The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Smart democracy

Smart democracy

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
hi Philo,

At risk of boring senseless readers who can follow deductive reasoning, let me explain again why the Constitution of Australia mandates rape, with further explanation for those unfamiliar with law, history and Australian democracy.

There is nothing in the Constitution of Australia to say that women should be prohibited from being elected to Parliament yet women were prohibited from being elected to Australia's first Parliament.

Why? ... because that was the intention of the Westminster Parliament which enacted the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900.

Black letter law is accompanied with baggage, that is, the intention of those who enacted the law.

Moreover, Australia's Constitution has never been amended to overturn the doctrine that men boss over women which accompanied its enactment.

The Westminster parliament enacted men's legislatures only, from which women were prohibited.

In 1902 the Parliament of Australia legislated to allow women to vote and to stand for Parliament but this legislation did not overturn the doctrine that men boss over women because legislation enacted under a Constitution cannot change the doctrine accompanying the Constitution.

Australia's Constitution provides that only a referendum can change its black letter law, and consequently, the doctrine by which its black letter law was enacted.

All the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 did was extend the practice of male supervision of women to within the nation's legislatures.

After 30 years, anti-discrimination legislation enacted under the Constitution of Australia has had the effect of "no drop, or even of an increase" in violence against women.

Moreover, since the doctrine accompanying the black letter law of Australia's Constitution mandates that men boss over women, the courts are required to treat women and men differently.

As strange as it may seem with all it's talk of impartiality, that's the law under which Australians live today.

Clearly, the Constitution is at fault.

Since power is derived from legislatures, only provision for both a men's legislature and a women's legislature can replace the doctrine that men boss over women with the doctrine that women and men are their own bosses, thus achieving equity between women and men.

(1/2)
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, "although rape involves sexual acts, it is motivated by the desire for power and control over another person rather than by sexual attraction or the desire for sexual gratification."

Thus, when men boss over women, rape can be a successful, albeit vilified, strategy to control women.

In this context, same-sex rape amongst men is practice for male control of women.

The Constitution of Australia thus mandates rape from the doctrine espoused at its enactment, since unamended through referendum, that men boss over women.

By contrast, rape is an unsuccessful strategy to achieve control over women when women are their own bosses, it doesn't happen.

A potential male offender will achieve nothing by seeking power and control over a woman who is not answerable to men.

As evidence, there is very little in the almost 50,000 year record of indigenous Australian mythology, a repository of information of just about everything else that occurred in communities, assembled under a regime of women's and men's business with the doctrine that women and men are their own bosses, of sexual violence.

Thus, the logical conclusion arrived at from deductive reasoning is that a Constitution with provision for a women's and a men's legislature eliminates rape.

Obversely, in its present form, the Constitution of Australia mandates rape.

Does this explain my position to your satisfaction?

(2/2)
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Romany, thanks for your comments.
yes, I have been influenced by my life with, and study of indigenous Australians.

In response to your concerns, I would suggest that communities are comprised of women and men whether on the shores of Lake Mungo 35,000 years ago or in the concrete canyons of Manhatten today.

The same essential rules of social governance between women and men apply, irregardless of difference in material culture, cirumstance or period.

The governance of women and men has been an ongoing occupation since human communites emerged.

In this context, the Constitution of Australia is an evolutionary product of at least 75,000 years of continuous human (homo sapiens sapiens) occupation of Earth, still evolving as you suggest.

Governance in which women and men are their own bosses, where law is derived from agreement between a women's legislature and a men's legislature presided over by elders accompanied by the delivery of justice in women's and men's jurisdictions, appears to have emerged with human consciousness.

Governance in which women and men boss over each other, matriarchies in small confined locations, or patriarchies as with those that emerged with agriculture which remain predominant in much of the modern world as the source of massive social dysfuntion, appear to be aberrations derived in response to confined, unstable or changing ecologies.

The evolution of governance has thrown up constitutional democracy as the modern, preferred model.

The mute point in this discussion is that democracy enabled by an equitable constitution can accommodate confinement, instability and changing ecologies without social dysfunction.

The Constitution of Australia requires very little revision to transform its doctrine from men bossing over women to women and men being their own bosses, essentially a successful referendum providing for the inclusion of a women's legislature.

As Princessunicorn suggested earlier, "it does sound complicated and far fetched [but] if u really think about it, it makes alot of sense just will take alot of reorganising the system and change for a better and fairer then happier future for the people.:)"

I trust this goes someway to responding to your comments.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:43:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think 2 things of this,

firstly the other aproach is actually in not wanting to formalise any kind of established 'elders',(in a natural society sanity should rule decissions anyhow), secondly what is smart about democracy is that there is a theoretical opening to have a lot different people do the most responsible jobs. Ofcourse they should be checked for their financial doings.

Apart from you can (it will probably not be completely succesfull at once) that way finally get rid with the establishments that occupy so many high positions very conservatively,
you show trust in that 'smart democracy', one where you take it as a fact people are capable of doing the better things(*), the optimal ones even, by sharing those responsibility's by many different 'smart' people.

I don't want to be a nuisance, but in my personal opinion smartness is not really actually the criterion when choices over positions in those establishments, the dutch is rather one but (ofcourse) not the worst, are made. It is not my point a somewhat smarter person would allways function better, yet that follows there are allways enough fools to do the jobs.

(*)contrary to in 'capitalism' that would come with a juridical responsability for the integrity of the policy. Fortunately somewhat superfluous through the principle of shared responsibility. (you would for example also confront the tax department with the consequences of their expert opinion) basically nobody is allowed to shut up.
Posted by onix, Friday, 3 April 2009 4:30:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the destruction of Australia democracy is basically a hissy fit by men. Women in Australia got the vote, starting in South Australia and South Australia was the first to abolish that great democratic institution the civil jury.

As the vote was extended to all Australians men and women alike, the civil jury was abolished in all States including the Commonwealth. The coalition between the Roman Catholic male chauvinists and the atheist male chauvinists, has seen civil juries abolished as the strength of the women has increased in the voting public.

It is true women can be as vindictive as any part of the human race, but their vote in a civil jury should be retained, and simply because they have been given a vote in elections, they should not be excluded from the courts. Most Magistrates and Judges are men, but there are a few women, however from my experience with female Judges, they try to out nasty the men in the game. This is only to be expected because a Judge is essentially a violent vindictive person, whose very job is inflicting pain.

A professor of jurisprudence called Pierre Schlag, who teaches jurisprudence at Denver Colorado, claims Judges are the most violent and vindictive people in the community, who inflict pain on others, and never lift a finger of their own against them. Jesus Christ in Luke 11 Verse 46 says woe unto ye ye lawyers, for ye lade men with burdens grievous and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. I think this adequately describes a Judge near you.

Is there anyone here who is really good at punctuation? Look at S 79 Constitution. It says: Number of judges. The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. The capital letters used on Numbers and Parliament are absent from court and judges. Is it a nasty male trick to exclude women from full participation in our democracy, by creating Courts and Judges, as the Parliament of the Commonwealth has done? All Judges are lawyers
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 3 April 2009 6:19:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,
I think I still hold onto my reservations as outlined previously. While I would dearly like to believe in a society ordered more equitably and fairly I just don't think that separate gender-based Legislatures would be the answer in Australia, at least.

Our history has provided an aura of rancour surrounding gender divisions in such a way that that separate Legislatures would, I firmly believe, at this point in our development, lead to more divisiveness than cohesion. Quite simply, I don't think we are evolved enough yet.

I don't believe that the question of rape would in any way be addressed by such a model either. Those who already hold women inferior would simply hold a Women's Legislature as an inferior body. Nevertheless they would feel their power=base to be threatened and the existing reasons for establishing dominance could, in fact exacerbate these feelings.

The private reasons that cause certain men to express their feelings through violent acts of sexual dominance would not disappear with a change in governance.

However, I genuinely see now where you are coming from and, though I remain unconvinced that this strategy would work, I certainly agree that theoretically such a model does have a lot going for it. But then, theoretically, so does socialism, communism and universal enfranchisement.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 4 April 2009 3:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy