Relda,

Your “response” has not offered any support for your comments about Marx considering culture irrelevant. Nor have you supported your comments about the withering away of the state being akin to a return to primitive society. Nor have you qualified your comments about the “common denominator”.

Your comments about the similarity of Bentham and Marx, while superficially amusing, reveal nothing of substance other than your lack of real understanding of Marx, and mean absolutely zero in the scheme of things. An irrelevant distraction.

Further, your comments about Marx’s ideology being “dead” are based on what exactly?

The contradictions of capitalism described by Marx still exist. In fact much of what he predicted about captialism’s decay and descent into barbarism came to fruition in the 20th Century’s two world wars and others, and is being carried on today in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Bourgeois democracy has decayed to such an extent that the intellectual giant of Bush was able to steal the 2000 election, and is now dismantling and repudiating long held democratic protections such as the principle of habeus corpus, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be spied on by your government. The US now has its own gulag at Guantanamo and has virtually legislated the use of torture.

Cont…

…cont

The majority of the world still lives in abject poverty, while the living conditions of average people in industrialized countries are being eroded. The divide between rich and poor is ever widening. The corruption and sleaze of the corporate world is on display for all to see.

People are still studying Marx. Socialist parties are gaining strength. The Socialist Equality Party in New York overcame huge hurdles to get itself on the ballot in the upcoming elections, gaining 25,000 signatures (and in other states). In a 1999 BBC Poll Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the Millenium http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/461545.stm , and more recently, the greatest philosopher of all time http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/07_july/13/radio4.shtml . Not bad for a “primitive ideologue”. Obviously they are not scientific studies, however they demonstrate that Marx’s ideology is hardly “dead”.

It appears that you have a habit of making statements which are backed up by pretty much zilch.

Oh well, we all make our own decisions in life.

Robert
Unless she has concrete evidence of abuse, she cannot use this Bill against you. If she does, she will be fined or jailed. So you have nothing to fear. And having exclusive use of the property - for a period of 14 days - not indefinitely.
Previously, the abused person had to flee to a refuge - why can't the alleged perp be the one who has to look for temporary accommodation?

Tao,

You’re obviously in awe of Marx and Marxist theory. It’s not for me to dissuade you. As you say, “Oh well, we all make our own decisions in life”. Fortunately we currently live in a society where, by and large, we can do this.

Some more ‘zilch’...

Although many people continue to call themselves Marxists, and Marxism remains a vital intellectual and, to some extent, political tradition, there is broad agreement among even leftist intellectuals, many of Marx’s theories and ideals are, however attractive, misguided or wrong.

“There is much of use within Marxism…… but as an ideology, as a tradition and as a guide for the future it has failed; and failed on a grand scale. Socialists must be prepared to question everything. And that includes Marxism. If the right tools are not chosen for the job, the job will not get done right”. Talk by Alan MacSimóin to the Trinity College Socialist Society, 1994, Workers Solidarity Movement

There is an obvious conflict between individual freedom and communal freedom – these aspects of his theory are irreconcilable.

Marx got wrong with many of his predictions, here’s a few:

· Marx was wrong about the changes in the class structure under capitalism. He expected that practically everyone would become a proletarian and do wage-labor under the direction of the few capitalists. The reality has been very different.

· The new middle class includes: The middle managers of large private and public organizations, including large businesses. Highly skilled technical workers such as engineers and research scientists. Other professionals, such as lawyers, and physicians and others who formerly were part of the old middle class. The living standards of workers have also increased due to the efforts of organized unions.

· For the hundred years between roughly 1873 and 1973, the wages of all workers, including unskilled blue-collar workers, rose dramatically in all Western capitalist countries.

Governments in the liberal democratic capitalist countries have played a major role in raising the living standards of the working class...and I could go on.

Noos, nothing I read there suggests that someone has to have concrete evidence to put the restrictions in place. None of it is likely to apply to me so I'm not sure why you phrased your comments the way you did unless it's part of your attempts to portray all who oppose this kind of stuff as wife bashers.

An emergency intervention is hardly likely to deal thoroughly with the rules of evidence. Is there even a place for the accussed to defend themselves against the allegations prior to a hearing? Nothing I've seen suggests that is the case. So the "innocent unless proven guilty" accused is left with no home, no money, no access to clothes, tools, records. If they don't happen to have good support near by they are in a very difficult position.

It's not just exclusive use of the property, it's exclusive use of bank accounts etc.

"Requesting a hearing will not affect the emergency intervention order; only the decision resulting from the hearing will affect it."

Are you willing to see women left with no home, money, clothes, access to records etc left for 14 days (assuming that they can sort out the requirements for a hearing) if the accuser happens to be male and the law is applied fairly. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Are you willing to see women go to jail because they made a claim of abuse that they could not back up with hard evidence?

I can imagine the outcry from those who now support this kind of measure the first time it goes against a woman - either as the accused or as an accuser caught out. Many of you are more than happy to see innocent men having their lives torn apart but I doubt that any of you will be happy to see the law do that to a woman.

Try loking at the scenarios involved with a woman on the wrong side of it (you for example) and ask yourself if you are so confident of the approach being proposed.

R0bert

RObert, good'ay mate,

You might be surprised (or not, I don't know) to know that these EXACT same laws of Canada (or very similar), do, at this point in time, exist in Tasmania, introduced by retired/retiring MP Judy Jackson, ALP.

These same laws are also in place, I believe in Victoria, and the rot is currently being introduced into NSW by Iemma, ALP, and will probably be NSW law before the next NSW state election.

It's only a matter of time before they're introduced into Qld, where I think you might reside. This is the war-against-men that I spoke to you about.

In my opinion, it is not really a war aginst "men", but is a war, driven by Marxists (ALP) against traditional family, which they adversely label "patriarchy". It is very serious stuff and has had massive ramifications across the entire broad spectrum of all humanity living in Western nations.

Despite the fact that I become somewhat "gross" with my passion to expose this sham of theirs, I regret, I lose patience with those who fail to understand the magnitude of the injustice done under their umbrella.

I apologise for that.

I see now that you are only just beginning to see the magnitude of the injustice being done.

All the very best to you.