And this insight:

" .... 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."

And, as you say, so can men. So can fat people. So can anybody over or under a certain age, manic-depressives, stamp-collectors, pawpaw-growers, closet Trekkies. Conceivably: all of the above can be barred from parliament, not just women. What's sauce for the goose ....

If representatives who were men/women/thin people/people of a certain age etc. were in a majority and ALL voted that way, yes. Conceivably, the House of Reps could vote to bar all red-heads from standing for parliament, if they had a mind to - they might have a job getting it through the High Court, but they could vote that way. Conceivably.

As that Ancestry.com woman says, 'it could happen'.

But would it ? Just because it is conceivable, will it ever happen ?

And you are going to build an entire ideological edifice on this hypothetical possibility ?

Joe

hi Loudmouth, evidencing the existence and the effect of the rule of law are two different propositions. George Jetson didn't question the effect that by the rule of law in Australia all women in all fifteen legislatures which govern the nation 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 in all likelihood men can't be removed in the same way, or in any other way, since legislation which enabled all fifteen legislatures assumes male privilege. Yet Pericles did question whether effect of the rule of law, in this instance, would ever occur, here: "Let's be realistic for a moment. A bill to disenfranchise women is just as likely, statistically speaking, as a referendum to disenfranchise men, would you not agree. As a result, the entire foundation upon which you build this 'men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens' is purely theoretical, and therefore a thoroughly unsound base upon which to create the notion that 'separate legislatures' are somehow a requirement'. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102792 , here: "If you are basing your argument for separate legislatures on something that theoretically "can" happen, as opposed to something that theoretically "might" happen, I believe you are on pretty thin ice."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103106, here: "It is 'preposterous' to suggest that men are able to remove women from legislatures on a whim." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103473 and here: '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. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103602,
[cont.]

... to which I responded, at first instance, "There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102876. Australia's federal and state constitutions provide explicitly for the removal of all women members and the prohibition on all women exercising a vote at elections by reason of their gender, not for the removal of fat people, anybody over a certain age, manic-depressives, stamp-collectors, pawpaw-growers or closet Trekkies. Common and Statute law has distinguished between women and men since before the Magna Carta was signed, consistently inequitably by more or less degree. Men and women comprise the primary constituents of community. If women and men obtain equal rights all demographics comprised of women and men obtain equal rights

On at least twenty-six occasions on this thread Perciles posted in support of the demonstrably erroneous proposition women and men have equal rights in Australia when majorities of the fifteen legislatures which govern the nation can remove all women members on grounds of gender and prohibit all women the vote, while the same does not apply to men, here: "You have already presupposed male privilege. None exists. We are all citizens, with equal right to vote." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "Again, where's the imbalance? All Australian women have had the same right as men to vote, and to stand for political office, since 1902." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "The only position that you can realistically hold in the face of this evidence is that democracy itself does not work. That is, despite the fact that women's votes and men's votes have equal weight, and that women can bid for those votes with the same standing as men, somehow the outcome is not representative of the will of the people." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "But they are indeed, completely equal under the law. Show me a law that denies this." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "There is no rule of law that privileges men in Australia." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#102880, here: "My position is straightforward, and quite simple: we have enjoyed equality in our parliamentary system for over a hundred years" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050,here: "Men and women are treated equally in the eyes of the law." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "Men and women are equally entitled to vote, and to assume public office." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "There is nothing in the present system that is specifically burdensome on women." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103050, here: "I am in the corner fighting for equal rights." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103148, here: "Your proposition, therefore, is for gender apartheid, while mine is for gender equality." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103148, here: "Men and women in Australia today have equal access, to the same legislation, and are treated equally before the law'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "'Laws are formulated, implemented and supported equally by men and women, who are equally able to vote, and to stand for representation in the legislatures'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228,
[cont.]

... here: "'There remains no legislation on the statute books that allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men, or vice versa'."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "There is no prejudice involved in a legislature in which women and men have equal rights. Such as that we currently enjoy." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "A referendum is not required, since women already have exactly the same powers to make laws as men." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "Men and women have equal power in our present legislatures." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "I genuinely cannot see that it is necessary to compromise the equality we have at the moment with the creation of gender-separate legislatures." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103228, here: "Women and men already have equal power in our present legislatures. It doesn't need to be given to them by referendum." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103231, here: "The question is, why would anyone want to do this, when we have the various genders working together quite harmoniously under the banner of 'equality before the law and parliament'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103275, here: "There is no such thing in Australia as 'men's legislatures'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103275, here: "Again, it would help if you were able to provide just one instance where our system of gender equality before the law, in the legislature and within the electorate, has disadvantaged women."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103312, here: "We have gender equality in Australia - in principle, at least, which is what we are discussing." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103344, here: "In other words, women have had demonstrable equality with men since my parents were at primary school. And that's a pretty long time." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103435, here: "We presently have gender equality. There needs to be a very strong argument why we should back away from that position, and so far you haven't given us one." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103435 and here: "We have enjoyed gender equality before the law, at the ballot box and in all legislatures for a very long time. What puzzles me is why you would want to re-introduce gender separation?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4116#103473, all of which contradict Australia's Constitution.

Whistler,

You wrote:

"There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced."

'Courage' ? Courage to deprive women of their right to sit in parliament ? And that is supposed to do them a favour ?

Well, yes, somebody or something is wildly out of touch, not just with the people, but with reality.

What on earth are you talking about ? Is there any chance that you can translate this passage into readable English ?

Call me a 'remaining skeptic', if you like, or even part of some 'criminal fringe', but to me this passage is gibberish.

Joe