According to a news article, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/muslim-duos-refusal-to-stand-is-a-slur-on-court/story-fni0cx12-1227137565328?sv=a3642a7674f262a0a2b73d499571ce0b

Two persons refused to stand for the judge in a district court.

Apparently the matter has bee referred to the Attorney General, but will likely go unpunished or sentence served concurrently with other penalty.

As the only penalty option seems to be jail, what should be done in cases like this that are clearly contempt of court. These persons have no respect for us, our laws or our judiciary.

Unfortunately, it again reflects badly on one section of our community.

Politically correct wimps, my guess is nothing will happen to them.

This has happened before maybe a year or so ago.

Unfortunately I cannot say "Good on them" because they are, likely, ordinary criminals, thieves and burglars who cause great pain to others, showing total disregard to God and Allah.

If the accusation is correct, then their proper punishment should be to cut off their hand, so they cannot break in and steal again. If they are as religious as they claim, then surely they will appreciate this correction.

In the very unlikely case that the accusations are false, then I could have considered the one who kept sitting a hero, except that I also read this bit about them rudely and inappropriately laughing and talking: A true saintly person with similar beliefs should have remained QUIETLY seated under those circumstances and not reply to the judge even with one word.

What would happen if a christian disobeyed and showed disrespect to their beliefs customs?

Wolly B,

"What would happen if a christian disobeyed and showed disrespect to their beliefs customs?"

I'm sure they'd warrant a WhackaChristian thread on OLO - NOT.

I would like to comment, but my principles do not allow comment on anything from the Murdoch Gutter Press. Particularly The Daily Telecrap
Poirot spot on again. Did you read about the two 'Christians' who bashed an 86 year old pensioner the other day and stole his pension. Should be some comment on the Wakachristian thread or in the Daily Telecrap about that one will they be calling for another crucifixion?
All criminals should be dealt with according to law, does the lynch mob have any problem with that?

Wolly.
99% of Christians in Australia support the establishment of Islam as the third arm of an ecumenical bloc alongside Catholicism and Protestantism so it's a purely hypothetical question.
The small number of Christians who do oppose Islam, such as Catch The Fire Ministries are ignored because everyone knows who's pulling their strings and that they're nothing but useful idiots for the local Likudniks.

Poirot,
What do you reckon Poirot, do we ignor the event or just turn the other cheek as we have in the past. This is not the first time such contempt has been displayed.

Do you and Paul claim the article is not true? I am no Christian but we are far too leinient with law breakers. Yes, I do have a problem, and so does our society, when laws are not administered adequately.

I understand that there are about as many Buddists in Aus as there are moslims, yet one seldom reads about their bad behavior. Is that a media problem or are they just better behaved.

Whadaya reckon, Banjo...about this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-10/credlin-avoids-punishment-on-drink-driving-charge/4947944

"Peta Credlin, Tony Abbott's chief of staff, avoids punishment on drink-driving charge"

What do you reckon, Banjo, do we ignore the event or just turn the other cheek as we have in the past. This is not the first time such contempt has been displayed.

According to Peta - and applying it to her own case - (and I quote):

"Justice doesn't have to be done, it has to be seen to be done."

Poirot,
No, she should have been convicted and fined, even a suspension, as any other person would. If not her first offence the penalty increased.

I object to high profile people getting off lightly or females using their gender to escape penalty. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The criminals referred to in the first post should get an extra 6 months, with no parole, and brought back. If they refused to stand again, then another 12 months. Money well spent, they have to be educated.

Jay what is an ecumenical block? You use it in a fashion as to suggest that it is a congress that has some power over outcomes. The clergy from the three predominant faiths in Australia, the Christians, Buddhist, and Muslims have been ecumenical for two decades now, the first stab at an ongoing congress was in the late 80’s, started by the Anglicans and Catholics meeting to discuss the dwindling church attendances. They got together because business was bad.

In the last census 61.1% of Aussies identified as Christian, about 13 million but only 1.8 million attended churches. So I don’t know how valid that 99% acceptance thing is given the other 11 million Christians have the mass media as their social conscience rather than a weekly dose of church.

Jay I do not understand your point, is it a validation of acceptance by the Christian community? Two years back in answer to a like thread on OLO, I asked 15 Caucasian work colleagues from the office to the shop floor who would they least want to have bought the house next to them, an Asian, a Muslim, or an Aboriginal.............fifteen instant replies....a Muslim.

Me personally, I don’t care, all immigrants were well represented where I grew up. I do not place religious tolerance above the law of the land. I would charge them with contempt each and every time they refused to respect the court. If it means they stay in goal forever so be it, it's their choice

There are a lot of low life petty and not so petty criminals that display no respect for the law. Almost nightly on the TV news (all channels) we see examples of some crook receiving a slap on the hand for his umpteenth offensive and as he departs the Court, gestures the finger to the cameras.

Those low life that bashed the old guy and stole his money were flipping the bird and quite often we see criminal's relatives behaving just as badly.

Every single person who drives after having their license suspended is effectively saying the laws do not apply to them. I consider this as contempt of court. Their lack of respect and their repeat offenses are often rewarded with another limp wristed sentence.

I suspect a lack of early childhood discipline and the glorification of bad behaviour in crappy popular movies and video games also contributes to the justifications in the offender's minds. Not all offenders are young which also shows some people might simply be born with a predisposition to crime; or perhaps there are more sociopaths in society these days.

It doesn't matter what religion a person is, or if they didn't have an ideal upbringing, if they cannot behave properly in court (given they most likely broke the law to be there in the first place) they should get put in the naughty corner where they belong. Maybe if we took the TVs out of the prisons we might finally have a real deterrent to crime.

Don't turn this into an anti-Muslim issue. These people are anti-social and don't deserve the same freedoms of non law breakers.

Paul1405, the gist of the story: two men have refused to stand for a District Court judge, with one claiming they are not “at the behest of any authority other than Islam”. They are the one's bringing the 'Muslim' into the story, not the Telegraph.

The good news is the two, who are in court for aggravated break and enter, were refused bail and will stand trial in September 2014.

I'm sure anyone else of any religion would find themselves in the same situation if they behaved that way.

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika was asked in an
interview on the "7.30 Report,"

"... don't you think Australian Muslims - Muslims living
in Australia - also have a responsibility to adhere to
Australian law?"

To which he answered -

"This is a big problem. There are two laws - there
ia an Australian law and there is an Islamic law."

As Peter Costello pointed out in his book,
"The Costello Memoirs," :

"No. this is not a big problem. There is one law we are
all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the
Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If someone
cannot accept that they they do not accept the fundamentals
of what Australia is and what it stands for. Our state is a
secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all
religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents
on faith, morals, and conscience. But there is not a
separate stream of law derived from religious sources that
competes with or supplants Australia law in governing our
civil society. The source of our law is the democratically
elected legislature."

"There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -
Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If any person wants to
live under sharia law there are countries where they might
feel at ease. But not Australia."

Religious laws have no legal status in Australia.
And that should be made clear to everyone wanting to
settle in this country.

Foxy,
I agree with all Peter Costello said.

The problem we have is that our politicians, courts and the Judicary do not enforce our laws properly and adequate penalties are not imposed. Criminals are let off with only a slap on the wrist.

I also agree with CH, it begins with the training of kids to accept there are rights and wrongs. Saying please and thank you and other courtasys is the place to start. CH says driving whilst disqualified should be contempt of court and I agree.

All migrants are informed of our laws and social standards before they receive a visa to come here. We do not enforce the laws and many think they can follow alien cultural ways without penalty. With the introduction of multiculturalism, we wrongly indicated that migrants could continue their old ways and we would adapt to their cultures.

The criminals in my first post are born Aussie citizens and still have no respect for us or our society.

These matters need addressing.

Great post Foxy.

The 7:30 Report is broadcast on the ABC so it can't be just another right wing beat up. Okay, Peter Costello was in the Howard government but he does make a valid point.

What do you think Poirot and P-1405?

Foxy,

That's a broad statement, "Religious laws have no legal status in Australia."

Ten Commandments?

Contempt of court means interfering with the administration of justice, it doesn't mean acting disrespectfully.

The court has the power to punish them if it wants, and the reason it didn't, is obviously because they weren't interfering with the administration of justice by not standing.

Is Mise, I think that we now only have laws re killing and stealing, but not any related to the other Commandments.

Many non-Christian societies over the centuries also have laws of some kind re these two Commandments, having never heard about any supposed 'laws' written by your god.

As soon as I read that this post was put up by Banjo I knew it would be about Muslims and multiculturalism, and really nothing to do with contempt of court.
We all know there are criminals from all parts of our society....

Suse,

You could add:

3rd, Sabbath Day: enshrined in our laws ref penalty rates etc.

6th, Adultery: No longer in criminal law but still a cause for civil action.

8th, Bearing False Witness: particularly when under oath in Court, libel laws etc.

9th, Coveting: includes criminal conspiracy to steal etc.

So that's at least four of the Ten that are in law and the others have much social impact.

One might also look at the recognition, especially in the NT, of customary Aboriginal Law (much of which is based on religious beliefs) by Courts of Law.

I'm back from my trip north of the boarder (Queensland). There is more agreement than disagreement on this, from all sides.
Foxy posted from Peter Costello;
"No. this is not a big problem. There is one law we are
all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the
Parliament under the Australian Constitution"
I certainly agree with that. I am an atheist who supports a secular society. Muslims, Christians, Calathumpians can say what they like, when it comes to the law I say that their particular religious teachings have no fact in law what so ever. However, I am tolerant enough to accept that those who wish to partake of religion should be free to do so. Provided like any other social activity it complies with the laws and social norms of our society.
ConservativeHippie; thanks for that, a pair of clowns anyway, and I don't much care what happens to them, as long as the law is applied fairly and equally to them as it is applied to others. Which is not always the case.
Banjo said; "The criminals in my first post are born Aussie citizens and still have no respect for us or our society." You don't have to be born Muslim for that statement to ring true. These criminals, like many others, are hiding behind a religion to justify their own criminality, nothing new in that, Christians have done the very same thing for centuries. If a bishop stands up and says "The Catholic Church is not responsible for pedophile priests," Then I see that as another example of a criminal putting religion before the law, and using it as justification for their actions, a bit more complex than these pair of dopes, but still the same.
There is an overriding danger that an isolated incident like this can be used by some to scapegoat others in society. The Daily Telegraph may well have reported this fairly, but they make no effort to point out it is isolated, and is not the way Muslims act in general in our society. Guilt by association.

Dear Is Mise,

<<Ten Commandments?>>

For your interest, even if you accept the Ten Commandments as the word of God, according to their own context they do not oblige you, but only the children of Israel.

In that context, what WOULD oblige you otherwise, are the seven laws of Noah, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

Briefly, these are:

1. Do Not Deny God
2. Do Not Blaspheme God
3. Do Not Murder
4. Do Not Engage in Incestuous, Adulterous or Homosexual Relationships
5. Do Not Steal
6. Do Not Eat of a Live Animal
7. Establish Courts/Legal System to Ensure Law Obedience

According to Islam, those laws were indeed God-given and held for a while, but some of them were abrogated since.

Sonofgloin,
What I mean by ecumenical bloc is that the three faith groups work as a bloc to get things done, to build Mosques for example or to deliver aid to groups overseas.
Christian groups are selling or donating land and buildings to Muslim groups for use as places of worship and schools while assisting in the suppression of dissent by people who don't want such facilities in their community.
In terms of influencing outcomes these ecumenical blocs do wield a great deal of power over local councils and at the state level and there's considerable crossover in personnel between dissident parties like the Greens and dissident Christians and Muslims.
People freak out about links between conservative politicians and religious groups but the far more extensive co-operation between left wing Christians and Left wing politics is apparently just fine.

Paul,

"There is an overriding danger that an isolated incident like this can be used by some to scapegoat others in society. The Daily Telegraph may well have reported this fairly, but they make no effort to point out it is isolated, and is not the way Muslims act in general in our society. Guilt by association."

Funny that you should say that, the Greens seem to apply that to all licensed, law abiding gun owners.

"Two persons refused to stand for the judge". Big deal. Is the judge some sort of God? Is that court of law some version of Heaven that one must bow down to or stand up in the presence of? Of course NOT. The ONLY thing that matters is whether the accused are guilty or innocent, and whether they stand or sit is 100% irrelevant to the correct administration of justice.

Laws and resulting penalties regarding whether a person stands or sits in the presence of anyone whatsoever, are a throwback to ancient times when those in authority commanded that the peasants bow and stand in their presence. We "should" be more civilised these days.

Bowing and standing are not a sign of respect. They are a sign of subjugation.

The problem with your thinking, Pesky Boy, is that if everyone entering the courtroom has their own interpretation of how to behave we end up with chaos.

There are formalities that out of respect we all follow; it doesn't make us subjugated just because we agree to accept the rules of engagement. Okay, some of it is simply traditional and yes possibly a throwback to earlier times. But it is what it is, so just go along with it and there isn't a problem.

This particular case of the two Muslim men refusing to stand is not an isolated incident, Another Muslim man (convicted criminal) also refused to stand for the judge back in May of 2013. In my limited research I cannot find another example than these three people who happen to share a common religion and also used that religion as an excuse to disrespect the judge.

How do you think you would fare in any foreign country if you refused to behave the way their courts expect you to?

Pesky Boy,

One stands in Court as a sign of respect for the Law, not the judge in particular.

One stands when a woman enters a room for the first time, sign of respect for her and women in general.

One stands and offers one's seat to an elderly person or a pregnant woman, sign of courtesy and good manners.

How do you feel about soldiers saluting officers?

Is Mise, to take your points one by one:
1) Incorrect. It's done as a sign of subjugation to the law.
2) Incorrect. That's a sign of disrespect. A sign that society believes women deserve 'special' treatment in that area because society considers them inferior in most areas. In other words, it's compensation. Luckily, practices like this are dying out as women slowly advance in society.
3) Partially correct. That's simply a decent act to help out someone not in the same position as you to physically cope with a particular situation; it goes WAY beyond mere courtesy and good manners, and so it should.
4) Soldiers saluting officers is a sign of subjugation. Without subjugation, military discipline would collapse.

CHippie, I did not refer in any way to everyone entering a courtroom having their own interpretations of how to behave. I referred only to the practice of standing when the judge enters, nothing else. Standing is the public display that you accept subjugation under the law, it's got nothing to do with respect for the law. This is not North Korea or China where behavioural sanctions/subjugation is rife, so if any defendant in Australia chooses not to stand when the judge enters they should not suffer criminal sanctions. Whether or not they stand has ZERO relevance to their guilt or innocence. In a free country like Australia the only thing that ultimately matters in a court of law is guilt or innocence, nothing else. Let's keep Australia free from petty bureaucratic subjugation and forced legal symbolism ... leave that to China and North Korea.

Pesky Boy, your right there, the wigs, the gowns, the titles, the court room itself all goes to create the legals persona of superiority. At one time half the legal profession in NSW were pedophiles, praying on rent boys.

Is Mise asks; How do you feel about soldiers saluting officers?
From what I read the army superiors have been demanding a lot more than a "salute" from their subordinates, in many cases, and it requires a Royal Commission rather than a salute.

Is Mise, you know where I stand on the gun happy brigade, our mob won, your mob lost. End of story. Go and check than Lance Boyle, its all a done deal.

Pesky Boy,

If a soldier saluting an officer is a sign of subjugation, why is the officer required to return the salute?
Is that a sign of subjugation by the officer to the soldier?

I have been on a parade where the inspecting officer, a Colonel, stopped and saluted a Private, would you call that a sign of subjuration?

Methinks that thou hast a lot to learn about the military.

Paul,

Can't you give a straight answer?

As regards Boyle, he stands head and shoulders above the Green MPs of the NSW Parliament who knowingly lied about him and then hid, like the cowards that they are, behind the shield of Parliamentary Privilege.

How's the plans to release feral cats back into the wild going?

Is Mise, in answer to your 2 questions:
1) The soldier is required to salute the officer FIRST, as a sign that he bows to the officer's superior status. That's subjugation. The officer is then bound, under the rules, to salute the soldier ONLY if the soldier salutes him first, thus acknowledging the subjugation of the soldier. Without a subjugated soldier underclass, no military can operate effectively. Soldiers MUST submit to commands from officers.
2) If the Colonel saluted the Private, without first being acknowledged by the private with a salute (I suspect you misinterpreted the exchange, or just made it up to make a point here), then the Colonel was in clear breach of military regulations .... and was thus NOT admitting subjugation to the authority of the Private.

Pesky Boy, I read what you say, but for some in the military along with that salute also came unwanted sex! Time for a Royal Commission.

The General rings the Private!
The Private answers the phone; "What the F you want!"
The General "Do you know who you are talking to?"
The Private "No"
The General "General Brassbottom!"
The Private "Do you know who you are talking to?"
The General "No!"
The Private " Well get F'ed!"..and hangs up the phone.

Sorry Is Mise Boyle was busted, what more can I say.
In today's Herald, the pair from the Shooters and Hooters Party are upset with Bugsy Baird's Government, and Fat Bob said him and his sidekick Even Fatter Bob will not support the government after the March election. Nothing to worry about Fat Bob is up for re-election, and after March he won't be back, his seat will be taken by a third Green LC Member.

Is Mise: I have been on a parade where the inspecting officer, a Colonel, stopped and saluted a Private,

Did you happen to notice that the Private was wearing a Victoria Cross?

The Salute is NOT a sign of Subjugation. It is a sign of respect one to the other. The Private recognizes the Officers "Rank" & the Officer returns the recognition. Or if you like a, "thank you."

A thing to remember that "Officers" are not "Soldiers." They are Officers. They are a completely separate entity.

As for the two Middle Eastern Gentleman. (I use the term loosely.) They should be removed from Australia & there Australian Citizenship stripped from them (If they have been Naturalized) as they have not lived up to the Oath they swore when they became Australian Citizens.

Jayb, so you say both those 2 people should be deported, even if they are Australian citizens naturalised or born here. You say this despite the fact that one of them, the second time the judge entered, stood up before the judge and pleaded not guilty to the break and enter charge. The other one, sitting down, pleaded not guilty.

Jayb, do you apply your same standards to white, caucasian Australians, also accused of break and enter, should they refuse to stand for a judge, or not stand when asked the first time? Should these white, caucasian, Australian born or naturalised Australians be deported? If we apply your stated standards fairly and equally to all, it seems you want these white Australian citizens deported for not standing up for a judge.

Jayb, do you apply your same standards to white, caucasian Australians, also accused of break and enter, should they refuse to stand for a judge,

Unfortunately nothing can be done with those people registered & born in Australia. How ever ANY Immigrant (Black, White, Red, Yellow, blue or purple) that has been granted Australian Citizenship swore an Oath to uphold All Australian Laws. They have broken that Oath, proving that they never intended to abide by Australian Laws. Therefore they have voluntarily relinquished their Australian Citizenship & must be deported, post haste. No appeals.

By the way Pesky. I thought that that was quite clear in my Post.

I must admit there are very few members of the todays judiciary who are worthy of receiving any respect whatsoever. Most are overpaid, underqualified, 'jelly judges' who deserve very little respect at all ! If they were to show some respect to those who've suffered injury in all it's forms, at the hands of some of these low life's, than some respect is perhaps due, otherwise stuff 'e

I'm not getting your point Pesky.

" I did not refer in any way to everyone entering a courtroom having their own interpretations of how to behave. I referred only to the practice of standing when the judge enters, nothing else."

What if someone want's to stand through the whole trial after the Judge says "be seated" or "sit down"? Being told when to sit is no less subjugating than being told when to stand.

These two men were trying to make a point (or pretending) they believe in a Higher Law than the Court and were therefore not recognising the customs or the authority of the judge. I don't have time for petty criminals who are just being jerks and in my opinion that description fits these two idiots. I seriously doubt their religious convictions were that strong given their religious belief hasn't deterred them from a life of crime.

Extrapolating your argument that standing before the judge and saluting an officer are signs of subjugation, then I assume you feel the same about stopping for a red light late at night when there's no other traffic on the road, or obeying the speed limit when it would be safe to drive faster, and/or abiding by any other laws of the country that you feel are silly or controlling.

Are you over thinking things, possibly confusing what many call reasonable behaviour or respect with being subjugated by 'The Man?'

Is there any country in the world where 'subjugation' of the masses isn't occurring?

Yes Hippie, the country of Tokelau where everybody is equal, besides there's not enough Tokelauens to form a mass to subjugate, and the chief is a bloody nice guy who doesn't stand on ceremony. A rather lay back mob those Tokelauens. Can't say the same for the Niuewayens all pomp and ceremony, all 37 of em'. By the way Niue is a super power when compared to Tokelau. Mate, I've shot you down in flames on that one. LOL.

Jayb, you say "unfortunately" nothing can be done about those born in Australia regarding deportation for not standing before a judge. It seems with your use of the word "unfortunately", that you would like to see white, Australian born Australian citizens deported whenever they don't stand when a judge enters any court, if it was legally possible to deport them. If the law in this regard was changed, would you support the deportation of white, Australian born Australian citizens if they don't stand when a judge enters any court they are in? Seems like you'd support that.

CHippie, you're misunderstanding my use of the word subjugation. Subjugation is necessary for any ordered society. When I stop at that red light, I am under subjugation to the law, and rightly so. What would happen if I decided to subjugate the law to my will by driving through all red lights? That's right, likely people will die. So, regarding red lights, I willingly allow myself to be subjugated under the red light laws.

Now, this type of subjugation is TOTALLY different to "symbolic" subjugation, such as standing for a judge. The requirement to stand before a judge has ZERO bearing on your innocence or guilt. It is purely 100% symbolic, it symbolises that you accept your subjugation under the law. It is nothing other than symbolism. China, North Korea and Russia utterly abound with a plethora of this type of legal symbolism, and their citizens are severely punished if they don't comply and practice the symbolism.

So, if someone in Australia refuses to stand for a judge, big bloody deal. This is Australia, not North Korea. Jayb and Kim Jong-Un have a bit in common I'm afraid, as they both love severe punishments for people who don't bow and stand before legal symbolism.

I'm moving to Tokelau.

Unfortunately, Pesky, you have misinterpreted my, unfortunately. deliberately, I imagine.

Like it or not, Pomp & Ceremony play a huge part in our lives. Weather it's the way we attend our various, Churches, be they Religious or Sporting. Imagine the chaos if the Horse didn't have to wait for the Gates to open,trying to get on the train before the doors open, standing for a pregnant lady on a bus or standing for the "Beak" when he enters the room.

I suspect that that is all too much for you, being devoid of all manners & etiquette, to the point of being a boring pesky little boy.

I do not find religion identified by skin colour or race which seems to occupy the reasoning of some here. Philosophy or religion is of the mind and persons can change their mind, skin colour or genetic race cannot be changed, [unless you are Michael Jackson].

Persons who disrespect our laws should loose their citizenship and rights as citizens. That is why we incarcerate criminals.

Dear Josepus,

<<Persons who disrespect our laws should loose their citizenship and rights as citizens. That is why we incarcerate criminals.>>

On becoming an Australian citizen, I agreed to observe the Australian laws - not to respect them.

Human laws are based on fear - God's laws are based on love, so only God's laws are to be respected.

You only mentioned criminals, who are below the law, but not a word about those who are above the law! This cultural obsession with secular law is exactly why saints, prophets and sages are not born in Australia. If they were, then they would be subjected to all manner of silly fear-based laws which lost the big picture because they only had criminals in mind, then they would be prosecuted and jailed on the technicalities of failing to comply with the laws of fear.

Hence, the saints are on strike and Australia has become a spiritual desert. Australia's so-called "religious" leaders, those who are supposed to lead us towards God, are instead corrupt and all rub shoulders with the regime, attending high-level functions and becoming the politicians' yes-men in order to obtain financial benefits for their organisations. Had Jesus been here, he would kick the hell out of those fakes and turn the tables over them, but then he would end up treated by the regime in a worse manner than he faced in the first century. Crosses are no longer politically-correct, but they would be replaced by psychiatric drugs and electric shocks.

Paul,

"Sorry Is Mise Boyle was busted, what more can I say."

Well you could admit that he was right when he accused the Green MPs of lying about him.
The lies are in the public record as is the cowardly hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege.

Boyle lost his job because his job was abolished.
By 'busted' do you mean that he was sacked for some offence or is your statement just a bit more typical Greens'innuendo?

Pesky Boy,

"1) The soldier is required to salute the officer FIRST, as a sign that he bows to the officer's superior status...."

The soldier's salute is to shew respect to the Queen's Commission which the officer holds, the officer's salute in return is to acknowledge the compliment.

"2) If the Colonel saluted the Private, without first being acknowledged by the private with a salute (I suspect you misinterpreted the exchange, or just made it up to make a point here), then the Colonel was in clear breach of military regulations .... "

Your understanding of things military obviously springs from a deep well of ignorance. (Wikipedia is your friend; seek guidance).

The Colonel on that parade was Colonel V.E.Dowdy C.O. of the 1st Recruit Training Battalion (1RTB), Kapooka.
It was the first Battalion parade of the first intake of 1953 and there were a lot of WWII men who'd joined up again.
Jayb is right, the private that the Colonel saluted did hold the Victoria Cross, and the Colonel invited him to accompany him for the remainder of the inspection. The salute took place two ranks to my left front so I observed it clearly. We never saw the private again; one assumes that he was excused further basic training!!

Colonel Dowdy was later awarded an OBE and on retirement became Australia's first modern married priest of the Roman Rite and later made a bit more history by officiating at his daughter's wedding and in due course christened his first grandchild.

Is Mise,
1) You are correct, and it is also correct that the salute from a private to an officer is an acknowledgement that the officer is of a higher rank. Any private is under the subjugation of any officer, the private MUST obey the orders of the officer. Without this pecking order and subjugation, no military could possibly operate effectively. A soldier is under military direction and obligation, under certain specific circumstances, to first salute an officer (subjugation), the officer then returns the salute (acknowledgement). In the military, an officer and a private are NOT equal.
2)If Colonel Dowdy saluted that private first, then he was in breach of military regulations. Under the circumstances, a tiny, tiny, tiny breach, but a breach nonetheless, and a breach that should be totally ignored. I suspect it was.

The fact is that a soldier saluting an officer is what you say it is, and it is what I say it is. It's ALL of those things. Now do you understand? Hope so.

Is Mise, I would like to appease you by agreement, regarding Boyle and The Greens, but unfortunately I cannot bring myself to countenance such a preposterous notion that honorable Greens MP's would lie about this shifty character of ill repute, as Boyle was found to be in the Dunn Report. As a public servant of the people of NSW, Boyle was seen to have established an unhealthy relationship with MP's representing The Shooters Party, a political relationship in fact. As for the Privileges Committee of the Parliament, it has no function in determining the guilt or innocence, truthfulness or otherwise of members of that parliament.
No innuendo, O'Farrell sacked Boyle by disbanding the Game Council, of which Boyle was head, I note he has never made a return. What is Boyle up to theses days?

Pesky: If Colonel Dowdy saluted that private first, then he was in breach of military regulations.

Wrong again. It's in the Regs. & also in the Commissioned Officers, "Little Red Book" that a Commissioned Officer must salute any Officer of lower rank or Soldier who holds a "Victoria Cross." Correct me if I'm wrong, those that know, it also covers things like Knight Awards.

The Commissioned Officer Little Red Book is a book of Customs, Manners & Etiquette for Officers. Some of the things are very Victorian. Like; sending a messenger with a the Officers Card, the time of visit, how long & the reason for the visit. How to conduct yourself in Public. How to Conduct yourself at Formal Dinners. It's a very interesting book. It is a personal book usually inscribe inscribed with the Officers name & presented when he receives his Commission.

& yes Pesky a Private does have to obey Orders. Orders are given for good reason. Orders do not have to be obeyed if they are not of a Military nature. It the person of Superior Rank insists the private should inform that person that he will seek Redress. That's where "Redress of Wrongs" comes into play. Been there done that. That stops Superior Ranks from overstepping the mark.

Paul,

The Greens' lies are in print in various newspapers and in Hansard for all but the deliberately blind to see.
I note that you continue with the innuendo, which is handy when you cannot back up allegations; typically Green.

What is Boyle doing these days?
"Brian Boyle
Operations Manager, NBFE Program Darwin, NT Dep't of Primary Industries and Fisheries
Darwin, Northern Territory, AustraliaProgram Development

Previous
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Game Council NSW, Parks Victoria

Education
Charles Sturt University...."
https://au.linkedin.com/pub/brian-boyle/47/183/ab2

Pesky,

Jayb is spot on, and just as an illustration (and I saw this also, not a convenient invention), an officer, a 2Lt, called to a passing soldier with whom he had just exchanged salutes, "You, hey you!", the soldier ignored him, was called again, the soldier turned, marched back, (salute ritual), the officer said "You ignored me" and the soldier replied "My rank is Private, Sir, you may address me as 'Private' or 'Trained Soldier' Sir".

"Er, well Private...."

It works both ways and an order of a military nature if it is illegal can and must be disobeyed, that's the law, as pleading 'superior orders' is not a defence at law.

Yuyutsu,
The only person who should fear the law is the criminal, but because the law is not a deterrent to criminals is the reason they are criminals. Your suggestion there are two laws in Australia deserves to be challenged. Australian law should not violate good social harmony which is the principle of law. A religious law is designed to create social harmony and good relationships.

If you are associating respect for the law with an unnatural fear then you are mistaken. We are to respect God is the use of the term "fear God", only the unforgiven of good social harmony need fear God in the terror sense.

Standing in court when asked is respect for the law of Australia, no religious law bans such respect. Failure to stand shows disrespect to the sentences handed down and if these criminals do not accept punishment for stealing they are not accepting stealing as a crime, which is part enshrined in religious law for social harmony, "Thou shall not steal".

Are you saying stealing is acceptable social practice for Muslims?
Are you saying Muslims are exempt on religious grounds from Australian laws and may show contempt for the law.

I have been impaneled several times on Jury and we also had to stand on entry of the administrator of the law, so show we respected the law. Do Muslims on Jury also believe they do not need to stand? Next time everybody gives a standing ovation at a concert think!

Yuyutsu,
The only person who should fear the law is the criminal, but because the law is not a deterrent to criminals is the reason they are criminals. Your suggestion there are two laws in Australia deserves to be challenged. Australian law should not violate good social harmony which is the principle of law. A religious law is designed to create social harmony and good relationships.

If you are associating respect for the law with an unnatural fear then you are mistaken. We are to respect God is the use of the term "fear God", only the unforgiven of good social harmony need fear God in the terror sense.

Standing in court when asked is respect for the law of Australia, no religious law bans such respect. Failure to stand shows disrespect to the sentences handed down and if these criminals do not accept punishment for stealing they are not accepting stealing as a crime, which is part enshrined in religious law for social harmony, "Thou shall not steal".

Are you saying stealing is acceptable social practice for Muslims?
Are you saying Muslims are exempt on religious grounds from Australian laws and may show contempt for the law.

I have been impaneled several times on Jury and we also had to stand on entry of the administrator of the law, so show we respected the law. Do Muslims on Jury also believe they do not need to stand? Next time everybody gives a standing ovation at a concert think! Am I doing this out of fear or respect?

I don't know why all the goings on about the military, and who is saluting who, after all war is only state sanctioned murder. The primary function of a soldier is to carry out those acts of murder on behalf of the state. No need to sugar coat it, that is the reality!

Josephus; "because the law is not a deterrent to criminals is the reason they are criminals." People commit crime for many reasons, regardless of the deterrent factor people will still commit crime. Increasing the penalty does not reduce the incidence of many crimes, example the death penalty has no effect on the murder rate. Murder is not the only example there are many others. Your thinking is what prevailed in 18th century England, increase the penalty and reduce the crime, but they did nothing about the socioeconomic problems that beset the country, and the result was Australia.

Josephus: Are you saying stealing is acceptable social practice for Muslims?

Not if they steal from moslems. However, stealing from Infidels is permitted. It's in a Sura somewhere also I have seen it said on a moslem Q & A Site.

Dear Josephus,

Regarding those two criminals, I already responded at the top of this thread: they do not observe any law - neither human nor divine, neither Christian nor Muslim. No doubt they will be punished by God, but as far as our secular affairs go, we need to ensure that citizens are safe, that those two never steal again, and the best way to ensure that is to cut off their hands, rather than make them spend useless but expensive time in prison at the hard-earned tax-money of myself as well as their direct victims.

What I was arguing in my previous post, was of a general nature.

People may disrespect the law of the land for two main reasons:
1) The people in question are unworthy, thus below the law.
2) The law of the land is unworthy, thus the people in question who observe a higher law, are above the law.

The mediocre secular legislator acts out of fear, lest something untoward occurs on their watch and they lose their pants, their reputation, salary, perks and all. So they constantly ask themselves: "What if they do this... What if they do that...", trying to conceive of every criminal possibility - but they give only little thought to the effect of their legislation on ordinary good citizens and no thought at all to the effect of their legislation on saints, prophets and sages. As a result, ordinary good people suffer while saints, prophets and sages are not even bothered to be born here.

If the officer was not in uniform no salutes are to be given. Right.
And the same the other way around.

<<If the officer was not in uniform>> is that when the officer is making unwanted sexual advances on their subordinates? Does the subordinate have to salute the officer after the ordeal or not, even thought the officer may still be out of uniform. Time for a Royal Commission!

The Age; <<A landmark report into assault and abuse in the military has found that more than 1100 alleged abusers are still serving in the ranks.>>

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-abuse-government-to-seriously-consider-call-for-royal-commission-into-abuse-at-the-australian-defence-force-academy-20141126-11u1jq.html

If losing an argument always introduce a new argument or deflect the argument. Is that right Paul1405. Greenie Discussions 101.

Jayb, I am not having an argument, rather I find it superfluous that anyone would engage in a debate about, should General Brassbottom salute Private Bozo, or the other way around, when the military is so rotten with allegations of abuse within. Not some small scale isolated abuse, but extensive and systemic abuse.
Woe betide anyone who should dare to question the veneer of respectability that is unfairly placed around our military personnel. The noble ANZAC and all that nonsense. Please.

JAYB is spot on with his explanation concerning correct protocol concerning the conduct of Commissioned Officers, and saluting etc.

A recipient of the Victoria Cross is entitled to a salute from all Commissioned Officers irrespective of their rank, I believe it's in recognition of the extreme Valour necessary to be awarded the VC, that this particular subtlety is observed.

PAUL1405, I understand you harbour a very low opinion of soldiers per se, and I accept that you have that right to do so ? There's no doubt the ADF is copping some bad press about the unacceptable activities of some members therein. But you'd have to accept the vast majority of ADF personnel do a very good job, with not a great deal of remuneration for that good job ? Also, the media where possible, will magnify or augment many of the details they have, in order to dramatize that particular account. God knows I saw enough of that, when I was with the coppers ?

More contempt for our laws!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/nine-year-old-child-bride-leaves-australia-to-be-married/5932622

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/girl-9-may-have-been-taken-from-sydney-to-middle-east-for-forced-marriage/story-fni0cx12-1227141724807

Womens migrant services spokesperson said 'this is just one of a dozen cases since June'

How many and for how long will these practices, and FGM, go on before prosecutions occur?

We have some ethnic groups willfully thumbing their noses at our courts and our laws.

It is an absolute disgrace that such is allowed with no action taken.

Welcome to the wonderful world of multiculturalism, isn't it wonderful with so many exciting things happening.

Dear Banjo,

Why are you still carrying on about
"multiculturalism?" The behaviour of
a small minority should not reflect
on the majority who do live within
an institutional framework that
preserves tolerance and protects order
so we can celebrate and enjoy our diversity.

It seems to me that you're again falling into
the trap when discussing certain migrants,
especially those from the middle-east that
you're lumping all these people together and
treating them as one homogeneous species.
Nothing is further from the truth. Australian
immigrants vary a great deal in their ethnic
backgrounds, their religious practices and
interpretations, and educational levels.

Cherry-picking a few select cases from the pulp-press
like the Daily Telegraph, et al, is sounding more
and more like an "Anti Muslim," and "Anti-Multiculturalism,"
beat-up. You are better than that.

Foxy, nothing new in that, for the racists, who wants to insight hatred towards a minority group in society this is a common tactic. Point to one or two specific cases of wrong within the target group, and they do not have to be particularly accurate accounts, then use it to generalise and stigmatise the group as a whole. For those who already harbor some degree of ill feeling towards the target group, its not that hard to supply the spark to ignite the fire of hatred. The Nazis did it with the Jews, why should Banjo be any different with the Muslims.

Foxy,
It is obvious that you and Paul are 'in denial' relating to any adverse information about the activities of some ethnic groups and your beloved multiculturalism. You only want to hear the nice bits and not the reality of the situation. You want diversity no matter the cost.

In this case you both are trying to shoot the messenger, namely myself.

You think facts should be hidden, covered up and not reported. In fact you want to continue turning a 'blind eye' to events that are clearly against our laws and social standards. You should be asking why the smh did not report the articles.

You say the items are cherry picking, yet a migrant womens advocacy group claims there are a dozen such cases since June. How many young under age girls need to be sent to marry before you get concerned, and do they bring their new husbands back to Aus as part of the Family Reunion provisions?

We need to be far more selective with whom we allow as immigrants. Diversity is not the end aimed for, it should be integration and cohesiveness.

Dear Banjo,

<<Diversity is not the end aimed for, it should be integration and cohesiveness.>>

But for some, "cohesiveness" means a demand for assimilation into the 'all-perfect' "White" British-Australian culture.

So much for the issues with Middle-Eastern Muslims: criticism is indeed warranted, but what about the warts of the White British-Australian culture?

Yuyutsu,
I have never said that our Aus culture is perfect, those are your words so do not attribute them to me.

Don't worry there are aspects of our culture that I would change or abolish if I had my way. But it is our culture and I strongly object to government trying social engineering to alter it, by imposing some multicultural ideology. Cultural changes must come gradually and generated by the population. Each time we change to adapt to another culture we compromise our own culture. Like any other country Australian culture is unique, no other has it. It has good aspects and bad aspects but it is ours alone.

In reference to under-age forced marriage, many countries and cultures practice that and is completely alien to us. It has to be totally rejected, like honour killing or acid attacks by rejected suitors. Some cultures actually eat maggots and spiders, I don't think we would adopt that either.

Yuyutsu, Banjo doesn't believe white, Anglo culture is perfect. Banjo believes it's SUPERIOR. It's not just a "coincidence" that almost all the cultures he dislikes just happen to be cultures of darker skinned people. It's the old thing of "I'm not a racist, but .......". He likes to pick out the worst aspects of cultures he hates, then he compares that with the best aspects of what he thinks is Australian white culture, then comes to the conclusion that we are SUPERIOR to them. I've seen a few of his posts on similar subjects and they're pretty gross.

Banjo wants to socially engineer our culture so that it never, ever changes over time under any circumstances whatsoever. He wants his SUPERIOR culture to reign supreme. Little does poor Banjo know that the culture he holds onto is a PAST, pre 1950s culture of a bygone White Australia. Most people in Australia with Banjo type attitudes will be dead in 10 or so years due to their age ... relics of the past.

The past 70 years has seen Australia socially advance. Australia now has a vastly more educated, informed, tolerant, inclusive, advanced, world aware, wealthy and humane culture than it's ever had.

Dear Pesky Boy,

Humans have been blessed with four faculties, using which they can reach anywhere, including God. These are:

1) Rationality - The power to think logically.
2) Emotionality - The power to feel.
3) Ingenuity - The power to say: "Yes, I'll do it; No, I won't do it; or I'll do it, but otherwise".
4) Indomitable Will - The power to concentrate on the goal, comes what may.

These faculties need to be trained in order to achieve their full potential.

As a broad general statement, it seems that the latest Australian generations deserve congratulations for having successfully developed their Emotionality, which was lacking in former British-Australian generations. Rationality has remained at about the same medium level (due to a good start early on in life, but later compromised by drugs/alcohol). But Ingenuity and Will have declined: Ingenuity due the comforts and security offered by the state and Will due to overindulgence in sexuality.

The Lebanese-Muslim culture in contrast, can be characterised by high levels of Ingenuity and Will, but very low levels of rationality and emotionality.

All four are required for a meaningful success, be it material of spiritual.

pesky: Banjo doesn't believe white, Anglo culture is perfect. Banjo believes it's SUPERIOR.

By White Anglo-Saxon Culture you mean European. I don't know about Superior but most aspects of it are certainly is much better than the alternate. That's why the alternate cultures flood towards it.

Australian Culture is a mixture of all the various European Cultures. Can you give me an example of a Culture that is better than European/Australian Culture?

pesky: Australia now has a vastly more educated, informed, tolerant, inclusive, advanced, world aware, wealthy and humane culture than it's ever had.

Of course & it's all because of European Culture & Asian (Asian/European Immigrants & Refugees)

pesky: Little does poor Banjo know that the culture he holds onto is a PAST, pre 1950s culture of a bygone White Australia.

The Middle Eastern Cultured immigrants want to take Australia back to the 7th. Century AD. I take it you'd be happy with that, if so, maybe you should go & live in the Middle East. Enjoy.

The P boy believes Australia now with multicultural is: "The past 70 years has seen Australia socially advance. Hogwash! Our society has degraded family; so one in every three boys have no live at home father, unheard of when I was a boy. Our society is now immature, selfish, suspicious and consumer oriented. Loyalty and responsibility to family rates low in many males minds.

PB speaks about Australian culture [singular]. What culture does he identify with since Australia has adopted a multicultural society, or doesn't he believe in Multiculture. Diversity of cultures will bring conflict some based on religion, race, or skin colour, because they want to be in an enclosed community. Those that assimilate into the broader community have no problem.

A former Papua family friends of mine whose six year old son born in Australia attending an all white school in Western Sydney on visiting family in Papua could not accept the all black family even though he and his parents were black. The culture was different and he had only mixed with white children and their games and did not notice colour.

Dear Banjo,

Like it or not - at present, Australia is one of
the most ethnically diverse societies in the
world with so many Australians born in another
country, and more than half of these have come
from non-English-speaking countries in Europe,
the Middle East, South America, and Asia. More
than 42 per cent were born outside Australia or
had a parent born outside Australia. Many speak
a language other than English at home.

However, the concenpt of multiculturalism continues
to have different meanings for different people.
Anti-migrant prejudices are voiced when they're
highlighted by some well-publicised events - such
as the links you've given, acts of violence by
criminals, thugs, and extremists, or Pauline Hanson's
speech in Parliament and her now attempt to return
to politics.

It's evidently clear that some Australians still
believe that a "unique Australian society and identity
emerged with Federation and ... this identity should
be the basis of immigrant assimilation. Even former
Prime Minister John Howard has been reported to be
"most comfortable with a singular identity and
assimilationist policy."

The Australian Government has re-defined "multiculturalism"
several times. One simplified definition states -
"Multiculturalism...involves living together with an
awareness of cultural diversity." No longer is it a
requirement for immigrants to "assimilate" and become
exactly the same as the host population and shed the
attributes of their culture. Of course that does not
mean that they can ignore our rule of law. That is
a requirement that we are all required to abide by.

I am not suggesting for one moment that people who break
our laws should not be punished. I thought that I made
my position crystal clear on that score.
If you choose to believe otherwise that is something
over which I have no control.

What we don't need is people who follow an anti-Democratic political faith, one that is opposed to the very idea of democracy.

Dear Is Mise,

I agree - however how are we going to find out
who these people are. I doubt if they'll
admit it when applying for permanent residency.
What do you suggest?

Dear Is Mise,

<<What we don't need is people who follow an anti-Democratic political faith, one that is opposed to the very idea of democracy.>>

Careful what you wish for:

Firstly, it's not that we need ANY more people, regardless of what they believe in - yet it is incorrect to act just according to our own needs and is immoral to block others from coming who do us no harm.

Secondly, you may not want people with political aspirations to take away that little freedom which democracy still allows us, who want something worse than democracy, and rightly so, but what about those who aspire for something better than democracy?

Dear Foxy,

<<however how are we going to find out who these people are.>>

It's not hard, you only need to ask. I am one of those who oppose the very idea of democracy. I do not agree that a majority has a right to impose its decisions over minorities and individuals (neither a minority over the majority of course).

Dear Banjo,

I do not endorse multiculturalism, nor any other interference of government with the culture of the people of the land.

Sadly at present, the government of Australia does interfere by supporting Anglo-culture, for example Anglo-sports, including motor-racing and horse-racing; also the Christmas pageant. Besides financial help, when events of this nature occur, the government forsakes its duty to protect its citizen's ears and imposes draconic limitations on their freedom to move around. Will you agree with me that this is a form of social engineering?

I am vegetarian, but just as I would never contemplate trying to deny your right to eat beef and pork, I would never contemplate trying to deny others the right to eat maggots and spiders.

Yutsie: yet it is incorrect to act just according to our own needs

It may well be Politically Incorrect. But It is good planning

Yutsie: and is immoral to block others from coming who do us no harm.

The problem is they are doing us harm. Trying to change our Culture to a Medievil one. Waiting to force Sharia Law onto Australia. Fanatics, There are no moderate moslems.

Yutsie: I am one of those who oppose the very idea of democracy.

& your alternative is? Communism? But It has failed & was a form of Slavery.

Yutsie: I am vegetarian,

Sorry old mate. I been waiting for this. ;-)

Courier Mail 26 Nov 2014. I'll cut to the chase.

"VEGETABLES - THEY'LL MAKE YOU MISERABLE."

The Alere Wellness Index, developed by Dr. John Lang says that vegetarians are more likely to suffer Depression & Anxiety Disorders. The adoption of a Vegetarian Diet could sometimes follow the onset of mental Disorders.
"So the diet isn't the cause, but rather the symptom." Dr Lang said. Sorry mate.

"I am one of those who oppose the very idea of democracy. I do not agree that a majority has a right to impose its decisions over minorities and individuals (neither a minority over the majority of course)." Yuyutsu

Pray tell, what form of government do you prefer? Oh, I remember you are against all forms of government, land ownership and closed borders. But that doesn't give us a realistic workable model to consider, so Yuts, please explain your alternative (and try staying within the realities of this plane of existence).

Yuyutsu,

"The Lebanese-Muslim culture in contrast, can be characterised by high levels of Ingenuity and Will, but very low levels of rationality and emotionality."

I don't "tell" other people what to believe about themselves, or "guess" what they might be about. I have met people from the Middle East myself, and the ones I have met, I was very impressed with.

There are two parts to a word that fits into such a matter. They are called "stereo" and "type".

1. That being listening to a "Stereo" (and what comes from it). It used to be a big thing at one stage, but this is now "out of date" technology; and

2. "Type". Many would use items (like a typewriter) and others would read from the typing. These machines are now found in secondhand, antique shops and the homes of collectors.

Elements of stereo and type, are different for every person - and unless you (or anyone else) are clairvoyant, a person's mind cannot be read or a future predicted.

In terms of the planet, all living species that live on this planet, are reliant (in some form) on the natural world. The soils walked on, water consumed and used for growing crops, food that is eaten, fresh air, trees for shade and health and environmental elements that reduce the impacts of carbon.

It is disrespectful to the planet to disregard these elements, with many who cannot accept any limits on human activity, denying this fact for "human based" or "economic" reasons. Anyone who questions either, can be attacked because they are seen as valuing the natural world, over humans - as if nature is not needed for human life - when it is.

Also anyone out there "caught" between a Shark, a Magpie swooping season or Crocodile and you don't like it - get out of their country!

P.S To the person who linked vegetarianism to depression, speak to the 95% of people in Australia who are meat consumers. I'm vegetarian and am not depressed. I like knowing I can survive without having meat in my diet!

Dear Jayb,

<<The problem is they are doing us harm. Trying to change our Culture to a Medievil one. Waiting to force Sharia Law onto Australia. Fanatics, There are no moderate moslems.>>

I have not been harmed by Muslims, but such people whom the security-experts (I ain't one) deem to be harmful, obviously do not fall under my statement: "and is immoral to block others from coming who do us no harm."

As for "trying to change our culture to a medievil one", Constance has been arguing here for a while (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14572#252648) that medieval times were better. I see no problem with her trying to convince others, peacefully of course, to change our culture to a medieval one - perhaps she is even right...

Sharia law? well in some aspects it's better than what we have now, for example cutting thieves' hands rather than keeping them for years doing high degrees at our national-crime-academy at the expense of our tax-money.

<<& your alternative is? Communism?>>

You're joking! The problem with democracy is the same as in any other _____cracy, that some people are able to dictate to others how to live, against their will. There aren't many cases worse than communism in that regard.

My alternative is that people live however they want, under no rule except that which they freely accepted, if any. Obviously, if someone harms or endangers others, than the others have the right to defend themselves, but the difference is that the offender is never under the rule of the others, who simply take whatever steps are necessary to stop the harm/danger.

<<Dr. John Lang says that vegetarians are more likely to suffer Depression & Anxiety Disorders.>>

If that's the price I need to pay for my religion, then so be it - I'll accept it with love.

Dear Hippie,

<<Pray tell, what form of government do you prefer?>>

A voluntary government, which rules only over those who accept its rule and protects only those who accept its protection. This says it all in the fewest number of words.

Hey guys, here's the solution to everything.

The year is 2300AD. Democracy doesn't exist anymore. Sovereign countries don't exist anymore (replaced by geographical regions). All people in the world can travel freely to or from any region, and live in any region they choose (much like Australians can freely travel to and live in any state in Australia). The world will be divided into a number of geographical positions based on political/religious/social orientation; for example, what is currently called Australia could be the location for hard line right wing fascist rule, the USA for trendy, multicultural, far left wing rule, China for middle road capitalism rule, New Zealand for Christian Theocracy rule, France for Jewish Theocracy rule etc etc. These regions would not be countries anymore. There would be a hundred different geographical locations, each catering for people with different desires, needs, beliefs, politics etc.

Here's the beauty of it all. Anyone can choose to live in, or leave, any of these 100 geographical locations. Ya like hard line fascism? Then move to what is currently called Australia. Do you love Christianity? Then move to what is currently called New Zealand. Etc.

There would be no need for you to put up with rules, political conditions, religions, philosophies etc that you don't like or approve of. There would be no need to lobby for change ... you'd just move to the location that you approve of.

And here's the best part of all, there would be no need for politicians or elections ever again.

Foxy,

We simply keep out those who openly adhere to an anti-Democratic belief system and we do not allow that belief system into our country as it, by its very nature, seeks to destroy our way of life.

Yuyutsu,

"Sharia law? well in some aspects it's better than what we have now, for example cutting thieves' hands rather than keeping them for years doing high degrees at our national-crime-academy at the expense of our tax-mone"

Cutting the left hand off is only the start of the punishment, the real psychological punishment is that they have to clean themselves after defecation with the hand with which they eat.

One of the reasons that Christians (Westerners) are held in low regard by Muslims is that we eat using both hands.
In Arabic and Urdu (and no doubt in other appropriate languages) one can hear derogatory remarks about people who "....eat with the hand that wipes their anus".

Pesky says - Hey guys, here's the solution to everything.

That was just about the stupidest vision for the future I've ever read. It would never work unless of course dishonesty, lust, greed, perversion and evil intentions miraculously vanish from the human psyche as well as guns, all forms of weapons, religion, historical hatreds and armies.

Who decides how many autonomous regions are appropriate; who rules each of the regions; if the regions are not under any form of rule, what keeps the order; who decided a democratic region is out of the question; what keeps the regions from deciding they want to expand; and finally what are you smoking?

"And here's the best part of all, there would be no need for politicians or elections ever again."

Pesky, you haven't thought this out at al,. but you at least did give us a good example of a pipe dream.

Pesky Boy,
The weakness in your argument lies in; Without government who administers the State? Every man for himself is an anarchist philosophy, and the infrastructure falls down. Every organisation needs an administrator, it is better to have one elected by the people rather than a dictator one who rises above the masses by will.

I suggest you now travel the world and find the best country in which to live.

Ha ha, ConHippie and Josephus fell for my trap ... hook, line and sinker. What is my "trap"? I'll tell ya after a few more days, it will be interesting to see who else falls for it; the usual suspects I guess. Funny. Ha ha.

Pesky,

Whilst we're baiting traps; which one is in the subordinate when officers of equal rank salute each other?

Even more intriguing, what about when privates salute each other?

I remember being at Haramura Battle School (mixed Commonwealth Forces) in Japan and just about everyone saluted the Commander of the Japanese Camp Guards; they weren't there to keep us in but to keep civilian Japanese out.
Nothing obligatory about giving the salute the blokes just chose to do so.

Is Mise, first question = neither, second question = neither.

Oh Pesky you are so clever, but who is going to fall for your trap now that you've telegraphed it to everyone?

But, Pesky, I thought that you contended that the military salute was a sign of subjugation?
Aren't you going to tell me that privates and other non-commissioned ranks aren't allowed to salute each other?

Is Mise my dear boy, obviously you don't comprehend that a military salute to a higher ranked officer is a sign of subjugation, and the return salute is a sign of acknowledgement, as I have pointed out to you several times. I guess you don't read my posts before replying.

Only one person here has suggested that a military salute between officers of equal rank, and a military salute between privates, has any relationship with subordination ... YOU, in your first post on page 15.

Nice try Is Mise, ha ha. Anyway, I'll now say goodbye to all my fans here as I'm off traveling on holidays till mid next week. But as Senator Korman says "I'll be back".

I havent read through everyones posts, just the link. Im sure as these two define themselves by their religion, they would not have been made to swear on the holy bible. My God they simply have no respect or regard for our laws. I suppose they are Australian Citizens and are safe from deportation. What a shame. Creating a monster!

The punishment to fit the crime no matter who the hell they are. Politicians should be treated as citizens and sacked, fined ,jailed, given community service, even made example of, upon committing an offence. They are people, and like no one else is meant to be in this country, above the law.

Pesky,

Have a nice holiday and we shall all, no doubt, look forward to your future posts; don't fall in that deep well.

Here's a little true story on contempt of Court.

Some thirty years ago I was a police witness at a case in Parkes (NSW).
We were strolling from our hotel to the Court House along with the Sheriff, on the other side of the street was the Judge (wigged and gowned), a Sergeant of Police walking beside him and a Constable about ten paces ahead.
Passing men were raising their hats and biding the Judge "Good morning", women were also smiling at him and giving the greeting; the Judge was smiling and returning their salutations.

I remarked to the Sheriff that the Judge seemed to be very popular.

"Of course" said he, "you wouldn't know the story".
"What story?"
It had happened that the Judge, on his first day on the Circuit Court, had been walking to the Court, dressed for the job and with his police escort, a passing farmer pointed at him and made some remark and then laughed.
The Judge had him arrested on the spot and the first case of the day was the farmer charged with contempt of the Court.
He was sentenced to the rising of the Court; he protested that he had work to do, he was told that he could spend the time in the relative comfort of the courtroom, with a free lunch at a local cafe, and learn a bit of respect for the law or he could spend the time in the cells and take pot luck for lunch.

He decided to further his education and have a reasonable meal; he elected to stay.

The Sheriff explained that the Circuit Court was deemed to be in session from the moment that the Judge, in appropriate attire and with his escort, stepped into a public place.