already have exactly the same powers to make laws as men." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "Men and women have equal power in our present legislatures." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "I genuinely cannot see that it is necessary to compromise the equality we have at the moment with the creation of gender-separate legislatures." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "Women and men already have equal power in our present legislatures. It doesn't need to be given to them by referendum." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103231, here: "The question is, why would anyone want to do this, when we have the various genders working together quite harmoniously under the banner of 'equality before the law and parliament'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103275, here: "There is no such thing in Australia as 'men's legislatures'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103275, here: "Again, it would help if you were able to provide just one instance where our system of gender equality before the law, in the legislature and within the electorate, has disadvantaged women."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103312, here: "We have gender equality in Australia - in principle, at least, which is what we are discussing." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103344, here: "In other words, women have had demonstrable equality with men since my parents were at primary school. And that's a pretty long time." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103435, here: "We presently have gender equality. There needs to be a very strong argument why we should back away from that position, and so far you haven't given us one." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103435 and here: "We have enjoyed gender equality before the law, at the ballot box and in all legislatures for a very long time. What puzzles me is why you would want to re-introduce gender separation?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103473, all of which contradict Australia's Constitution.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 9 December 2010 7:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

You wrote:

"There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced."

'Courage' ? Courage to deprive women of their right to sit in parliament ? And that is supposed to do them a favour ?

Well, yes, somebody or something is wildly out of touch, not just with the people, but with reality.

What on earth are you talking about ? Is there any chance that you can translate this passage into readable English ?

Call me a 'remaining skeptic', if you like, or even part of some 'criminal fringe', but to me this passage is gibberish.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 9 December 2010 11:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am deeply grateful to you, whistler, for the comprehensive re-statement of my position on this matter. I'm actually quietly impressed by the breadth and depth of the arguments that I have brought to the table, in the attempt to understand your "Absent women's legislature" position.

What you appear to have omitted, though, is any rebuttal, refutation or contradiction of any of the points that you have most diligently gathered together in one place.

When you do, maybe you could also elaborate on this latest statement of yours:

>>Australia's federal and state constitutions provide explicitly for the removal of all women members and the prohibition on all women exercising a vote at elections by reason of their gender, not for the removal of fat people, anybody over a certain age, manic-depressives, stamp-collectors, pawpaw-growers or closet Trekkies.<<

You use the word "explicitly". Which to most people means that it is stated, positively and unequivocally, for all to see and understand.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to point to the relevant clauses? Because in my copy of the Commonwealth Constitution, there is absolutely no mention of "women", at all. I did also take a look at the online versions of the State constitutions - where they assist with a search engine - and couldn't find any references there either.

It isn't that I disbelieve you, just that I haven't been able to uncover the relevant clauses myself. You clearly have, so I'd simply like to take a look at them.

>>If women and men obtain equal rights all demographics comprised of women and men obtain equal rights<<

Here's a point on which we clearly agree. What I haven't yet been able to understand is where you see the inequality.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 10 December 2010 12:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, i'm sorry you're having difficulty comprehending my posts but thanks for reiterating Australia's Constitution is "wildly out of touch, not just with the people, but with reality".
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 12 December 2010 1:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Pericles, thanks but i've already documented an oversufficiency of evidence of aghast incomprehension of male privilege with respect to Australia's governance here. Should you have further concerns perhaps you might consider proposing an archive thread.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 12 December 2010 1:07:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While women have their place "it's perfectly obvious" that it was men who created the circumstances whereby women were freed from the necessity of hard labour to the extent that they now have the time to continually whine about how unfair everything is.
We stuffed up fella's.
Now that we've liberated them, they won't shut up.
How's that for gratitude!
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 12 December 2010 2:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

Yes, you are right, I have great difficulty comprehending your oversufficiency of gibberish. If you ever write something sane and sensible, I will be happy to respond :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 12 December 2010 2:28:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth:"If you ever write something sane and sensible, I will be happy to respond :)"

I'll sign that pledge.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 13 December 2010 6:19:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you genuinely not see the problem with a reply such as this, whistler? It damages your credibility at so many levels.

>>hi Pericles, thanks but i've already documented an oversufficiency of evidence of aghast incomprehension of male privilege with respect to Australia's governance here.<<

This was in response to a simple, straightforward request.

>>I wonder if you would be so kind as to point to the relevant clauses [that provide explicitly for the removal of all women members]? Because in my copy of the Commonwealth Constitution, there is absolutely no mention of "women", at all.<<

It has nothing to do with "aghast incomprehension of male privilege" at all.

Do these clauses exist?

Yes, or no?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 December 2010 7:54:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Whistler,

Please help me if you can: I am still aghast at my incomprehension to understand your gibberish, but I'm willing to wait until you can explain what you are on about :)

Joe Lane
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 11:29:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Proxy, excellent idea for a new thread. Should I be sufficiently moved to contribute I would most probably suggest men enslaved women in the first place so there's no kudos in men freeing women from anything. In Rome, "[b]y the end of the First Century women had achieved a level of freedom they would not see again in Western Society until the last half of the Twentieth Century" http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women_in_ancient_rome.htm, not to mention the "theory of worship of goddesses in prehistoric culture of Old Europe, before the invasion of warlike Indo Europeans" http://womenshistory.about.com/od/ancient/tp/aatpprehistory.htm, and that's just Europe. What men have done, with the support of women, is exercise their genius to transform the governance of extended families to that of the entire world, an extraordinary achievement. But the task is clearly not complete since modern legislatures can simply suspend or rescind legislation which granted women franchise in the first place. I've already indicated on this thread that "Men deserve a medal and everlasting world peace and sustainable prosperity for the skills women have achieved. It's not rocket science we can't do it alone" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116&page=0#103449. Alas, gratitude is the business of another thread.

Do you agree with Pericles equal rights between women and men means only men have a natural right to vote and to stand for parliament since majorities of Australia's legislatures can remove all women members, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote in accordance with the rule of law?
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 19 December 2010 12:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Loudmouth, excellent use of "gibberish" in support of aghast incomprehension of male privilege. Pericles used, "And you clearly believe that your pared-down aperçus should be sufficiently self-explanatory for us peasants to grasp your meaning." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102406, "could you please humour my ignorance for a moment" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102406, "you make the sweeping assumption" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102406, "So, can you tell us what you mean", http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102406, "And forgive me for stating the obvious, but without a proper explanation of the basic need that is being fulfilled, your argument is entirely circular..." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102536, "And again, it is necessary to state the bleedin' obvious:", http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102536, "And this is a blatant self-contradiction:", http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102536, "Given that, back then, you were reluctant to provide even the most rudimentary support to any of your assertions, I think everyone has been remarkably patient, myself included." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102553, "So for you to suddenly take exception to my patient and polite - if a touch searching - questioning technique, is exceptionally precious." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102553, "I still believe that the issue that you have raised is an entirely manufactured one. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102777, "That's a very odd argument, whistler. In fact, it is a non-argument." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102792, "Let's be realistic for a moment." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102792, "As a result, the entire foundation upon which you build this 'men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens' is purely theoretical, and therefore a thoroughly unsound base upon which to create the notion that 'separate legislatures'" are somehow a requirement." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102792, "It still doesn't hang together as an argument, whistler." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, "The only position that you can realistically hold in the face of this evidence is that democracy itself does not work." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, "And frankly, this following sentence of yours is completely obscure." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, "We've been through this." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102881, "I've asked a couple of times, whistler, but have yet to receive a response." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102937, "Just one 'for-instance' would do, whistler. Only so that you can illustrate your fanciful suggestion that 'an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly'", http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102937,

[cont.]
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 19 December 2010 1:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... "You must surely have some foundation for this bizarre claim?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102937, "Repetition does not make this any more true, whistler. In fact, it simply underlines the massive lack of anything that even hints at evidence." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102967, "Such pointless shenanigans would be beyond the scope of what one might consider even the remotest possibility, surely?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103106, "I am in the corner fighting for equal rights.You are in the corner fighting for gender apartheid." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103148, "Brevity is all very well, whistler. But this is getting beyond brief, and well into cryptic." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103275, "That's all somewhat insubstantial" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103306, "You might like to re-read your own reference material, whistler." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103344, "That quite plainly is not the case" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103344, "I suggest that you find a more compelling rationale for your campaign, since this one has far too many holes." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103344, "Look, I know this is your hobby-horse, whistler. But you really shouldn't let yourself be defined by such a threadbare argument." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103435, "But you still miss the key issue." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103435, "We are fated to continue to disagree, whistler." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103473, "That's a pretty major shift in your logic, whistler." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103602, "This is simply repetition of your previous position." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103602, "I doubt that you could support that statement with any evidence. The entire legal edifice is built upon gender equality, not gender difference." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103602 ,"I suggest that this 'discussion' may have run its course, Philip." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103715 and more recently, "Do you genuinely not see the problem with a reply such as this, whistler? It damages your credibility at so many levels" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104404 and "This was in response to a simple, straightforward request" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104404.

Do you agree with Pericles equal rights between women and men means only men have a natural right to vote and to stand for parliament since majorities of Australia's legislatures can remove all women members, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote in accordance with the rule of law?
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 19 December 2010 1:04:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Antiseptic, do you agree with Pericles equal rights between women and men means only men have a natural right to vote and to stand for parliament since majorities of Australia's legislatures can remove all women members, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote in accordance with the rule of law?

hi Pericles, clauses, excellent idea for a new thread, most seasonal.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 19 December 2010 1:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

At the risk of providing you with more oxygen, your comment:

"Do you agree with Pericles equal rights between women and men means only men have a natural right to vote and to stand for parliament .... "

provokes a response. I'm sure that Pericles would never suggest such things, he has far too much integrity, something which you perhaps do not comprehend. You might think that you are clever and try to score silly points by twisting people's words around, but that tactic really is too infantile to answer in detail.

And what on earth do you mean by 'a natural right to vote ...' ? There is nothing 'natural' about it ! Voting rights have been bitterly fought for over a thousand years, by both men and women, and given that women are in the slight majority in Australia, it is hardly likely that they will give away this right, for the sake of your idiotic fantasies.

And do you think that men hate women so much that a majority of the male members of parliament would vote the way that you crave, and as your crazed models depend on ?

You may be a one-trick pony, but nobody is fooled by that one trick. Give it up and join the world. Merry Christmas.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 19 December 2010 2:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On seven occasions on this thread Pericles has inferred the Northern Territory was a proclaimed jurisdiction at Federation, here: "You will also note - and this is very significant, so pin back those buccaneers - that the Constitution (yes, that one) had already provided for the women of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to vote, since they had already been enfranchised prior to Federation."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102967, here: "Our Constitution, from the moment of its inception, recognized this, and ensured that the rights already earned by women in SA, NT and WA were enshrined in the finished product." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "SA, NT and WA had already given women the vote, prior to Federation." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103106, here: "The Constitution was framed so that these rights were preserved. If the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 were to be rescinded for any reason, then the women of SA, NT and WA would still retain these rights." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103106, here: "Australia's Constitution, may I remind you, enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA. Clearly, there was no provision for women to be subservient to men, as you suggest." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103231, here: "The Constitution was entirely at ease with the enfranchisement of women in SA, NT and WA, and an early order of business was to formalize this in the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. This would indicate a strong original intent towards gender equality, in my view." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103312, and here: "As I see it, the application of original intent to the Constitution would clearly reveal the intention to include women, at all levels of government. The evidence for this, as I have stated before, is found in the progress Westminster had already made towards women's suffrage, and in the specific acceptance of the foothold in SA, NT and WA." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103473,

[cont.]
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 12:35:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... yet the Northern Territory was part of South Australia from 1863 to 1911 as indicated here: "[the NT became a territory on 1 January 1911 and its legislature achieved self-government in 1978]." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103139 , here: "NT was declared a territory on 1 January, 1911." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103340 and here: "The framers did not consider existing electoral arrangements in NT because NT did not exist when the Constitution was framed." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103594.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 12:36:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, Pericles' view on equality between women and men with regard to the rule of law is thoroughly documented here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104197 and here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104198 . Pericles beamed with pride over the compilation of his opinion women and men have equal rights in Australia when majorities of the fifteen legislatures which govern the nation can remove all women members on grounds of gender and prohibit all women the vote, while the same does not apply to men, here: "I am deeply grateful to you, whistler, for the comprehensive re-statement of my position on this matter. I'm actually quietly impressed by the breadth and depth of the arguments that I have brought to the table, in the attempt to understand your "Absent women's legislature" position." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104253.

Do you agree with Pericles the Northern Territory was a proclaimed jurisdiction at Federation?
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 12:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Whistler, .......... are you channelling Pericles ? What's your point ?

When you have something sensible to say, I'll be happy to get back to you :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 12:50:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"hi Antiseptic, do you agree with Pericles equal rights between women and men means only men have a natural right to vote and to stand for parliament since majorities of Australia's legislatures can remove all women members, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote in accordance with the rule of law?"

I agree with Loudmouth that you are speaking gibberish.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 23 December 2010 8:28:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles made the claim on this thread Australia's Constitution lacks "relevant clauses" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104404 in order to suspend or rescind legislation enacted under it's authority. By Pericles' account, Australia's parliaments cannot suspend or rescind legislation which enfranchised women. Does anyone on this forum agree with Pericles?
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 26 December 2010 2:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Loudmouth, you've descibed Pericles here as having "far too much integrity, something which you perhaps do not comprehend" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#105035. Do you agree with Pericles Australia's Constitution lacks relevant clauses to suspend or rescind legislation enacted under it's authority?
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 26 December 2010 2:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Antiseptic, awesome reiteration of Loudmouth's use of "gibberish" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#104525 in support of aghast incomprehension of male privilege. Do you agree with Pericles Australia's Constitution lacks relevant clauses to suspend or rescind legislation enacted under it's authority
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 26 December 2010 2:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only guarantee a Constitution which provides by original intent for governance conducted by men's legislatures only which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership can give that women will enjoy equal rights with men, is that it won't happen
Posted by whistler, Friday, 31 December 2010 6:42:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enough people support equal rights between women and men a referendum on a republic governed by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees would succeed next Saturday.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 31 December 2010 6:43:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy