//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.