I realize that you are not talking to me, whistler. But I can't let you get away with simply repeating your mantra whenever you feel like it, without some gentle attempts to put you right. Because I'm sure that it is ultimately bad for your health, to expend so much anger without cause.

>>Pericles claims Federal Parliament can “just as easily withdraw the vote from men” as from women (by rescinding the Commonwealth Franchise Act, 1902)<<

I wasn't actually thinking of rescinding anything. I had in mind something more straightforward, along the lines...

"This Act may be cited as the Male Disenfranchisement Act 2012

"The object of this Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the elimination of male influence on legislative processes"

...and so on.

There is nothing whatsoever, constitutionally, preventing this from being tabled, and voted into law.

>>...the intention of those who enact legislation accompanies the legislation. Only a referendum of the people to amend the original intent of the Constitution can remove male suffrage, not the parliament<<

But on this basis alone, a referendum would not in the least be needed. It is blindingly obvious that the original intent of the Constitution was, quite specifically, the inclusion of female suffrage. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and plenty - Section 41 being front-and-centre - to support it.

>>The Constitution applies different standards of suffrage to women and men, is discriminatory and unfairly disadvantages women.<<

After all this time, and all those words you have written on the subject, we are still waiting for the very first tiny inkling of how the Constitution does this. It doesn't even mention men or women, male or female.

This is the deep and abiding mystery of your campaign here, whistler.

What exactly is it that you perceive the Constitution to be doing to, or for, women, that it does not equally do to, or for, men?

If you are able to shed light on that, we might just have the start of an interesting and constructive discussion.

Excuse me eyejaw, but street art is a valuable and well established artistic occupation, albeit perhaps not an undertaking to the liking of upper class snobs, but who gives a toss about their artwork anyway. Insights I gained from the streets of London, a purposeful and deliberate approach to my artwork at the time, remain with me, crystal clear, four decades later. Why anyone would disparage an artist for making an honest living is beyond the pale. My great great grandfather, a Colonial artist declined a request to join the ill-fated Burke and Wills expedition of 1860-61, is exhibited at Federation Square. My great grandfather, a Federation artist, is archived extensively at the Ballarat Art Gallery. My grandmother, an artist, befriended members of the Heidelberg School when they sojourned to Sandringham where she was Lady Mayoress. My mother, a musician, befriended members of the Heidi School, Sid Nolan and Albert Tucker, in their early years in St Kilda, and prior to travelling to London I’d been schooled in contemporary art at the Yellow House in Macleay Street under Brett Whiteley, Martin Sharpe, Bruce Beresford and a host of others.

It’s a fundament misunderstanding of the exercise of democratic power to assert that a majority of something like 90% of men would appoint a person to a position of authority who did not represent that majority. Are you acquainted with the notion of a critical mass?

Whistler,

You honor me by suggesting I am a protege of Pericles :) I would be happy to also be his acolyte, or even one of his myrmidons, if you wish.

The House of Reps and the Senate are not simply 'two separate chambers', they have different functions - one to initiate business (bills), the other to review, amend and finally approve of them in the event that they are agreed to in the lower house.

Are you suggesting that, with a men's and a women's assembly, one house initiates business, the other, as it were, waits and gives its final assent, but can't initiate business ? Which then is the initiator, which the final assenter ?

Or are you suggesting that both houses are equal, equivalent, that they would consider the same business simultaneously - and, of course, by some magic, come to the same conclusions, so that there is never any dispute between one house and the other ? Do they each, in turn, refer bills to an upper house, where the same differences may arise ? How are differences to be resolved ?

Have you actually given any thought to this arrangement ? Or did it seem like a good idea at the time you first thought of it - so unique ! so novel ! so brilliant ! so me ! - and you haven't reflected on it since ? That, by definition, two separate deliberative chambers may very likely come up with different bills - after all, they might be controlled by completely different parties (imagine, for argument's sake, a men's legislature controlled by the Libs, and a women's legislature controlled by, well, a coalition of Labor, Greens and Independents - or vice versa). How would the two houses reconcile their decisions, presuming that they deliberated over identical issues ? Through referral to two upper houses ? Then the question becomes: how would all four houses reconcile their differences ?

[TBC]

[cont]

Or would a men's and a women's legislature deliberate over different issues ? Men's issue for men, women's issues for women ? Who decides what is a men's issue and what is a women's issue ? Another house ?

Can you start to see how reactionary this idea is, how it moves rapidly into a form of Apartheid ?

So who on earth would ever agree to it ? After all, the notion of separate legislatures would most certainly need a change in the constitution, and you might have difficulty persuading people generally to contemplate the expulsion of men from a 'women's realm', and women from a 'men's realm', if that is how you are imagining it.

Isn't it interesting how Utopian ideas, if taken to their logical conclusions, always degenerate into either authoritarian hells, or fatuous idiocies ? Which are you aiming for, Whistler ?

Cheers,

Joe

You are missing the really important points, whistler, and focussing on irrelevancies.

>>The Westminster Parliament in the UK enacted Australia’s Constitution. Most Australians would have been ineligible to vote on a referendum conducted by the Westminster Parliament had one been undertaken on the issue, which there was not.<<

It was absolutely not Westminster's job to hold a referendum on the Australian Constitution. But it was, most certainly, ours.

"Referendums asking people to say 'yes' or 'no' to the proposed Australian Constitution were held in each of the Australian colonies between 1898 and 1900. This was one of the most important steps in the process of Federation. It was also the first time in the world that a national constitution had been submitted to the people's vote. The 1891 Constitutional Convention agreed that before proceeding with Federation, the Constitution for governing the new nation should have 'the approval of the people'. The intention to seek this approval through referendums was established at the Corowa people's convention in 1893."

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Fact_Sheets/factsheet1.htm

>>But the parliament which enacted the Constitution strictly prohibited women’s franchise and gave no regard whatsoever in the Constitution to the inclusion of whatever the Colonies were up to with women... A parliament which prohibits women’s franchise can’t legitimately legislate to include women’s franchise in a further parliament, the contradiction is beyond reasonable parliamentary process.<<

Aha... so what you are saying is that because the Act was passed by the Parliament in Westminster, and that Parliament did not at that time admit women to vote, it somehow transfers that lack-of-women's-suffrage to Australia?

But it did pass the Act, did it not. And women did have the vote within the Constitution, specifically grandfathered from the WA and SA legislation. So in spite of your suggestion that they could not "legitimately legislate to include women’s franchise", that is precisely what they did.

Maybe they held their noses or something, or crossed their fingers behind their backs. But it was passed.

But maybe I've missed something. If I have, perhaps you could explain it to imajulianutter.

In that voting process leading up to Federation, Aboriginal women in South Australia (and perhaps other states) had the vote and by all accounts, exercised it vigorously.

During the same period - as Whistler is alluding to - women in the UK (and pretty much every other country) did not have the vote, and did not have it, at 21 years, until 1928. As Pericles suggests, this meant that the British parliament had to deliberate over a Bill to validate the federation of Australian provinces which contained measures which were not in existence in Britain itself.

But of course, this may not have been uncommon: the British parliament also had to deliberate over legislation affecting, for example, land tenure in the African colonies, which may have taken very different forms from land tenure in Britain itself [check out C.K. Meek's pioneering work].

In its deliberations, the British parliament would have had to take the pre-existing Australian arrangements in relation to voting rights as they were - otherwise what you are suggesting is that the British parliament could not, and would not, have passed legislation recognising Australian Federation unless the law of each Australian province/state/colony was brought back into line with British law - and self-government in each province and state had already precluded that ever happening again.

Going back a bit further, say to 1800, British parliaments would have had to deliberate about the respective rights of slave-holders and slaves in the West Indies, even though slavery in Britain itself was outlawed. Call it a deliberative anomaly :)

Cheers,

Joe