Meanwhile over on another thread we have SJF (who I consider to be a somewhat militant feminist) saying "I believe the more recent introduction of 50-50 child residency legislation in some countries is a progressive move." and
"Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men."

We also have Fractelle saying "What is important is the best interests of the child, if that proves to be the father, then so be it. The problem is not women, it is the anachronistic family court system that is still in the 19th Century regarding the make-up of families - it hasn't caught up with the fact that many women want careers and the progress many men have made in wanting to be fathers rather than just breadwinners. Currently the system plays into the hands of women who want to retain control of all children and men who still believe that child care is the women's responsibility."

Pelican says "Making this debate into one about paternalism is not especially useful. Detractors of home birthing are not sitting around thinking about how to oppress women, they are concerned mainly for the welfare of chidlren."

Formersnag if you spent less time attacking feminists and more time listening to what they say you might learn a bit.

R0bert

"Both sides need Human Rights
Angryant47"

Yes, both sides need to have a fair trial, and be fairly represented. But again, the question is probably more along the lines of "Is a BILL of rights the best way to actually protect our human rights?"

I would argue that a Bill of rights will actually create a selfish, self-centred and less community orientated society in which, ironically, our "rights" are trampled by the sheer ugliness of the legal systems and hampered police force "Bills of Rights" create.

Imagine this... a policeman enters a scene and checks someone's rubbish bin and finds a gun(!) but without a warrant. In America this gets thrown out as evidence. In Australia, our magistrates get to weigh the infringement of the right of privacy with the public NEED to catch and convict a mass-murdered.

In America, privacy in this case is an absolute right. What a load of tosh! In Australia, the cop that broke the normal police codes might be reprimanded but the public good demands that this evidence be considered.

So when people start raving about Bills of Rights, I start asking what about my "right" to live in a safer society?

Robert, i accept those quotes at face value, good to see.

But i have never, personally, experienced anything, even slightly, like that ever, before. Except for a few occasions where i have been speaking to older women who have seen their son get screwed in the family court and been cut off from their grandchildren. Or again they (older women) have seen their grandchildren being neglected and abused by yet another deadbeat, single mother. The only other phenomenon which i have encountered is single women at hillsong style churches, who have begun to realise that feminism has made women extremely unattractive to men, and that's, why they can't find one. At least, one who will commit to, more than a one night stand.

Have another look at graham y's article & comments, "the age, etc". My first post was "nice as pie", so too, were all others by alleged right wingers. It was the lefties/feminists who started it, as usual. Playing the victim is how, they are playing mind games with us. When you are a stone, cold, socio/psychopath determined to dominate, the first rule, of mind games, is blame the victim, (eg, you have a problem, all men are bastards) the 2nd is accuse your accuser, (eg, you are playing mind games/using bad language, pulling stats out of the corn flakes packet, etc)

I do listen to them very carefully. Reading the article/posts all the way through, slowly, word for word and respond, line by line in subsequent posts with constructive, factual, criticism. No man ever plays to a stereotype, just responds to injustice being inflicted on their children as i have. Your,

Battler
Against
Reactionary
Stereo
Typing
And
Retarded
Dyke's

Formersnag,
It is so refreshing to hear another person who is up to the wiles of some women.It is a very simple process, just accuse the other (male)of a greater crime and the cops will quickly over look what the sweetmouthed incredibly religious female has done. Ofcourse the crime has to be of a sexual nature to get the best attention and I suppose it does not hurt a policemans record when he can make an arrest and the victim is in the situation of proving his innocence as opposed to the standard of proving guilt.
The stupidest words I have heard in a magistrates court came from a magistrate. "Of course Mr Bloggs there is not much in this but if I dont put a DVO on you,that is what you want and we cant have that."Took 18 months and a lot of dollars to get that one set aside., Bill of Rights is useless when there is a law that is neither just or fair and can be manipulated by the big $ companys by the use of a verbal bully and the old school tie

Has a post been deleted? I thought I saw one here earlier which I can't locate now.

Eclipse Now one of the arguments put forward against the Bill of Rights concept many years ago was that under our system we can do pretty much anything that is not forbidden in law, under the bill of rights approach you can do what is allowed in law. A catchy phrase but I've never worked out how much practical difference it makes, our governments seem to be on a never ending search to find more ways of regulating us.

Fot the current topic my guess is that they would not provide additional protection from those who ignore existing laws covering assault, neglect, sexual abuse of minors, child protection etc.

R0bert

Robert, think, strategy, tactics, "the art of war", have you considered, that, the allegedly, extreme nature of my work, in this area, takes the heat, away from you, and makes you, look like one of the good guys, the moderate, middle of the road, reasonable, more easy going guys. Give me some credit, work with me just a little bit.