Maximillion, you've already said there's little point in discussing things further, thank you.
you're contribution has been splendid.
may Philo and I now resume our conversation?

No you may not! So, now you're going to stop are you? Why such a meaningless question?
I was about to say something about you wanting the last word, and realised I was doing exactly that, lol, so I guess we're all human after all. Go ahead, knock yourself out! I will stay out of it from here-on-in, just couldn't resist this last jibe.

Maximillion, you may be a High Court Judge or Vice-Chancellor of a University but around here your reputation counts for nothing. Simply reitterating my comments on sexual violence with postured astonishment absent any intelligent analysis of my reasoning whatsoever is a waste of your time, my time and readers' time. Playing childish games about a last say ditto. You have made it perfectly clear to this forum that there is little point in you discussing things further. Your response to my comments on sexual violence unambiguously evidences the soundness of your conclusion. Intelligent analysis is always welcomed. Posturing and juvenile gamesmanship is not. If you have an intelligent, reasoned response, for whatever reason, you have declined to offer it. You are asking this forum to believe that you either have deep psychiatric problems or you're simply out of your depth on the subject. I suspect the latter.

When you post something reasonable, or an intelligent outlook rather than Ideological cant, then you'll get a reasonable reply. You want to posture and prance and beat a broken drum, and one that I find most see as ludicrous, well, what can you expect? I suggest you try re-reading all my posts, I stand by them. And all I ask the readers here to do is think for themselves, you as well, try it some time.

Max,
The subject is closed as far as I am concerned also. Whistler has no idea of the difference of a written law and human behaviour. If human behaviour was perfect we would need no laws. Laws cannot change the motives of criminal minds. The fact Whistler believes the Australian Constitution sanctions rape indicates the lack of intelligent understanding.

Whistler,
thanx for the links you provided - they certainly made me see you a little more clearly. I admit that, from other threads, I had gained a completely different picture and so didn't even read this one till I accidently pushed the wrong button.

It appears to me now that your ideas originated from your own area of expertise wherein you encountered this form of governance?

I wholeheartedly agree - though my knowledge of Aboriginal history and customs is patchy - that such a system functioned well. But, points to consider perhaps are:

1. Even in Aboriginal communities, such a system would not have sprung up, fully formed, to be initiated overnight,as it were. It would have evolved, with as much trial and error probably, as our own system.

2. The way it evolved would have been in response to the unique and pertinant problems of a particular society. One which evolved in isolation.

3. There would, realistically, have been disputes and situations to which this system could not actually respond with fairness to both parties since human nature and circumstances are so varied. i.e. it would not have been foolproof any more than any other system is.

4. Our own systems are in a state of constant evolution too. They evolve - albeit often lagging behind the societal changes which prompted necessary reform - in response to the unique and pertinant problems of a particular society which functions completely differently to traditional society.

5. Our system of justice and governance functions within a framework of global interaction and is thus - whether to a larger or lesser degree at different times - forced to accommodate within this framework.

6. The complete abolition of one system, in order for it to be replaced by another, diametrically opposed one, would, without doubt, result in anarchy and/or rebellion in our society.

Notwithstanding the adoption of such a system in Iceland, for the above reasons I doubt whether the adoption of such a proposal would be viable in any first world country at this point in our history.