From Ch9 News:

"Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is considering whether to cancel the visa of the leader of US anti-women group Return of Kings, whose members believe rape should be legal on private property."

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/01/17/06/anti-women-return-of-kings-to-meet-in-syd#OpZYhC6PGAlj0kJD.99

Should he be allowed in, thus giving the police a chance to identify his followers?

Dead Head Dutton is "considering" this animal's visa application!

The creep should already be incarcerated for life wherever he lives now. Frankly, I think that anyone who wants rape legalised should be put down like the mad dog he is. Unbelievable that such a person actually exists!

Don't laugh, but I can see this being Legalised to appease the Moderate moslems in Australia. Seems to be the way things are going & with the support of the PC, Greenies, Loony Left etc,.

Even Suze seems to agree that it's OK for moslems to digitally Rape European women, or is that only for Europe not Australia? It's hard to tell with Suze.

Acting out. Powerless, ineffectual, incoherent adolescents with KFC and internet game addictions. Nothing like that 'feministing' site fortunately, but a nasty reaction to such extreme radfem nastiness conducted over decades.

These confused young idiots are just the right sort for attention-seeking politicians and the commentariat to sacrifice on the block of political correctness. They should be with their other confused mates, inflicting self-harm by slamming objects into their testicles. Practices that should be the subject of PhD, were it not for the fact that the guvvy grants are for twigged feminist 'research'(sic).

Now these 'Asian' (Pakistani) Islamists are different and they are still there and reportedly carrying on business as usual, albeit with a lower profile,

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415251/lessons-rotherham-daniel-allott-jordan-allott-ben-allen

Isn't it just a wee bit strange that there was no righteous thunder in Oz against the dreadful crimes committed against girls (boys too, but somehow they don't get a mention) in the UK and a demand by politicians and the commentariat for an independent, professional risk assessment of Australia's immigration program and the 'diversity-Australia-has-to-have'?

There are no statesmen but politicians and lazy politicians choose their targets. ATM there is election talk in Oz, so expect more of the same as leftists try unsuccessfully to regain that podium of moral superiority that Malcolm Turnbull has so deftly assumed. There is a general feminist gargoyle buttressed and protecting his rear.

It is going to be a long time to the election even if the time is short. Turning The Box off and unplugging it from the wall.

Dear Is Mise,

I watched Waleed Aly on "The Project,"
on Tuesday night telling us about this guy.
Daryush Valizadeh, or Roosh V.

Aly suggested that we don't give this man
the attention he's seeking. Roosh V. deliberately
makes outrageous and controversial statements
to provoke reactions and give him the publicity
he's after.

Instead, Waleed Aly suggestions that we try
clicking onto a well known women's refuge
and donate to them to deflect this man's
deliberate purpose to provoke. We should
not allow this man to incite hate speech - which
seems to be one of his goals. Publicity for
himself is another.

Should Peter Dutton allow this kind of trouble
into our country? Some might argue that this
is about "Freedom of Speech." It isn't.
This is a calculated and deliberate provocation
to incite hatred and cause divisiveness.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a
duty to respect other people's rights. A person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others.
All societies including democratic ones put various
limitations on what people may say.

They prohibit certain types of speech that they
believe might harm the government or the people.
Most democratic countries have these major
restrictions on free expression:
Laws covering libel and slander.
Laws that offend public decency.
Laws urging violence.(speech that endangers life,
property, or national security).

This man wants the publicity.
He knows full well the penalty for his actions.
Yet he appears to feel that the publicity is worth
it.

The Minister should not give it to him.
This man should not be given a visa.

Is this mad group full of Muslims then?
If not, then of course JayB would welcome them here with open arms.
He appears to be ok with non-Muslim rapists...

Here is a link explaining who Roosh V., is:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35474206

This group and emily's listers are about disgusting as one another. The only difference is that one is legal for so called educated women while the other is banned for obvious reasons.

Actually, thinking about it, maybe we should let this idiot speak. Freedom of Speech. But, Let's broadcast the speech on every TV channel & point out just what Religion he belongs to. It would be good for all Australian people to know just what these moderate moslems want for Australia.

There ya go Suze. I agree with ya.

I thought rape was a crime of violence. At least, if the bastard is non-Muslim. And that this bloke was Moslem, most likely Shi'ite, so Suse may be a bit conflicted.

Seriously, how could anybody who incites morons to commit violent acts be allowed in the country ? BUT if he IS allowed, then as Jayb says, let his vile views be known, flush out his supporters and hold their views up to ridicule - and hope those thugs do something really stupid. Like pray in public.

Those Buddhists !

Joe

Waleed Aly and producers of The Project:

-'ISIL is weak, nothing to worry about, don't you worry about that',

but

- that bumbling amateur satirist, ‘legal rape’ leader(!) Daryush ‘Roosh V’ Valizadeh" is one dangerous dude, apparently.

How will Tony Jones and Q&A spin it though if the 'dangerous to Wonderful Womyn dude' is Muslim?

Maybe the walking talking rug, Ray Martin, could set them right. Er, make that left, 'Progressive' left.

Not that any of them could recognise the real Left even if there was a humungous Dept of Main Roads lit sign pointing the way.

Those old Jazz and freedom loving, fornicating, Lefties would be turning in their graves.

I'm really surprised that the guys on this site haven't woken up to the fact that the group Return of the Kings is feminist front to give rapists a bad name!

Conspiracy Theory #9723

Cossomby unnecessarily proving the old adage that when a feminist makes a joke a kitten dies.

That's because they can't decide between
Feminists, Emily-Listers, Progressive Leftists,
Laborites, Fabians, Socialists, Moderate Muslims,
Waleed Aly, Ray Martin, David Morrison, or
anyone else they can point their fingers at.
"Them," and "Us!"

So creative!

Damn, make that two dead kittens. Mercy!

There's lots of people commenting on what this man said based upon what others said he said. Has anyone actually bothered to find out exactly what he said? If not, why not? Its just another in a long line of moral panics based on half-truths and third hand information.

Now I'm not endorsing what the chap said. Its a less than acceptable suggested solution to a real problem. But if you read the context of what he's saying, the reality is very different to the propaganda put out by the moral police.

In a nutshell he's saying rape is bad and to be deplored. But he's also saying that at least some rape is preventable if the women were more guarded about the social situation they place themselves in and legalising rape in social situations would, perforce, change community attitudes about what situations women placed themselves in.

So, a not very well thought-out solution to a real problem. But the Boston Strangler he ain't.

Still it sold a few newspapers and allowed our moral defenders to demonstrate their claimed moral superiority.

For those interested, here is the offending blog....

http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-stop-rape

Notice its called "How to Stop Rape".

PS when did legaliSe become legaliZe?

I was just trying to pre-empt anyone else blaming feminists! Some people think they are to blame for everything.

mhaze: it was legalize before it became legalise. If you look at old Australian newspapers and books, the 'ize' spelling in words like legalize was once the norm. I think the change to '-ise' came with the Australian Government Style Manual 1966. CSIRO was originally 'Organization' and didn't change till the late 70s or 80s.

So if you want to be pedantic, -ize is the traditional Australian spelling, not a new Americanism.

It is disgusting, it is disturbing, but when it comes to private property - government should stay out. The only things illegal on private properties should be those which spill out into the adjoining properties or public areas, causing harm and/or danger to those outside.

Nevertheless, if one rapes on their private property, they should never again be allowed out of it, have a fence with warning signs erected around them and have their electricity, water, gas, roads and other supplies cut off - and if a mob subsequently attacks that property, the owners should enjoy no police protection.

Such dumb stories are little more than distracting intelligent thought, promoting emotional rage in people that feel they need to feel information before information gets them concerned.

Stupid stories introduced by media, I strongly suggest were invented by some media organisation to be introduced by the media to add one more story to a list of many other stupid stories, Neanderthals feel rev-up-raged intelligent for understanding.

Is this an opinion forum website of non innovative rubbish?

mhaze,

The English spelling was legalize and as American English is a repository of early English spellings then those of us who prefer the more English English use the American spelling.

'Program' is a case in point.

Yuyutsu: Re private property, the question is 'whose private property'? Do they want to come onto my private property and rape me there? That was how I read it.

Even if it was their private property, do you really think people should be able to do anything, as long as it's confined to the block? Murder their kids, burn their house down, torture their dogs or horses?

What about the person raped? Is it OK if they are enticed or abducted onto the private property, as long as the rape takes place there?

And your suggestion of confining them to their block.. What if other family members also live there? Are you going to forcibly confine them with the rapist, or alternately, are they going to be removed and made homeless?

Dear Cossomby,

Sorry if I was misunderstood: you should be sovereign on your own property and if someone comes to rape you there, then both yourself and the law should be able to cut them to shreds.

Also, if someone is abducted or even misled to a private property, then surely society should be able to defend itself, doing whatever is needed to save that person and to prevent similar future occurrences.

Now if a property is owned (in the natural sense of the word, not necessarily its legal sense) by several people, then suffice that one of them calls for the state's help, either explicitly or implicitly (on the balance of probabilities) to allow the state to come in and save them. Similarly, if several people live there then the wishes of the other family members should be respected.

The remaining cases are quite rare: assuming that those whom we consider victims are on the property by their own volition and have not requested the state's help (and if they technically cannot then it can be reasonably assumed that they wouldn't do so even if they could), then the state has no right to enter.

Of course, society should ostracise and isolate those who kill their babies or torture their dogs and horses, but the decision to do so must be left up to individuals, rather than the state - otherwise it creates a slippery-slope which would end up with the state dictating every aspect of private life. You and I agree that murder and rape are bad, but if you allow the state to decide what's good and what's bad, then soon enough it would designate even good things as bad and all freedoms will be lost.

As for the fool who burns down their own house, so long as they take sufficient precautions to prevent that fire and its smoke from spreading, it's just their own loss.

Roosh is a snake oil salesman giving false hope to losers who should never be allowed to reproduce anyway, screw his views on women, it's his degenerate concept of masculinity which should see him pilloried.
Return Of Kings is just the complimentary "masculinist" viewpoint to sites like Bustle and Jezebel, it's all horrible end times garbage which should never have gained the amount of influence it has.
What it boils down to is matching society's worst men with it's worst women, the results would speak for themselves.

Cossomby, "So if you want to be pedantic, -ize is the traditional Australian spelling, not a new Americanism"

History of the changed spelling
Convinced that many who voted Labor were poor spellers and like all Leftists a patronising SOB who believed he always knew what was best for others, Gough Whitlam interfered in the new edition of the Australian Government Publishing Service's 'Style Manual', decreeing that 'programme' must be 'program', 'z' was to be replaced with 's' and later, that all federal guvvy publications were to be 'non-sexist' and the male nouns and pronouns had to be done away with.

The AGPS's talented few working on the Style Manual put together mock editions of government publications demonstrating how foolish, expensive and user unfriendly Gough's non-sexist language would be. It was to be to no avail.

The Government Printing Office was under AGPS and the whole shebang was under the new Department of the Media. Gough, who upon becoming Prime Minister had been converted to Fabianism and that along with his already affirmed International Socialist bent had realised the cleverness of the Marxists' 'the personal is political' and the philosophy of language and its uses for socialism. Gough even had a large truck, a semitrailer 'library' that was to carry The Word of his government to all Aussies, everywhere. Just in case they were not noticing the revolution he and his men and WOMYN, were thrusting forward with (and while throwing out babies with the bathwater).

The truck failed to get going but it all cost a packet.

He did other things such as putting a scrotum back on that red roo and on the colour coat of arms it displays a red blush of sexual maturity (and activity) on its chest. Definitely hetero and ready to mount the nearest female or few. The previous gay stance affecting its arm (yes Gough commented on that) was changed.

Very wild and chaotic days with new public service agencies and QANGOS popping up like mushrooms.

Monkey nuts, Comrade?

For God sake people, read what the man said. He isn't advocating legalising the abduction and rape of women on private property. He's advocating policies he thinks will reduce the incidence of rape. His ideas are a little screwy but not evil.

mhaze,

No-one is listening.

Political correctness decrees that 180degree misinterpretations are the order of the day.

I am reasonably certain that the young fellow was trying his arm at satire. Maybe poor satirists should be flogged with a hard copy of their their own work.

Anyhow, as Leunig and Mem Fox found years ago, satire and honest comment are rewarded with censure in PC Oz. Now some of the radfems of the Eighties are almost apologising for their dreadful treatment of Leunig and Mem Fox, as the now very comfortably well-to-do feminists strive for social legitimacy on Sydney's North Shore. Hey, they ARE better than other women, right?, just look at those shoes and the cafes they frequent.

The harsh Oz Political Correctness is so systemic and comprehensive that few of the public might always realise and recognise its use, and everyone stoops to genuflect and comply, or else!

The ABC is a $1.3billion p.a. marketer and policeman of PC. PS pervades the education system from Kindy on and before that there is the ABC's ever-helpful to PC, Play School and more.

Mhaze,
Not exactly, Roosh wrote that article as satire and nowhere does he advocate rape, he suggests that rape laws should not apply on private property the thinking being that women would be more careful about who they went home with if there was no legal recourse if the sexual encounter turned bad.
Pretty much all that Pick Up Artist garbage is geared toward empowering asocial men to approach degenerate women, that is to say give them the tricks of the trade used by degenerate men so they can also bed loose women.
As I said, it's all horrible, his "activism" is a scam and he's a narcissistic scumbag.

None the less, 'program' is the earlier English spelling and 'programme' is a French word; as I said the USA is a repository of English spellings
We don't use 'doctour' anymore, but 'doctor' instead; 99.99% of the 'our' nouns in current English are taken from the French.

Guess why the US army salutes like our sailors?

I don't think Aly wants this guy to speak because it would make Islam look bad & he is a moslem.

Dear Mr Dutton, what do you need to consider? Are you really that dumb that you need to take time out to think about it?

Maze. <In a nutshell he's saying rape is bad and to be deplored. But he's also saying that at least some rape is preventable if the women were more guarded about the social situation they place themselves in and legalising rape in social situations would, perforce, change community attitudes about what situations women placed themselves in.>

This sounds like the Muslim mindset of blaming women for rape.
If a woman trusts a man thinking he is the really,nicefellow he's
Been pretending to be, but it turns out he was setting her up for rape, by getting her
To his house for coffee or some such lie.
She should be blamed and shamed for trusting that he was a decent person.

This isn't far from the mindset in these Arab countries that put women in jail
For being raped. Like one woman who was a receptionist at an expensive hotel
In Saudi Arabia. She was drugged by one of her fellow workers and raped by him
And his friend. Of course they put her in jail because as a woman she apparently
Had no right to have a job where she was often alone at the desk.

What this bloke is suggesting is appalling.

What say he was set up to be in the private residence of a couple of hairy
Homosexuals and they rape him and beat him up as well.
His fault obviously and he should spend 2years in jail for it.

Come on now.

Cherful,
Nope, Return Of Kings is nothing like that and neither are the people who follow it, these "masculinists" are in it for the same reasons as third wave Feminists, they're ugly, autistic or asocial people who have a chip on their shoulder because they didn't get invited out on any dates as teenagers.
This about sums them up, Elliot Rodger, the supreme gentleman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUW3Km01BM&bpctr=1454574118

//as I said the USA is a repository of English spellings//

On the other hand, they can't spell a simple word like 'mum'. It's not rocket science, seppos: m-u-m spells mum. 'Mom' sounds like a dyslexic's meditation mantra.

Toni,

Mum in England, Mom in the USA and Mam in Ireland and all date from around the same period.
Scotland leans toward Mam as well.

So what other words can't the Americans spell?

This idiot was never going to come to Australia. It was clearly a publicity seeking stunt from a guy who is already far more famous than he deserves to be. Having said that, few of his critics genuinely thought he was planning on visiting, but they still made various statements to distance themselves from Rhoosh V and make themselves look good. Peter Dutton is a prime example. Rhoosh V isn't the only one manipulating the media.

As Foxy said, freedom of speech stops when people start saying things that endanger others. The infamous rape essay took an odd perspective and was sure to offend many, but it was unlikely to lead to anyone being raped. However, Rhoosh V also wrote a column in October last year, saying that women should have their behaviour controlled and men should use violence to do so. It is quite likely that this type of talk will lead to more domestic violence. He should never be allowed into the country for that reason.

On the other hand, many of his critics suggest Rhoosh should be violently punished and If he had made it to Australia, there would be very violent counter demonstrations. Many of his critics have done more to advocate for violence than he has.

I do believe, as I have said before, he should be allowed to speak in Australia. The speech should be Televised on every TV station.

Failing that, any speech he has made in other Countries should be Televised. I think that would have a great impact on the mindset of Australians & the horror of what this man proposes would be explosive.

The legal position regarding what one can do with 'one's' land has to take into account the rights and responsibilities of the Crown: this from Fry's "Land Tenures in Australian Law" (1947):

"No proprietary right in respect of any Australian land is now, or ever was, held, by any private individual except as the result of a Crown grant, lease, or licence and upon such conditions and for such periods as the Crown (either of its own motion or at the discretion of Parliament) is or was prepared to concede."

His full paper is on: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1947/42.pdf

This differs from the situation in many US states, where occasionally allodial title is recognised. But even in such rare situations, jurisdictions would enact some form of underlying title rights to be held by the sovereign power, i.e. the State, and thereby the extension of all its legislation over every bit of its territory.

Many Yanks can't seem to get their head around that. Sovereignty resides with the State, not with individuals.

So, in that sense, there is no rights to carry out crimes on 'private' property: it all comes under some overriding legislation, even in the US, and certainly here in Australia. Even Native Title assume rights of an overriding State or Territory government to legislate for, and protect the rights of, all of its citizens.

In other words, nobody is 'sovereign' over their own 'private' property. Let's bury that misconception once and for all.

Joe

Spot-on, CHERFUL !

It baffles me that, if some bunch of bikies were found to be in the habit of taking off young women, raping them, passing them around, trading them between gangs, we would all be rightly appalled and demand the maximum penalties - but as you infer, if it happens to involve Muslim men, particularly Arab men, the left would go dead-quiet: 'it's part of their culture, after all, and all cultures are equal and good, who are we to judge ?'

Appallingly gutless. As Hugo Rifkind wrote last seek, something like, we can have all the different foods and dances and songs and shoe designs we like, but we must defend one set of values, amongst which is surely the equality of men and women, and the rule of law.

So, do we defend a set of values for all Australians including women (actually 100 % including Muslim women), or do we devalue women ? Whatever happened to 'Reclaim the Streets' ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

The people who call themselves "the state" are nothing but a gang of robbers, whether that be the "Islamic state" or the "Australian state". All they have to say for themselves and their so-called right to sovereignty over a huge stretch of land, a whole continent in the case of the Australian gang, is the use of force over those who are militarily weaker then themselves. They never asked nor received any permission to rule over their victims who in fact live on that land.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Yep, that's how it is. 'Owning' a bit of land gives the 'owner' merely a limited range of rights to do with what he or she likes with that land. You can't commit crimes against other people on that land. You can't use it for prohibited purposes, such as dumping rubbish or storing nuclear materials.

Sorry, mate, you can't buy your way to doing whatever you like: what you're paying for is the right to use the land for definite purposes, and no more than that. Ask your local council.

Joe

A distant cousin of mine 5th. cousin I believe. was a bit of a widl child when he was a lad. The court sentenced him to 3 years Jail or 6 years in the Army. He chose the Army. & got out about 1965 & joined the Police Force. He must have done something right because in 69/70 he headed up the first Riot Squad (See Anti-Terrorist Squad) in Queensland.

He used to visit or we'd visit & for fun go through the "Old Laws" still on the Books. If I remember "The Blue Book." Many of these have been repealed of course & only recently. Like stopping at an intersection, getting out of the car waving a red flag, shouting a warning in the four directions & firing a shot, to warn people that an Automobile was about to cross the road. Also only one person was allowed to be in the Drivers Compartment (front seat). One very interesting piece of Law was, "No one could be arrested, for any reason, on the "Kings Highway, (a highway) an Easement or a Stock Route." Highways, Stock Routes & Easements traverse the entire length & breath of Australia. If you're in trouble stay on one of these forever. ;-)

I don't think these are still in force but some "very unusual Laws" still are.

Any comments OSW.

G'day Joe,
Well we do actually do condone legalized rape or at least turn a blind eye.

In 2008 a group called the Islamic Womens Welfare Council of Victoria presented a report to the Rudd government in relation to the conduct of Muslim men. The report was commissioned by the previous government and one could assume the writers were not merely 'mossie bashing'

The report said that Imans were active in polygamous marriages and in underage marriages. However the issue of most concern was that some muslim men that were divorced by our family court were turning up at their former wives residence and demanding sex and forcibly having it. The men claim that Islam does no recognize our laws and they were still married.

Under our laws this is rape.

The ladies released a press statement when presenting the report which the press wrote up, however nothing more has been heard of the report and it has been buried by the government. The webb site of the ladies was also shut down for some considerable time.

Try as I might, I cannot obtain a copy of the report but do have a couple of press articles written on the day of presentation.

Hi Banjo,

Yes, under Shari'a law, a woman cannot refuse her husband, ever. Yet another practice which is illegal in Australia, on the basis of women's equal rights. To the extent that it occurs behind closed doors, it is rape.

As well, under Shari'a law, a husband can beat his wife - as long as those bruises are covered when she goes out, so that they are not visible. To the extent that it occurs behind closed doors, it is assault.

I fervently hope that such barbaric systems as Shari'a law are never, not in the slightest, ever allowed in Australia, or indeed in any civilized country. The rights of women should trump any such ghastly system of 'law', even if they are tarted up as 'culture'.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Well you seem to justify bullying - I don't.

Isn't bullying a form of rape?

The example you cite of "dumping rubbish or storing nuclear materials" as a justification against individual sovereignty is misleading: even if an adjoining sovereign country does such things that endanger your population with dangerous materials, you first ask them to stop, then threaten them to stop, then if necessary wage war against them to protect your people from those dangerous materials.

Similarly, if an adjoining sovereign country kidnaps your population and rapes them then you wage war and do whatever is necessary to ensure that doesn't repeat itself.

However, when the people of an adjoining country rape each other where none of them has sought your protection (or reasonably would have if they could), then you have no right to enter - and the same exactly should apply to private properties.

Now the mention of the act of paying for a land is also misleading: the fact that land happens to be purchased with money and registered at a particular office of the state, including stamp-duty and all that, is an internal procedure within a state, which should therefore only apply to those who freely agree to have anything to do with that state. So far, this is not the situation because the people who actually live on the land and are its natural owners (assuming no contention exists with other people) were never asked nor given their consent to have anything to do with the state. Their land was grabbed by force by those who call themselves "the state" - anyone who does not support rape should not support this kind of behaviour either!

Yuyutsu,

If you don't want anything to do with the state, then don't buy or lease any of its land. Oops, that's so bullying.

I'm sure there have been many landholders, owners or lessees of large tracts, who have allowed other people to dump rubbish on their back-blocks, for a fee, and in breach of their ownership or lease conditions.

When you buy a piece of land, you have rights in it, but they are not absolute. Every landholder has obligations, so if you don't want to adhere to those obligations, see paragraph 1.

You would disagree, so therefore you must be bullying me (I think that's how it works these days of offence and hurt). Ouch !

Joe

Dear Joe,

About paragraph 1, nobody, liking it or not, can buy or lease any state-land anyway because it doesn't own any - all the state "owns" is only in its own books! From its inception, the state gave away in lease to those it favoured what was not hers in the first place. As it stands, all that the state seems to own is the proceeds of robbery and had it been required to compensate its victims it would become deeply bankrupt.

What one can do instead, is pay a ransom to those hooligans to gain their "protection", just as any Mafioso demands - but that's not a true purchase.

Now why would you bring this example of people who dump rubbish illegally, or allow it? They ain't heroes at all because they still accept the state's presumed "right" to dictate its conditions. They just happen to believe that they can sneak and get away with it. They are essentially inconsiderate of their neighbours, nothing positive about it.

YYT,

" ..... From its inception, the state gave away in lease to those it favoured what was not hers in the first place."

No, at least not in South Australia: the State possesses underlying title to all land. In SA, one of its agents, the Pastoral Board, oversees the leases of land for specific purposes. From 1851, all pastoral leases had to contain this clause:

“And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made.”

Since the uses that land can be put to can be differentiated, they can be parcelled out to different users, hence the above recognition of traditional Aboriginal land-use, is quite co-existent with limited pastoral land-uses, even now - which also would not have precluded, say, a railway lease, through a pastoral station, or a right of way for electricity power-lines and their maintenance.

Not sure what you man by 'pure purchase'. What you are 'purchasing' is the right to use land belonging to the people, through the State, for defined purposes. 'Purchase' is not, and can never be, absolute, to do as you wish with, because ultimately it belongs to us, the people, you and me, administered through the State. Sorry.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I did not mention "pure purchase", but "true purchase". If you pay for something that the seller does not truly own, then you have not truly purchased that thing.

Now in the case of South Australia, the state favoured a specific group - aborigines, then granted that group specific privileges. It's like telling a woman: "Since I like you, I choose not to rape you and being my favourite, I won't allow others under me to rape you either" - how gracious... what a great favour... Should she really feel indebted? Also what about others who are the land's natural owners, but are not liked as much because they do not happen to be aborigines?

Surely one may utilise their property in several parallel ways, but it needs to be theirs in the first place. Grabbing land by force does not count as ownership.

Now it's been a long time since I heard such a wishy-washy statement as "because ultimately it belongs to us, the people, you and me, administered through the State", as socialist as "give me your coat because it ultimately belongs to us, the people, you and me, administered by my wife, who decided that I should feel warmer" can be, in other words "it's all mine and mine type of people's - you own nothing because the guns are on our side".

Wow! Yutsie, Go buy a bottle of Bis-Pectin. It's really good for cases of "M.W.S" better known as Diarrhoea.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Sorry, you wrote 'true purchase', my old eyes misread it.

No, you still don't understand: what you are purchasing is the right to use something, on specified conditions, perhaps for a certain time or in perpetuity. But 'ownership' is always conditional - you are holding that land from the State for certain purposes, nd the State is the ultimate holder on behalf of the people.

If you don't think there is, or should be, a State, then that's another matter. We can talk about anarchy and anarchism if you like :)

Joe

Hi again Yuyutsu,

Sorry, I have a very poor attention sp

You suggest that " .... in the case of South Australia, the state favoured a specific group - aborigines, then granted that group specific privileges. .... "

No, on the advice of the British Government, particularly Earl Grey, [see Henry Reynolds and Jamie Dalziel's article: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/17_reynolds_1996.pdf

in SA, the rights of Aboriginal people to use land as they always had done was no more or less than a recognition of a pre-existing situation - it wasn't some sort of privilege. In fact, what went with it was a denial of the right of Aboriginal people to exclude strangers from their land.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the land's natural owners" and your slag-off of Aboriginal people. British common law usually meant that whatever form of land relationship was in place at the time of conquest or settlement, was recognised.

That seemed to be the case across the British Empire: See C. K. Meek (1948), extracts, on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, on the Land Page. It also seems to have been the case in New Zealand: see the extracts from Sir H. Kawharu's book on Maori Land Tenure on that same web-site Page.

But your assertion that governments or states have no rights to declare an underlying title to all land under its administration, and control over its uses, is intriguing. It seems to have been the rationale for squatting in Austtralia, for seizing huge areas of pastoral land in the eastern states in the nineteenth century. As you say, "Grabbing land by force does not count as ownership."

Without the protection of states, such as it may be, anybody 'seizing' land would have to defend it against any other would-be 'owner': what you are proposing are the 'rights' of the strongest to seize as much land as it can, and expel anybody weaker. Is that what you have in mind ?

[TBC]

[continued]

Yes, perhaps in a Hobbesian world of power going to the most brutal, rape would not be a crime - it would be the undisputed right of the most powerful, the sort of right that Muhammad seemed to assume he and fellow-Muslims had over female slaves.

We can see that in the history of Islamic invasions across the Middle East and north Africa, Spain and central Asia, India and the Balkans, over the last fourteen hundred years.

Are you sanctioning that sort of reversion to savagery ? I'm sure that you aren't :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

I denounce violence - be it of the savage variety or of the civil variety.

Savage violence is obviously wrong, but that is uncontested so we don't speak much about it, whereas some members of this forum do condone civil violence, so I have taken up that issue.

Regarding anarchy, a classical anarchist believes that any rule is wrong, while I only claim that ruling over others WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT is wrong.

I do not consider it wrong when people freely agree to be governed by others, especially if it enhances their security. What is wrong, is when one person rules over another without consent. A body of people, large as it may be, should not have more powers than the sum of the powers that were freely entrusted to it by its members. Specifically it should not have the powers to order around non-members; to enter their natural property without consent; or to assume non-members to be members. When a large body of people such as a state does so - that's civil violence!

So states are OK, so long as they are based on a freely-entered agreement among its members, rather than on some arbitrary territory. So far however, I know of no state that complies with this basic decency.

Natural ownership involves an intuitive sense of decency and the golden-rule. Yes, it is difficult to define, but that doesn't make it any less real. At times it is obvious, like in the case of a family that lived on and farmed a plot of land for 50 generations which nobody contested for the last 100 years. At other times it is not as obvious and perhaps is difficult to tell whether a land belongs to A or B, but nevertheless it still clearly does not belong to C. Squatting by itself is insufficient to establish ownership, but rather a combination of investment, development, dedication, non-violence and common-sense.

Hi Yuyutsu,

There must be some confusion here. Within a state, at least a democratic state, all citizens over 18 vote for their preferred candidates. Win or lose, they must submit to whoever wins in their particular seat, and whichever party has the most seats - the dominant party or coalition of parties forms the government to act in the interests of all citizens. That's the theory.

Non-members ? How can there be non-members of a democratic state ? How could such non-members hold land ? Do you mean foreign companies ? Foreign individuals ? They would still come under the legislation of the country, as administered by the government.

Does this clear up some of your objections ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Democracy, elections, parties, votes, the age of 18, candidates, seats, coalition, government and citizenship, are but some of the internal mechanisms by which a given group of people manages their internal affairs. They would usually have some written constitution which describes those mechanisms in detail.

However, these are only meaningful within the context of a particular group.

I am down to basics here: a state is nothing but a particular group of people. So long as those people are all there by choice, having freely agreed explicitly or implicitly on their constitution, then I have no problem with how they choose to manage their internal affairs. If they want a democracy then so be it and if they prefer something else like monarchy, aristocracy, the rule of their ten eldest or whatever, then I am happy with it too.

However, it is not right for any group of people to forcibly assume that non-consenting others belong to their group, for any reason including for the reason that they happen to live on some nearby land or own it. Also, no group has a right to enforce their specific internal procedures on others who never agreed to belong to their group.

How can there be non-members of a democratic state?
-Why, there are over a hundred democratic states of which you and I are not members.

How could such non-members hold land?
-If members can hold land, then why not non-members? What's the difference?
In my last post I discussed natural ownership. Those natural owners who wish to form a state could in a way donate some or all of their land to that state, which could include some or all of their natural rights over that land, thus allowing their state to form a "country" whereby internal rules of land-ownership apply in place of the natural ones.
If someone hasn't willingly donated their natural land to a state, then their land does not belong to that state's country.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Do you mean foreign companies?
-Companies are one other internal mechanism that states may employ (if they choose).
"foreign companies" only exist due to international agreements between states which agree to recognise some of each other's internal structures. It is thus meaningless to speak of them outside the context of a state and of their representatives other than as "people".

Foreign individuals?
-"Foreign" is another internal construct within states, most commonly denoting members of other states.
Anyone who is not a member of a state is "foreign" from that state's perspective. Not only humans, but even animals are "foreign" from that perspective because no state I know considers them members, nor has any animal that I know ever consented to belong to a human state.
However, outside the context of a state it is meaningless to speak of anyone as "foreign". I am just who I am, you are just who you are.

H Yuyutsu,

Nice try. "How can there be non-members of a democratic state?
-Why, there are over a hundred democratic states of which you and I are not members."

I have enough respect for your intelligence to believe that you can understand the difference between a 'non-member' of one country - whatever that may mean - and not being members of any particular country.

If you mean that, say, a non-citizen may purchase land in, say, Australia, then of course - provided the purchase is approved by the relevant administrative bodies - that land still is part of Australia, and comes under its legislation, at federal, state and municipal levels, just like any other land, and the State has resp0nsibility over it to decide how it is to be used.

What on earth do you mean by 'natural ownership' ? If anything, the State has that 'natural ownership', underlying title, the approved uses to which it exercises on behalf of the population of Australia. You purchase the right to use land for certain purposes as defined by the State ( i.e. federal, state and municipal authorities) - you do not ever purchase any land absolutely.

There is no such thing as 'natural ownership'. You purchase the right to use and no more. You can buy and sell that 'right to use', but you can't do anything you like with what is essentially, at its base, not yours.

I hope that clarifies the situation for you :)

Now, perhaps we can get back to the topic. Are you trying to suggest that, if one has absolute title to land, one can commit rape on it with impunity ?

Joe

Yutsie: while I only claim that ruling over others WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT is wrong.

Aaha! So that's why moslems don't recognize Australian Law in Australia. The simple solution would be to remove those people to a place whose Laws they do recognize.

Yutsie: Advise: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Hi Jayb,

Surely Yuyutsu is not proposing that, if anybody such as Muslims, don't vote for, or approve of the right of governments to legislate on their behalf as it does for all Australians, they don't have to conform to its laws ?

Or that government can't restrict the uses of land for Muslims like it has the right to do for all Australians, that Muslims have some sort of special rights, just because they purchase land, and that if they have purchased land, they can rape any girl or woman they like on it ?

As I understand it, under Shari'a law, all land in the world belongs to Allah, not to any government, and certainly not to any non-Muslim. So, as Muslims, if they purchase land, especially if they purchase it from non-Muslims, they are simply bringing that land back under the control of Allah, and as long as they abide by Shari'a law, Allah's law as they see it, they can do anything they like on it.

So since forced intercourse is permitted under Shari'a, i.e. with one's wife, or slave, or any young girl as soon as she develops pubes and, under Shari'a law, can get married, then they can do that on any land they may have purchased, in Allah's name, of course. As well, of course, such women can be beaten until they submit ( = Islam) to forced intercourse, in the name of Allah, the compassionate and merciful, as long as the bruises don't show.

Surely that's not what you are suggesting ? Surely, just because this bloke advocating rape on one's land, he is not advocating it just because he is Muslim ? I can scarcely believe it: people couldn't possibly be that backward, not in 2016 ?

Joe

//Aaha! So that's why moslems don't recognize Australian Law in Australia. The simple solution would be to remove those people to a place whose Laws they do recognize.//

So why do you think it is that Christians don't recognize Australian Law in Australia? Where could we deport them to whose laws they would recognize? This is not the 18th century and you can't just go around foisting your convicts onto other countries these days.

// I can scarcely believe it: people couldn't possibly be that backward, not in 2016 ?//

Joe, may I remind you that you were responding to a post calling for the exile of an entire group of people from Australia because they don't believe in the right God? Sounds pretty 16th century to me. So on the face of the evidence which Jayb has so kindly provided for us, I would have to say that yes, people could possibly be that backward in 2016.

Hi Toni,

Innovative tu quoque argument, Toni. It means 'you too' or 'so are you' or 'nyah ! nyah' in Latin, in case you're wondering: it r3efers to your ploy to move the discussion from real Muslims and rape on private land, to phantom Christians.

What 'Christians don't recognize Australian Law' ? And so what if they didn't ? They would possibly be breaking the law if they don't, and maybe even lose their land. Gosh, what a pity.

As for your silly comment, " ..... may I remind you that you were responding to a post calling for the exile of an entire group of people from Australia because they don't believe in the right God? "

You know very well that not every poster on OLO agrees with every other poster, that what one poster suggests doesn't have to be formally refuted by every other poster.

Any other straw men ?

As an atheist, I didn't know there were such things as 'right gods'. But if it floats your Pooh-stick .....

Now, back to topic: is anybody thick enough to think that if one buys a property, one can commit rape in it or on it ? That somehow, the boundaries of a bit of land make you immune to the law of the land ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

No group of people should have more powers than the sum of the powers bestowed on it by the members of that group.

A state is nothing more than a particular group of people.

Therefore a state does not have any natural ownership over any land - unless such ownership was bestowed on it by some of its members who are/were the natural owners of the said land.

Yes, I am aware that the state of Australia currently makes a claim of natural ownership over the whole of this continent - but that's a false claim without any moral basis. There may be plots of land here and there which the natural inhabitants gladly gave over to the state, but that's only a small minority of the continent.

That the state of Australia is not alone in this type of land-robbery, that currently every other state I know does so as well, doesn't get it off the hook - if it's not right, then no amount of guns make it right.

As you respect my intelligence, I also respect yours: you know well that I was not referring to the internal arrangements that are exercised within a state among its willing members, such as the formal purchase and registration of lands and the restrictions that come with it. Assuming that a piece of land indeed belongs to a state, then that state has every right to establish such procedures and restrictions as it sees fit regarding that land (including specific restrictions on non-citizens). I believe that I was clear enough to refer only to such lands which do not truly belong to a state, even while a state makes false claims to own them.

Back to the topic? I already wrote what I had to say in my first post here and elabourated on it in my second. You can find my responses on page 4.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Now I wasn't suggesting that one could ever rape with impunity, regardless what land they may own. Punishment is bound to happen, from heaven if not at the hands of men. Rather, the reason why a state may not punish someone who is sovereign on their own unrestricted land, is that they are not members of that state (I assume so because had they been members, they would most likely be required as a condition of membership to surrender at least some of their land-rights to that state). As I suggested earlier, a state could (and should) isolate such lands where heinous crimes as rape are practised and cut off any support and supplies for the people there who do it.

Meanwhile I notice your latest comment:

<<is anybody thick enough to think that if one buys a property, one can commit rape in it or on it ? That somehow, the boundaries of a bit of land make you immune to the law of the land?>>

I hope that I already managed to satisfactorily convey to you that this is absolutely not my view.

However, "the law of the land" only applies to a land rightly owned by the imposer of that law. This could not happen without the consent of the natural owner of the land in question.

---

Dear Jayb,

I have not made any special references to Muslims.

Those who wish to benefit from beings members of a state must adhere to the conditions of that membership. Muslims are not exempt: you can't eat the cake and have it too.

Yuyutsu,

There is no such thing as a 'natural owner'. All of your premises are faulty, so your conclusions are faulty. End of.

Joe

//phantom Christians.//

Phantom Christians? What phantom Christians? I don't believe in the supernatural, Joe. The Christians I was referring to the physical flesh-and-blood kind with an objective existence (insofar as anything can be said to have an objective existence: I'll leave that for the philosophers to bicker about).

//What 'Christians don't recognize Australian Law' ?//

The criminal ones, Joe.

//As for your silly comment, " ..... may I remind you that you were responding to a post calling for the exile of an entire group of people from Australia because they don't believe in the right God? "//

Joe, you asked the question 'people couldn't possibly be that backward, not in 2016 ?'. I answered it, citing the example of Jayb's backwards thinking. Why is it that you always get your panties in such a bunch when I point out that sentiments like those expressed by Jayb are backwards, not to mention morally objectionable?

//As an atheist, I didn't know there were such things as 'right gods'.//

As an agnostic pantheist, I'm not so sure myself. But I'm not the right guy to ask: you should have a chat to runner instead. He'll tell you there is definitely a right god. Different people have different notions of which is the right god(s), but they are sure that there is one (or more). People like Jayb seem to take the view that the right god is 'anything but Allah'. This is unfair on the Muslims that aren't dicks. It also lets off too easily dicks who are inspired to do dickish things by religions other than Islam.

Hi Toni,

Although I'm not a Christian, or perhaps because I'm not one, I don't know about the appalling crime statistics for practising Christians. Do you mean priests, etc. exercising their power over young children, or Christians generally, in everyday life ? Do you have any actual figures ?

I'm not sure what that might have to do with this thread, about the right to rape women on one's private land. Or on Allah's land, with respect to Muslims.

Despite any assertions to the contrary, I'm not joined at the hip with Jayb. What he says, he says and I listen. I don't speak for him, nor him for me.

As it happens, I don't support the expulsion of any group of Australians.

As a pantheist, your views may be closer to those of Runner than mine.

And I don't wear panties, except on Friday nights. Come to think of it, I'd better put some trousers on, in case somebody knocks on the door: thanks.

Cheers,

Joe

Yutsie: Muslims are not exempt: you can't eat the cake and have it too.

They, don't think so.

TL: Phantom Christians.

I took Joes Phantom Christians to mean Non-practising. I maybe wrong.

TL: I point out that sentiments like those expressed by Jayb are backwards, not to mention morally objectionable?

I take that as your personal opinion. Well I can't force you to accept my opinion & I wouldn't try, but you're wrong.

TL: may I remind you that you were responding to a post calling for the exile of an entire group of people from Australia because they don't believe in the right God? "

No, It's not got anything to do with a "Right God" It has to do with the "Right Dogma." Things like, Insisting on only Sharia Law, killing people if they won't convert, marrying babies, insisting it's OK to rape women who dare show their faces in public, then get rid of the evidence by killing the rape victim.

Would I exile this group from Australia. Yes I would.

I take it, you wouldn't, & I'm backward & wrong?

Dear Joe,

No natural owners, only natural robbers?

What, below or above the earth, gives a group of people, calling themselves "the state" any right to impose themselves on their neighbours who live peacefully on their[XXXXX]God's land?

Being an atheist, I'm pretty sure you won't claim that to be God's decree, but then there are those who worship guns, thus believing that the land was divinely granted to them by their own god.

YUyutsu,

"What, below or above the earth, gives a group of people, calling themselves "the state" any right to impose themselves on their neighbours who live peacefully on their[XXXXX]God's land?"

The will of the people. The vote. The people, choosing their candidates (and copping the candidates who they didn't vote for if they get more votes) and the summation of that vote, i.e. the parliament.

What gives you the right to think that you can have absolute control over land you may have purchased the rights to from somebody else who had also purchased the rights to use the land, and ultimately from somebody purchasing those rights from the state ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Since I discard the third possibility, that you are an evil cruel and heartless brute, the two remaining options are that either you haven't read what I wrote or you haven't understood it and thought it through.

The world existed before there were states.
People lived on this earth before they formed states.
Animals still live on this earth without forming states.

Morality and decency, right and wrong existed long before states were formed, but for some strange reason you seem to believe that certain groups of people are exempt from morality and decency and that it's OK for them to do the wrong thing by others, only because they call themselves "states".

Do you believe in natural justice at all, or is justice a feature of the state?

Let's begin with the simple question (from http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/cat/Default2.aspx): "A small girl is playing on a swing in a local playground when an adult comes along and pushes her off into the dirt for no other reason than that he'd had a bad day at work and wanted to take it out on somebody who couldn't fight back. Are his actions morally wrong?"

If you say that it depends on "The will of the people", then what if those people democratically elected Hitler and the small girl happened to be Jewish?

Now suppose a family lived happily on their farm for 50 generations, suppose they keep to themselves and speak their own language which you do not understand. Then one day you come and present them with documents and summons in English (they don't understand what you want, so they wipe their noses with it), then further documents claiming they haven't been registered and paying their taxes, which they still do not understand, then you come with a bulldozer and destroy their homes, trees and gardens, throwing their elderly and babies in the paddock.

Would you be justified in doing so because you acted on behalf of a state and "the will of its people"?

Even if your group of people really fancied building a road through there?

(continued...)

(...continued)

At olden times there were prophets who were not afraid to admonish even kings for their cruelty (see 1 Kings 21:17-19). If they had democracies at the time, then surely they wouldn't hesitate to admonish the elected representatives in the same manner.

"The will of the people" would imply that some people have a right to impose their will over others, simply because they happen to be a majority of a selected group. You could say, "I declare that myself-Loudmouth, Yuyutsu and Ttbn are a kindred-packagement, therefore we must conduct elections among us so the majority will decide which god we must all worship". What nonsense - I never agreed to associate myself with this kindred-packagement, yet you strangely seem to believe that if your group is large enough, has military might and you call it a "state" rather than "kindred-packagement", then it is somehow OK to include non-consenting people in its membership. It reminds me that some Islamists are doing just that in Syria and Iraq.

All that play of democracy, candidates, votes, etc. is meaningful only within a given group. If you haven't agreed to belong to that group then it has nothing to do with you.

While natural ownership may not always be that obvious and easy to determine as in the case of the above 50-generation family, it still exists.

I agree that this formal internal-procedure of purchasing/registering land, as commonly practised within states by their members, cannot by itself determine natural ownership. The determination of whose land it really is, was indeed obscured and complicated through centuries of land-grabbing by states. Yet no land ever belonged to a state to begin with and unless some land-owner(s) actually and willingly (without a gun pointed at them) surrendered their land to a state (perhaps upon willingly becoming its member, not that I've heard of such cases), the land in question does not belong to that state. It might be difficult by now, after all this mess caused by forcing people to use the state's procedures, to determine whose it is, but it's certainly not the state's!

Joe,
Ages ago I had a similar debate with Y about the state insisting he wear a helmet whilst riding his bike on a public road. He seems to think that if one did not vote for the government, one should not have to obey their laws.

It went on and on, which is why I seldom respond to Y's posts. I smile and read the next post.

Dear Banjo,

First, I don't have a bike.

I was about to purchase a bike in 1990, but then the law was introduced so I never proceeded with that purchase. I wanted to ride a bike because I was conscious of the environment and I also wanted to become fitter, but alas that didn't work out.

Now the reason an Australian-born need not obey the laws has nothing to do with whom they voted for (if even they voted at all), but with the fact that nobody has a right to impose their laws on you without your consent in the first place.

Personally I am in a different situation: on becoming an Australian citizen I accepted to follow the local laws. Nevertheless, I am under no obligation to like them, to agree with them, to consider them legitimate, or not to use my democratic rights for struggling to abolish them - as well as this whole stupid idea as if one person has a right to order another around.

Mention the word RAPE and everybody seems to jump up.
The use of the word RAPE is the same in the media as using the other four letter word.
The media would love to say F... but it is outlawed.
When German girls were raped it became the number one story world wide.
German Police tried to play down the fact that these were young male refugees who were raping.
The Police Chief even lost his job for being to politically correct by not stating which minority the rapists were from.
In Australia today we have a crime wave that is not mentioned in the media.
We have Muslims and African refugees making bombs or raping girls and even when the bomb squad is sent out to defuse the bomb.No mention is made in the media.
We are living in an age where the Police media units are controlling
what is reported.
Police are raiding homes of extremists or drug dealers and the media are not told because they are either Muslims or African refugees or both.
If they were Australian whites or Indigenous.The report would be circulated to the press