Steele, you come up with some pretty poor anecdotes to back your case, first the child molester Charlie Chaplin, now this.
Based on hundreds of verifiable cases we can justifiably point the finger at adherents of Islam in the matter of illegal child marriage we can also, based on verifiable evidence of the Black male propensity to commit interracial rape point to Negro troops in regard to the ordeal of the 12 year old girl on Okinawa:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/Newsbriefs/9601/01-24/gill_harp_ledet_cap.gif
I bet you didn't even know they were Black or that one of them, Kendrick Ledet went on to rape and kill a young White woman named Lauren Cooper before taking his own life.
We say these things because they're true, if they weren't we'd be corrected by other posters or the moderator.

Dear OnTheBeach,

<<I don't agree with your ideal.>>

Which is well appreciated - it is only proper that different people have different ideals, which is exactly why states should be kept small in area, so there is a sufficient variety and when people cannot accomplish their ideals in one state they have sufficient options elsewhere.

<<Further, it is unreasonable to expect to take what suits from our democracy and State, while maintaining a separate enclave within that refuses to accept the rule of Australian law for instance.>>

Personally I am in a different category because having actively applied for Australian citizenship, I am under agreement with the state of Australia. Whatever I do and whatever I aspire to change, is within the legal constraints of democracy.

In the general case, however, I see no reason why an Australian-born would need to accept the rule of Australian law. The concept itself is ridiculous, as if someone, just because they are born, are obliged to obey what others tell them, who are not their father or their mother and with whom they never voluntarily entered any agreement.

[Deleted. I'm giving OTB and SR time out. We don't need this petty sparring on the forum.]

Dear OnTheBeach,

Surely each living being has duties, but there is no basis to claim that duties are born of being ordered by others. As the imperative to observe one's duties is of a moral nature, it has nothing to do with what others may (or may not) do as a result, including if they place your body in gaol (which could perhaps happen to be their duty, but not yours).

Clubs and similar societies are very different cases: if I sing in a choir, then it is my duty to be extremely careful not to open my mouth or breath except at the precise split-second when the conductor indicates: but that's OK because I voluntarily joined that choir. States, as they stand, are not voluntary organisations, thus they have no moral right to order people around. That they are currently able to get away with such violent and immoral behaviour has nothing to do with the subject-matter.

States have no moral right to control such vast areas of land, as the land essentially belongs to God. States may control entry to cities and similar extensively-developed areas in order to protect their investment from pillage, but not whole continents. As such, they may not impose their laws on visitors (except those who wish to enter a city, etc). Now citizenship is a different matter that combines both rights and obligations.

While humans, like other species, are social animals and tend to cooperate for their survival, nothing dictates that they should assemble in such huge, multi-million groups, where they cannot even recognise the other members, or in any other particular manner.

There is no such abstract "THE law" up in the air - there are many sets of laws everywhere (including the laws of physics): laws only apply within a given society and receive their legitimacy by that society's constitution. Once you voluntarily join a society whose constitution includes the mandatory observance of ITS laws, then (and only then) it becomes your duty to observe them, no matter how stupid they are, such as the arbitrary and artificial "age of consent".

[See above. I'm just going to delete the rest of their contributions to this thread without comment.]

Is Mise,
I happen to have a lot to do with the 2/20 AIF which was the Changi POW brigade.
I will give you one instance of the Japanese ability to change sides when necessary and for their own benefit.
Some of my people were working as slaves in a Japanese refinery across the bay from either Nagasaki or Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped and they watched it (with the camp guards) descend then erupt in the flame and smoke cloud.
The Japanese guards realized at that moment the war was lost so they immediately rounded up all the Korean and Chinese workers and executed them.
While the executions were taking place the rest of the guards were setting up a BBQ for the Australian POW's of prime steak and American beer.
They were all pally and back slappings as the bodies were being dragged away.
They did this because they believed that the rest of the world saw the Chinese and Koreans as the same social level as they did and they would not be missed.
Australians they said were real warriors and deserved to be helped.