The Constitution of Australia was enacted to enable a Federation of States.

The States agreed to a Federation governed by men's legislatures.

A Constitution enabling women's legislatures would require the States to also enable women's legislatures.

New Federalism is law enacted by agreement between women's legislatures and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

Whistler, I have no idea what you just said.

Were federal laws made just for males but now there are new federal laws?

I've seen this on other fora, it's a joke!
Some people are claiming we need separate laws, courts and parliaments for women, but then what? The same for the gay community? The Islamic? The satanists? Where do you stop?
And as for these "Elders"? Can you just imagine the selection and disputes and conflicts THAT would cause!
One Law to rule over them all!
That's Democracy, not this clap-trap of separation.
Multiculturism is "divide and rue" already, why make it FAR worse?

as if we dont have enough govt/servants..[sucking the public trough dry]..its time to reduce govt..not increase it

yes woman are under represented..but the ones that get into politics think they need to out balls the guys..[look at the thatcher that became an ism...[the last thing we need is more testostone hormone replacement?..taking/driven woman running govt]..look what they been doing to their kids

[look at what the judge-judy/types been doing to law..[the're all ready comming]

dont get me wrong..i love woman..[but there is womans/buisness and mens..[and yes the men havnt been doing their job..but then neither have the woman]...

im not going to breast-feed any kids...and wouldnt even think of birthing them..but i have watched a mother in action..[several]..and they are flat out running their kids lives..[many not very mell...mostly]...but the thing we expect them to bring to govt..[compassion/nurture..simply speaking dont happen in govt house]

i agree it should be..[intently]..present in govt..but its the boys club that is to blame..and woman that play politics need to join the same old boys/club mindset..to play politrick's..[so its a total.sum loss all round]

yes it is said woman/children will rule us..[but i see that more as a mindset change..currently govt is much like the disiplinarian/father [you will do this or else]..wheras govt should be like a mother[making sure the childs talents get nurtured.not corrupted]

govt should be doing that it is charged for..[the peoples safety and wellbeing]..as is wrote in the constitution...not there to police our morals or enforce us to serve their patriachal agenda's and fill the public purse

it claims the authority of the patriarchal_god..[but god is love as reflected by the messiah's mess-age love god..love neighbour

[god has grace..knows mercy..YET presently govt knows only rules and law..and en-forcing them on its people...when it should follow the laws of love and mercy..[grace]...be more LIKE a good mother[not like a power mad father

I don’t apologise for being a Christian. I believe in the same Almighty God mentioned in the Constitution on line 2 of the preamble. So too do the sixty five percentile points of population, who ticked the Christian box at the census, and probably the 400,000 Australian Muslims.

Australia adopted the Federal system of government, set out in the four Gospels, because we are a clone of the English system of Government adopted by the United States of America. We have people here, the atheists and secularists, animalists, and tree worshippers, going back to very primitive beliefs, who have persuaded the Judges and Magistrates of Australia that they represent Disunity, not Almighty God.

This oppresses the men and women, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights if accepted, gives them equal access to justice as without discriminatiion. If you do a word count on Her Majesty or the Queen, in the on line Constitution you will find She appears at least 40 times. Every Judge and Magistrate is supposed to represent Her. Instead they think they represent the State. This has completely undermined and subverted the Constitution. Consequently, these poor frightened little men and women are continually living in fear. They now hide behind security, they did not need it for 103 years.

If the Judges and Magistrates accepted that they represent Almighty God in the scheme of things, we would all win. If you know one, be his personal pastor, and tell him he can have no fear, if he follows the Constitution. All a Justice has to do to stop being afraid, is call a proper court together, and stop trying to be a secular Court. Couple of further things they should do, they should stop prejudicing debate in their courts, by refusing to file, as the High Court and Federal Court do. They should let anyone who will come to worship in their courts. True Christianity welcomes everyone without being judgmental. Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit present when a jury is called, should judge, not any one man or woman. Give peace a go

This thread is a fascinating foray into the misunderstanding of government generally. Government should be the responsibility of everyone, men and women, and everyone should have the same influence on how laws are made, and which laws are enforced, and which discarded. This was the common law. It has been replaced by a Statism that is an abomination. The abomination is the State thinking it can deliver justice. Only God can do that, and you are one of his servants.

When we federated, we adopted what was called the authochthonous expedient. Autochthon, was a flash word for native, and the authochthonous expedient was that the Commonwealth instead of abolishing all State courts, simply adopted them by the simple expedient of S 39 (2) Judiciary Act 1903. They instantly, in 1903 became courts capable of exercising federal jurisdiction. This had the effect of making the Commonwealth one country; One country, One Queen, One God, and very Christian. Problem is we still have a Law Society in each State and Territory. They have stacked nine Parliaments with lawyers; lawyers love politics.

To disenfranchise ordinary people, lawyers have abolished civil juries, taken away their vote in court, and given exclusive voting rights to Judges and Magistrates. The calls for reform, should be calls for a return to the status quo, in place in 1903. It worked, from 1900 to 1979, when the High Court was made a Statutory State Court, instead of a Federal Supreme Court. It has not worked properly since 1953, but it was generally irrelevant, until all States made Statutory Courts, and now it will not fix the problem, because it will not file all suits.

While men and women are restricted to using only State registered and approved solicitors and barristers as advocates in courts exercising federal jurisdiction, some very capable people are being denied their chance to have a real say in Australian government. This is the real reason the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not accepted by Judges and Magistrates. It abolishes the lawyers monopoly. An outbreak of honesty would be a marvelous thing

yes Jewely, Federal laws are made just for men.
women were prohibited from being elected to Australia's first Parliament and have since gained entry under male supervision.
[ http://2mf.net/power_and_control:_rape_and_the_Constitution.htm ]
Australia's Federation Constitution doesn't recognise women,
New Federalism does.

Maximillion do the math.
women comprise half of Australians.
achieve equity between women and men and minorites comprising women and men will achieve equity.

one under god, it's all about rationalising what is, not creating more, especially with the guesswork about gender which passes as law ... SAVINGS!!

Peter the Believer, I've asked you before, would you support a woman reciting The Lord's Prayer at the commencement of a women's legislature?

This is just a rerun of an attempt by Whistler to get some interest in what amounts to one of the most negative of feminists agendas which will never work or be implemented

largely because most women, along with all the men of Australia think it completely divisive and bereft of any merit.

But we live in a free society where people are free to express their views and other free to point out the laughable nayure of some

It is said

"Freedom of Speech distinguishes the Sage from the Fool by the merit of their words.
Censorship treats them the same..."

This is a case in point

So to Whistler I might suggest....

"free speech for idiots", so we may see them for what they are.

Flash back 120 years and there's Great Grandpa Rouge, Great Grandpa Maximillion and a few of their misogynist mates insisting that granting women the right to vote and to be elected to Parliament "amounts to one of the most negative of feminists agendas which will never work or be implemented, largely because most women, along with all the men of Australia think it completely divisive and bereft of any merit".

Why should women vote when men already vote on their behalf?, is the clarion call.

Updated, why should women have their own legislature when they're already allowed to attend men's legislatures?

Well Col Rouge, your imaginary ancestor got rolled and if you can't see the continuum between achieving the vote and parliamentary representation and achieving a legislature you're destined to be consigned to the same rubbish bin of history as great grandpappy.

Whistler.. you calling me misogynist does not make me a misogynist

However, if you wish to make the pitch of your presentation from the cesspool of flawed judgment, then so be it.

I am free to express an opinion and to point out the clear and obvious deficiencies of your position…

The more you complain with flawed rhetoric (for it is mere rhetoric, expressed without expectation of a response), the less adequate your proposition appears.

So keep up your judgmental drivel… like I said previously, we judge a fool by what they say and a judgment of your views is becoming more clear and obvious with each successive post you make.

“you're destined to be consigned to the same rubbish bin of history as great grandpappy.”

My daughters, well educated in the stupidity of feminism, without losing any of their femininity, will ensure my views remain preeminent, well into the future, despite your shallow pretentions, aspirations and faux-claims to political dominance.

Then we come to my recent past and present lovers.. darn it short of my vasectomy, they too would be keen to ensure my children were of sufficient numbers to outvote you and your silly mono-gender social aspirations and politics anyday

all Aussie men are misogynist Col Rouge,
where's the women's legislature?

Forget it Col, Whistler is just "trolling"(?), stirring?.
No intelligent person takes this crud seriously.

Maximillion "Forget it Col, Whistler is just "trolling"(?), stirring?.
No intelligent person takes this crud seriously."

Yes I know... I just enjoy it.. a permanent open season on Misandrist trolls...

Anyway, I cannot hang around long... I have a date with a beautiful women.. and she is smart...

she has chosen to have a date with me, afterall... .

Maximillion, Col Rouge has every right to excercise his freedom of speech to oppose a women's legislature just as those who excercised their freedom of speech to oppose granting women the vote.

Just because the historical evidence suggests his prospects of avoiding getting rolled again would appear to approach zero doesn't mean he shouldn't have his say, albeit that his most recent post indicates he's already well under the spell of women so his 'naughty boy' comments don't amount to a hill of beans, as your attempt to censure him acknowedges.

Here's a quiz to exercise your formidable intellect.

If a women's legislature and a men's legislature agree to a law, how many laws are there?

If you answered 'one' you just confirmed your genius!