hi Pericles, the application of original intent to the Constitution reveals with reasonable certainty the intention to include women equitably in governance with provision of a women's legislature, not by male whim which is the current arrangement. The framers of the Constitution accepted standing electoral arrangements which enabled the removal of women's franchise in the two states which had granted women limited franchise, simply by rescinding legislation which granted the franchise in the first place. The framers did not consider existing electoral arrangements in NT because NT did not exist when the Constitution was framed. The recognition of difference which supported male privilege in 1900 supports the provision of a women's legislature in 2010.

Women have never held the reigns of power in Australia in their own right since governance is entirely and exclusively under male control as the capacity to remove all women from all legislatures attests. Neither have all Australians ever enjoyed gender equality before the law because the law privileges men as is demonstrably evident. Recognition of gender difference is a founding principle of Common and Statute law. Women were once excluded and are now perfectly capable of being included equitably with governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees.

That's a pretty major shift in your logic, whistler.

>>hi Pericles, the application of original intent to the Constitution reveals with reasonable certainty the intention to include women equitably in governance with provision of a women's legislature, not by male whim which is the current arrangement.<<

I disagree. To me, it is clear that original intent, if ever applied, would cover the inclusion of women as voters and participants in a single, gender-neutral legislative environment. I can see no evidence, whatsoever, that there was any consideration of separate legislatures. It quite simply had never formed part of the thinking either in Westminster, or here. An examination of the history of the creation of the Constitution in the 1890s will confirm this. As such "original intent" is a dead letter.

>>The framers did not consider existing electoral arrangements in NT because NT did not exist when the Constitution was framed.<<

Right. But it was considered part of South Australia, for the purposes of legislation.

>>The recognition of difference which supported male privilege in 1900 supports the provision of a women's legislature in 2010.<<

Exactly the opposite, I would suggest. The recognition was for gender equality, an approach that was underlined by the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 that immediately followed the Constitution. There was no indication, anywhere, that the legislature should be seen as a "male privilege", since it actively worked towards full equality.

>>Women have never held the reigns of power in Australia in their own right since governance is entirely and exclusively under male control as the capacity to remove all women from all legislatures attests.<<

This is simply repetition of your previous position. You have yet to demonstrate, however, that "male control" is being exercised, while there is a whole raft of evidence, all around you, that you can see every day, to the contrary.

>>Recognition of gender difference is a founding principle of Common and Statute law.<<

A "founding principle?"

I doubt that you could support that statement with any evidence. The entire legal edifice is built upon gender equality, not gender difference.

hi Pericles, the application of original intent to the Constitution reveals with reasonable certainty the intention to include women at all levels of government equitably with provision for women's legislatures, rather than at male whim which is the current arrangement, as discussed here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116&page=0#103449. It is preposterous to assert legislatures which prohibited women enabled anything other than men's legislatures which admit women under supervision, inclusive of leadership. There's no such thing in the rule of law as a gender-neutral legislative environment, never has been and never will be because the law has always recognised women and men are different and always will. Machines are gender-neutral. The rule of law applies to the behaviour of people and their use of machines, not to machines per se. The assertion the law treated women and men the same when Australia's dedicated men's legislatures were enabled or that the law has ever treated women and men the same having enabled men's legislatures only, is simply absurd. Women have never held the reigns of power in Australia in their own right since governance is entirely and exclusively under male control as the capacity to remove all women from all legislatures including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers attests. Neither have all Australians ever enjoyed gender equality before the law because the law privileges men as is demonstrably evident. The only way the rule of law can recognise both difference and equality between women and men is with governance comprised of women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees.

I suggest that this "discussion" may have run its course, Philip.

Simply repeating the same mantra in the manner that you do, renders pointless any attempt to shed light on the topic.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence, as opposed to slogans, I think it best that I simply let you get on with it.

Have a great day.

hi Pericles, you don't have to steal from your neighbour to provide evidence the rule of law prohibits stealing. Australia's prisons are bulging with inmates who sought evidence of the rule of law. The proposition is silly and insouciant. It can also be a criminal offence to incite the provision of evidence of the rule of law. George Jetson didn't need evidence all women in all fifteen legislatures which govern Australia can be removed, including the Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and all women prohibited the vote under the terms of Australia's sham Constitution and its state counterparts simply with majorities rescinding legislation which granted women franchise in the first place. Or that men can't be removed in the same way, or in all probability any other way, since legislation which enabled all fifteen legislatures assumes male privilege. Neither would the overwhelming majority of Australians who respect the rule of law. Only the lawless seek evidence of the rule of law. George Jeston saw through that nonsense and made a positive and well thought out contribution. Respect for the rule of law brings its own rewards.

Whistler,

You wrote: "It can .... be a criminal offence to incite the provision of evidence of the rule of law."

So .... are you saying that to test the law is to commit an offence ? That to defend oneself, by demanding the provision of evidence of one's wrong-doing, is evidence of wrong-doing ? That it's wrong to defend yourself in law ? To question the legality of a charge is actually to break the law ?

So the only way not to break the law is never to question it, or whatever purports to be the law ?

And there I was, thinking that habeas corpus was a corner-stone of our legal system.

Maybe in China, and other absolute dictatorships, but surely not in Australia ?

Joe