Dear Is Mise,

The problem is, that in the general case (other than new citizens and those who want to join the public service, etc.), those called "Australians" were never asked whether or not they want to belong to that group and never gave their consent to follow that group's laws.

As for being born, while the parents can make temporary provisions for their child, once the child grows and understands the situation, they should be able to decide otherwise.

You seem to confuse the Australian continent with the state of Australia. They are not the same and there is no justification for confusing the two. The fact that people are either born, or live, or wish to live in this vast continent, does not imply that they consent to have anything to do with the state - and the state has no moral right to disallow them to live on this continent, except in self-defence of those Australians who in fact freely consented to belong to it, and then only if the others either actually harm them or place them at risk.

Go ahead and run a survey - how many of us would actually freely wish to belong to the Australian state as it stands, had it not been a condition imposed on us for living in this continent.

It now appears that Y condones pedophilia if one is not an Australian citizen but belongs to another culture but lives in the continent of Australia. Is he suitable to mix with children of non Australian citizens? He does not believe in one Law for all people

That's it Josephus, it is everyone decides for himself.
It is otherwise known as anarchy.

A system that has fallen apart everywhere it has been tried.

Y,
Those persons elected to make and enforce the rules of the group (government) have the right to impose or disallow certain practices, deemed to be of benefit to the group.

Those that chose to join the group(enter the country)should expect to abide by the rules of the group.

Underage marriage, forced marriage, consumption of certain foods and other conduct and practices (whether violent or not)are against the rules and our government has every right to make such rulings.

We go to a lot of trouble to inform those coming here about the rules that apply and we do not force them to come and we do not force them to stay if they do not like the rules.

Those that cannot/will not abide by the rules, because of their culture, from our experience, should politely be informed they cannot join the group.

The first duty of elected government is to uphold the standards of the electors.

I certainly do not accept that a child of 12 has the ability to make rational decisions regarding their future life.

I vividly recall the furore raised by many when a certain Jessica stated she was going to sail around the world, non stop. Remember she was 4 years older at the time. She achieved her goal but with much assistance from her team of many adult advisors.

Dear Banjo,

<<Those persons elected...>>

This assumes that the group's constitution includes elections (and presumably the rule of majority). It need not even be so, but whatever was agreed voluntarily with informed-consent by all members, is fine with me.

Currently however, belonging to a national-society is not voluntary. People are ASSUMED to belong, without their consent, merely for living in a particular geographical area (and a huge one at that): while the laws may stay, this should change!

I agree that those who cannot/wouldn't abide by the rules shouldn't be allowed to join a group, but merely entering a continent doesn't equal joining a group because no group may have exclusive rights over such a vast area (but please note that I only refer to the case where there is no reason to believe that the outsiders in question would harm society, otherwise it's a case of self-defence).

I can understand when the area in question was intensively developed by the group, such as a city, but not when it's a whole continent, largely undeveloped in its natural condition: fish and birds can enter freely and if we had a terrestrial border, so would land animals... except humans! Why would humans be treated worse than any other animal?

No, you don't need to give them rights, dole, food, medical aid, jobs, schools or elections, any of that, not even the right to drive on your roads, but preventing them from entering the continent (at the point of a gun), or kicking them out of their homes (if Australian-born) is simply not right!

Some 12-year olds are capable of making rational decisions regarding their future-life, others are not, but the same can also be said about 20,30,40,50,60,70 or 80-year-olds. In war-time, some 12-year olds ingeniously saved and sustained their younger siblings. Biologically, humans are designed to be able to survive on their own, out in nature from about the age of 8. That 12-year-olds are incapable of functioning in the highly-specialised, complex and competitive Western society, is mainly because they weren't yet sufficiently brainwashed to sustain this unnatural lifestyle.

Dear Josephus,

The idea of "one Law for all people" was a progressive one for its time: the aim was to prevent nobility from abusing their positions and harassing the common people who would have no recourse to justice.

But now its time is due and the above aim can be reached by different ways.

The practice was already questioned very early in the Jewish commentaries regarding "an eye for an eye": The Jewish scholars asked, "what if the offender already has only one eye, thus he would become totally blind - is that just?".

Certainly, no two people are the same and no single law affects two people in the same way. A law for example preventing the Eucharist would devastate Christians but not Jews and Muslims, while a law preventing circumcision would devastate Jews and Muslims but not Christians.

Obviously neither of those two laws is legitimate: had participation in national-society been voluntary, as should, then such laws would not be enacted because people would not voluntary agree to abide by a constitution that allows such laws to be legislated. As it stands, in Australia nothing prevents the legislation of similar laws.

Given that Australians in general weren't asked whether they accept the Australian constitution and had no choice in the matter (other than to leave their homes and seek a place elsewhere in the world, probably with no less government oppression than here), Australia is (like most, probably all other countries) an illegitimate rogue state.

While life here may be extremely comfortable, as it is for me, the moral implications of participating in a rogue state are not nice. Unfortunately leaving and going elsewhere is practically not an option because every other country is essentially the same, if not worse.

<<Is he suitable to mix with children of non Australian citizens?>>

Strange assumption that anyone who doesn't respect the state's law is dangerous to children... Why?

Firstly, I'm not interested in children in that way.
Secondly, even while not morally accountable to the state, I'm still morally accountable to God and nothing can be hidden from Him.