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