Good on you Susan. You are dead right but there are some crusty old curmudgeons post here so you better be prepared for some robust debate. As a young fella of Irish and Scottish stock it was said by my teachers that I would argue with the Devil on judgment day. They thought I would be a lawyer and guided me to an academic stream. We had a superb English teacher, good science and maths, but my Latin teacher was a disappointment and drove me almost to drink, something I had to catch up on when I got a bit older.

If you don’t yet have an Australian Constitution go out and buy one. Have a look at it as an Act of Union between the United Kingdom as it was in 1900, and the colonies of Australia as they were in 1900, with a very large population of Irish Australians and just as the Scottish lately got home rule, so that was what that document did for us.

If that is right you should still be entitled to vote in Australia because no referendum has ever changed the status of Irish citizens vis a vis Australia. You kicked the Poms out, and got home rule in 1922, and then decided on a republic, but I am reliably informed the Irish republic still includes a reference to the Trinity in it.

We owe a great debt of gratitude in Australia to Celtic women like yourself. They were prepared to question male dominance of everything; fought for and got female suffrage and have proved themselves to be the intellectual equals of their menfolk in every way. The legend of the diminutive Irish redhead wife who was able to strike the fear of God into her big strong husband is ubiquitous. Our family was successful because of the enormous contributions of the wives and mothers to their husbands success. When it got a bit much, we could always go to the pub, and celebrate or commiserate. Nowadays you girls can too. Have one for me next time you go

As a political scientist who tries to keep his opinions enough middle Road to call for comments critising both sides, such as sharing the blame, does not seem to fit in with our present OLO procedure, as would fit in with university studies.

As proven through historical studies, for both warring sides not to admit their mistakes to each each other is a sure way to start a future war over it.

Here's Hoping, BB, WA.

Susan

Your reflections are common to all who bravely present their opinions only to find that your deeply felt views provide target practice for the disaffected.

Your desire for a democratic, inclusive forum are the ideal for which the majority aspire. That there will be stirrers, who cleverly include a valid point within their abuse, can be difficult to resist either by a knee-jerk reaction of one's own or hurt that one's sincerely felt beliefs are treated with a complete lack of consideration or respect.

Having posted on this forum a while now, I choose to whom I will reply. If someone is clearly just spoiling for a brawl I choose to ignore them as I would an obnoxious drunk in a bar.

Overall, I have come to know and highly respect a diversity of posters with whom I may not agree, but who clearly present the reason for their opinions and have obviously researched and worked hard just for a simple post of 350 words. And I know that these people are in the majority here and on similar forum sites elsewhere.

There are also the quiet majority who rarely post but do follow these discussions; often in preparing a discussion thread or a post I will consider that audience as well.

Susan welcome, keep up with the articles. BTW on the topic of non-citizen voting consideration should be given to people working here and paying taxes, perhaps for a period of 12 months or more. Just a thought.

Regards

I don't agree with the sympathetic comments for Susan, although I too took a few articles to become hardened to criticism.

Yes, we would like all replies to be civil, but winning over people who are critical (even rude) is just as important as anyone else.

After all, everyone is a voter and a possible advocate of the ideas promoted by authors. One needs only to remember the rise and fall of One Nation as debate exposed the flaws of Hanon's ideas.

its on line..OPINION..[so naturally your going to get the full spectrum of OPINION here,..as others have explained..that aspect..[and as i possably was under suspention at the time of your origonal posting[i will respond to your origonal'topic'..[in my usual illiterate way]

you have a complete missunderstanding of what voting is..[its in truth a defacto giving up of power of self attourney]..see that we are not a democratic state,..but a mere confused mix of colony and country

we have no sovereigns..[yet the invader/queen holds some defacto-power[but its not legally-constituted/power,..its a power held under maritime/juristiction and the law of contract..[businnes law]

see..our constitution is a british act..[it was made quasi legal by a referendum of some 10's of thousands..not by informed concent..[but it is a'document'that controls govt..[not the people]..so lawyers needed to deliver to'govt'..a means to control the people..[this they do by having us'register to vote']

understand that registering is what you do to slaves..[to make it more clear..KNOW register means legally beg..[we beg to vote[and under law it is presumed the beggor knows for what he begs

[in this case we..by begging[to vote]..the vote creates a defacto power of atourney..[a slave master relationship]..voter means imbisile..[a legal term..meaning..a ward of the state]

see the sailing orders of captain phylip..where the king orders phylip to seize the estates of the imbisiles and lunatics..[thats what a voter is]..its quite complicated to comprehend..[so i will simply prattle on]..and you confirm or deney as you chose

see the hrh is like a queen on the seas..[under maritime juristiction]read the east india charter act,..some info may be found here
http://www.pacificguardian.info/

we are born enslaved..[our parents register our berth[birth],as we emerged from the water we are legally landed cargo,..when our mother ship berthed..[thus registered like any other landed chattle]

it is important to know for what we beg..[and equally as important to know not to take oath..[yet to register..we must swear the info is true and correct..[yet jesus warned us not to swear to ANYTHING..[james5;12, mathew 5;33-37,mathew 23;16-25]

more info can be found here[and at prev link]
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/index.php?sid=903cab1758b64e4578ae04dfcf59578b

"I did get some responses to my article. Most of them were negative and some were quite rude and disrespectful. At the end of the process..."

Susan there are always going to be rude and disrespectful people. I hope by negative you do not mean disagreement. One can disagree in a respectful way but I would not label that as negative per se.

While we might understand your feelings about disempowerement, there are always other sides to a debate and other people's views will not always mirror your own. That is democracy.

Keep writing on different topics and ignore the rude comments.

OLO attracts a wide cross section of writers and participants which makes it an interesting site.