"Muslim woman faces possible jail after refusing to remove veil, stand for NSW judge

NSW authorities have given the green light to prosecute Moutia Elzahed, after she stated she wouldn’t “stand for anyone except Allah” when appearing before Judge Audrey Balla in December....Elzahed is one of two women married to convicted criminal and Islamic State extremist Hamdi Alqudsi.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/34380244/muslim-woman-faces-possible-jail-after-refusing-to-remove-veil-stand-for-judge/#page1

It's about time. These people enjoy our generosity then thumb their noses at us and until now we have been too soft. I also see the first convicted terrorist is about to lose his Aus citizenship. Horay!

Just to add to the insult she was one of 2 wives the man had, don't know how many children, I would lay odds on both wives on welfare.

Yeah, let's all punish people for not dressing up in their Sunday Best. Because that is such an efficient use of our court time.

Contempt of court is a made-up offence, designed to extract heftier fines from the irreverent. Won't swear on the Bible? Contempt! Fine: 50 dollarpounds, Do Not Pass Go etc.

Bit of a poor rub if you're a committed but desperately poor atheist without even 5 dollarpounds to your name... you'll wind up greater than 45 dollarpounds in debt for no worse crime than having courage in your convictions.

Judges are decent, nice people - as far as I know. But I've only met one personally, and my appreciation for the wisdom and grace of the Honourable Raymond Burke (retired) can't excuse the failings we have inherited from the English system of law.

Respect is earned, not demanded. If the court does naught to earn my esteem, and merely demands it, why should I be so freely giving of it? They've not bloody earnt it.

Phuck the courts and their archaic, forelock-tugging rules. Their pomposity and grandeur serves no useful purpose except to artificially inflate the cost of legal procedure. I used to have a mate whose dad was barrister. I remember one afternoon when we were hanging out, and Alan came into show off his new wig. I'd want to show it off too - the price tag was astronomical. I don't even want to tell you; you'd just shed bitter tears over all that is wrong with the world. It cost way too much for a shite wig.

They pass the costs onto the consumer. Barristers would be just as effective without the shite wigs, but they have to have them or it's contempt. If they could get rid of them they could charge the customer less, and cut down on the court's air-conditioning bills.

But they don't want to give up all the pomposity and grandeur and wank, and we all end up footing the bill.

I used to think like this lady and even refused to stand on occasion.
What has this court/judge done to deserve my respect I thought.

But then I saw something from Japan that changed my mind.
Respect should be our default position. Respect does not need to be earned. It should be the way we act at all times in a civilised society.
Respect can be lost but it does not need to be earned. Life would be much better if we all showed a bit more respect all the time.

Clever people those Japanese.

//Clever people those Japanese.//

Really? Why is all their pornography so rapey, then? I mean, western pornography is quite often rapey... one has to go out of one's way to find decent porn.

But I've yet to find any Japanese porn that is not creepy in some way... just sayin'.

A hardened crim can bow to His Honour while planning to order a jail visitor to murder someone . He wears a respectable black suit and tie with wig and the judge thinks "what a nice gentleman with handkerchief in his top pocket and polished shoes. He gets 4 years reduction in jail time."

'Muslim woman faces jail'. Phooey! She no more faces jail than I do for getting up this morning. The media is always blathering 'headlines' about people facing jail for all manner of things. 'Faces life in prison after killing' someone is a good one. The rest of us know that the courts are too weak to impose a decent, deterrent sentence.

Courts now go out of their way NOT to send people to jail, or punish them at all. Easy bail, allowing offenders to re-offend while waiting be tried sometime in the distant future; home detention; unrecorded offences, it's all there.

Australia has only just got around to removing the citizenship of terrorist for the first time ever.
This face-hiding woman will most likely get off scot-free, to do the same thing as often as she chooses. Does anyone know of a case where a Muslim was punished for showing contempt for our courts and customs?

She's not a true Muslim for facing jail . She should not face anyone except Allah.

Toni Lavis is right - the arrogance of the legal profession is disgusting.

No one should stand for anyone else unless they want to. Do you stand for your plumber when he comes to fix your sink? Legal professionals are just doing a job for society like we all are. Their job is no more due respect than anyone else. The pomposity with which they go about their job is intended to try and create a false impression that their job is more valuable then anyone else's. In a natural crisis their skills and education would be totally worthless.

If they want respect then they should behave with the dignity and integrity that all other professionals do and wear ordinary clothes which do not draw attention to themselves. It is what they say and do in the courtroom that matters and not the costumes and dramatics that they conjure for their own benefit.

I sat down when my plumber connected the sewer but he ordered me to dig to find the council pipe. My respect increased when I saw the size of his bill in a natural crisis and he had no police backing him up. And I kept my hair on and didn't swear and he didn't re-offend.

nicknamenick:

You should do stand-up comedy. You would get instant feed back about how incredibly funny you truly are. You are just wasting your talents on this forum. No applause, no rewards, no kudos or fame and fortune.

How you keep it up day after day without anything in return is just amazingly generous of you.

But then again you may find out that you are not funny at all. This way you can be funny in your imagination at least. You can convince yourself that you are a great talent if no one else. That is probably all that matters to you. You cannot contribute anything constructive but at least you can be destructive by abusing the forums to feed your imaginary world. At least if you are destructive then you are someone eh?

If you want to be funny though you should do it where it can be truly tested. This would be the true mark of your desire. You should either put up and test your talents where they can be tested or stop trying to childishly disrupt the forum.

Some here want special treatment for Moutia Elzahed who broke the law.

If she broke the law and the allegation is that she repeatedly refused to stand for the judge, breaking the law in the process, she should be charged. Why should there be an exception?

If it was anyone else she would already be in a cell, contemplating her contempt for the law and remaining there until she demonstrated some respect for the law.

This is a democracy and laws are passed by duly elected representatives in a Parliament. Some here need to get out of that childish knee-jerk reaction against authority. Their oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) must be affecting their relationships and detracting from their enjoyment of life.

For OYO's ODDs,

http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/9139.html

Dear Mikk,

I agree that everyone deserves respect. This is not an exclusive Japanese feature as the Son of God also taught the West by respecting the lowliest sinner. Deep down we are all children of God.

However, while one should show every respect for the image of God as present in the judge (though on a human level s/he is obviously a sinner for accepting our stolen tax money in salary), one should not show any respect for the criminal institution that he represents - the state.

Reading about this case in isolation I would take my hat off to Moutia Elzahed for her courage to face off and not bow down to the regime. However, one has to bear in mind that the reason for her being taken to court was that she supported Daesh - even a much worse regime than the Australian state. This is clearly an hypocrisy for which this woman will and should be punished - but by Allah, not by the Australian court.

leoj:

Not all laws are reasonable. There are some very unjust laws. We should never obey laws unless we consider it reasonable to do so or unless it is not worth the bother to challenge those laws.

She obviously thought it was worth it to disobey that law.

When laws are challenged we should examine them to see if they are still reasonable and standing for a judge is an archaic act of servitude which should be struck from the books. Most people do not bother about it but it does not mean they agree with it that it is reasonable.

If judges think that it is a mark of respect then they are deluded. It just means people have better things to do with their time than challenge judge's delusions.

New laws were introduced last year following well
publicised instances of religious extremists not
standing in court. These are new disrespectful
behaviour laws under the District Court Act
for intentionally disrespectful behaviour.
The offences carry a maximum of 14 days in prison or
$1,100 fines.

I remember seeing the radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika
who was asked in an interview on the "7.30 Report"
"Don't you think Australian 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 is an Australian law and there is an
Islamic law."

No. Our State is a secular State. There isn't a separate
stream of law derived from religious sources that
competes with or supplants Australian laws in
governing our civil society. There is one law we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by
Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

If a person wants to live under religious laws there
are countries where they might feel at ease. But not
in Australia.

Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge
the rights and liberties of others - the right to live
without being maimed, the right to live without being
bombed. We need to ask all of the people living in
this country to subscribe to a framework that can
protect the rights and liberties of all.
We must be very clear on this. This is not optional.
You may not like the laws but the rule of law applies
to all Australians - there are no exceptions.

The woman - Moutia Etzahed refused to temporarily show her face
in court when asked by the judge to do so. She
refused. She was offered a separate room, or to have the
court cleared of people (except for lawyers). She
refused. Judge Balla made the right decision.

cont'd ...

Unless we have a consensus to abide by our laws, none
of us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties
without being threatened by others. We have a compact
to live under a democratic legislature and obey the
laws it makes. In doing this the rights and liberties
of all are protected.

Imagine what would happen if we all started to
disobey laws that we thought were not to our liking.
"Nope I'm not going to drive on this side of the road -
it's stupid!"
"I can drink as much as I want, and drive!"
And so on.

phanto,

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. That is thankfully because we live in a democracy where the rule of law prevails equally and for all.

I am not going to repeat the arguments for the disrespectful behaviour law. Most here would be aware of the history, see here,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/disrespectful-court-behaviour-laws-tested-in-new-south-wales/8107300

Break the law and be charged as any other citizen would be. As well, this is a secular State and a medieval religion should not be any immunity or defence against charging and due penalty where found guilty.

They more than likely did the wrong thing in order to earn their court visit.
We're a secular country, the law comes before religion.
If they were vetted and this was not explanied to them by the person doing the vetting, then this person who was ultimately responsible for allowing them entry into Australia should also be in court doing some explaining, in my opinion.

In fact I think their charges should be more serious charges.
Can we really blame a Muslim for acting like a Muslim?
Would this not be the same as blaming an idiot for acting like an idiot?
It's not the idiots fault that they're an idiot.
And how do you blame the idiot, if you already recognise they are an idiot?
If you recognise they are an idiot and you give them the benefit of the doubt that they will not act like an idiot, does that not make you the idiot?

If they can't show our court respect then they're not showing our country or rule of law respect; and they shouldn't be here.
If they don't value our country or our culture, our society and rule of law then I'm not in any way obligated (either morally or otherwise) to give a crap about them or their claimed rights.

Contempt of Court, 3 months jail, No sympathy, Get her out of here.
(and preferably on the next flight back to wherever the hell she came from)

Could we just pay undesirables to leave?
Would it not be cheaper?
Would it not be a better longterm outcome?

Here's 50 grand to go back to where you came from.
Don't ever come back or you'll be shot on sight.

leoj:

Perhaps hiding your face in court should be challenged because it has ramifications for jurors or those trying to determine guilt or innocence.

Showing respect is a vague term. You can have no respect whatsoever for the judge but still stand up. Standing does not necessarily indicate respect. It just shows compliance which is different.

The court should have to prove how not standing up in anyway proves contempt of court. The court will go about its business just the same whether you stand or sit. It does not need your compliance to do what it is there to do which is to administer justice.

So if there is no good reason for doing it then why insist by law that people stand?

phanto, a short while back you appointed yourself the Forum's Good Humor Nazi, with the following blurb:

"The point of the forum as I (phanto) would see it is not to amuse. If you want to amuse others then there are far more appropriate places to do that. I (phanto)think the forum is meant to be a place where people come to try and find a consensus about the best way to organise our society."

Now you are telling NNN;

"you should do stand-up comedy. You would get instant feed back about how incredibly funny you truly are. You are just wasting your talents on this forum. No applause, no rewards, no kudos or fame and fortune.

How you keep it up day after day without anything in return is just amazingly generous of you."

If NNN is not appreciated by some such as you, after all your rule number 273 states "No Funnies On The Forum", then there may be others who don't mind what is posted. Like me who takes no offence at anything that is posted, but no being GY I like you have no say in the matter.

"Do you stand for your plumber when he comes to fix your sink?"

Nah phanto, I just fall to the floor when he presents me with his bill, and cry out to Allah; "Why have you imposed this unjust punishment on me, oh mighty one, $300 to fix a leaky tap!"

I also agree with Toni, the legal profession is populated with pompous class conscious gits, although I did like 'Rumpole of the Bailey' my kinda lawye

Dear Foxy,

This is not the first, nor even the second time that you quote this specific rubbish. As I picked on other fallacies therein before, I will today pick on one different sentence:

«We need to ask all of the people living in this country to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.»

No problem with ASKING, you may ask nicely for others to cooperate with your ideas and try to convince them through reason and emotion that those ideas should prevail - then maybe they will agree, maybe they will not agree and maybe they will agree with a modified version.

But here the author of these words is all about DEMANDING things to be HIS WAY: tut-tut!

Subscribing to A framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all does not mean that this framework has to necessarily be YOUR framework. BTW, you must admit that your current framework DOES NOT protect the rights and liberties of all, for despite having it, crime obviously still exists.

Another false statement stands out:

«We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.»

No we have no such compact - show me the paper, show me my signature, I bet that you have not signed such a compact either, nor even have your parents!

«Imagine what would happen if we all started to disobey laws that we thought were not to our liking»

We cannot START disobeying laws because this is already an everyday occurrence. You for example are disobeying my law of not quoting this rubbish ever again. You seem to believe irrationally that laws that were created by some privileged people that you approve of are to be obeyed while the laws created by others should not. This is sheer bullying.

phanto,

Courts Legislation Amendment
(Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/bills/c69cafa6-222e-4f30-804b-75182a26c31f

It was debated and passed by both houses. Now it is up to the court to decide. That is if she is charged, which appears likely.

In Australia she is guaranteed by law of being shown the respect, fairness and human decency that from her alleged behaviour she herself doesn't return and even despises.

phanto
You think I was joking? No it was serious comparing plumbers and judges to expand your point.

On a charge of terrorism it seems weirdly inappropriate to threaten jail for having bent knees instead of straight knees .

Paul1405:

I am sure NNN can stand up for himself and it is very patronising of you to answer on his behalf. Of course you are actually answering on your own behalf about you own issues with attention seeking on the forum.

You said you would take on board my comments about your own abuse of the forum but you obviously still harbor resentment about my comments. Either you take it on board or you don’t. You obviously do not agree with me that this is not the place to be a comedian so why not? Why do you think it is appropriate to use this place for attention seeking in respect to your humour? If you want people to respect you humour why not go to a place where they judge that kind of thing on its own merits unless you are afraid that you are not funny and that you really are just seeking attention?

“Like me who takes no offence at anything that is posted,”

You seem to be taking offence at what I am posting.

“but no being GY I like you have no say in the matter.”

Well if I have no say in the matter then you have nothing to worry about do you? So why are you complaining about it?

NNN:

“You think I was joking? No it was serious comparing plumbers and judges to expand your point.”

OK if you are only joking then you should not need to explain yourself. You will get nowhere in stand-up if you have to keep explaining which things are jokes and which are not. But then you could just blame the audience for not having a sense of humour.

LEOJ:

“In Australia she is guaranteed by law of being shown the respect, fairness and human decency that from her alleged behaviour she herself doesn't return and even despises.”

You still haven’t explained how standing for a judge shows respect and how refusing to do so shows disrespect.

This is not a minor offence, & it has nothing to do with respect for the particular judge. It is respect for our law, & our country.

This must be a deportation offence. It must be made totally clear that there is a simple cost to living in our country, & accepting our welfare/charity. That is acceptance of & compliance with our laws & customs.

Anyone making such grandiose statements of disrespect for us, our country & our laws should be removed immediately from our country, & dumped in whatever hell hole they came from.

In whatever hell hole she came from, she would have been beheaded if she had shown such disrespect for those in charge. What we need is perhaps some of their law enforcement ideas, just not their people.

phanto
I wrote “You think I was joking? No it was serious".
Will I spell it out again?

Toni,

"Contempt of court is a made-up offence, designed to extract heftier fines from the irreverent. Won't swear on the Bible? Contempt! Fine: 50 dollarpounds, Do Not Pass Go etc.

Bit of a poor rub if you're a committed but desperately poor atheist without even 5 dollarpounds to your name... you'll wind up greater than 45 dollarpounds in debt for no worse crime than having courage in your convictions."

Bit out of touch there.

An atheist, poor or rich, can make an affirmation instead of an oath, such as

"I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

No one is forced to swear on a Bible in Australian Courts, in fact, in Christian theology forced swearing is null and void.

Just a point, but how do we know that the person appearing in court is the person called, if they are completely covered and no one can see their face?

NNN:

Yeah you had better because I can't tell the difference between your jokes and your serious comments and if it is really important to you then you will want to make sure that you are understood.

phanto
It's all serious rather than comedy, which seems a serious matter to you.
NSW Act:
.." that behaviour is disrespectful to the Court or the Judge presiding over the proceedings (according to established court practice and convention). Maximum penalty: 14 days imprisonment or ".

So they can't define what has to be done and anyway it's just stuff that used to be done. They used torture in the past so that can be legal today. Paul Keating grabbed the Queen, in Trump practice and convention, but against the convention for royalty, and judges represent the Queen so who knows what the conventions are?

Dear Hasbeen,

Shall I offer you my head so the Christian country of Australia can finally match the Islamic Daesh in cruelty?

«Anyone making such grandiose statements of disrespect for
[1] us,
[2] our country &
[3] our laws»

I have full and deep respect for [1], you and all the people of Australia.
I can have neither respect nor disrespect for that which does not exist such as [2], because this continent (and surrounding islands) is not yours or anybody else's for that matter.
I have nothing but contempt for laws that are imposed by some people against others without consent, such as [3].

If I were to accept that you and your people own this continent merely because your ancestors happened to have superior military and maritime power in the 18th century, then I would similarly be forced to accept the legitimacy of Chinese-communist control over the miserable people of China and Tibet as well as their attempted control over the people of Taiwan. Indeed I would then be forced to accept the legitimacy of every bullying boy in the schoolyard.

To disrespect an individual judge is wrong (though it should not carry a punishment).
To disrespect your law and what the judge stands for, is a necessary moral response in opposition to violence.

NNN:

“It's all serious rather than comedy, which seems a serious matter to you.”

What is serious to me is that people do not use these forums to seek attention for things other than their opinions.

“So they can't define what has to be done and anyway it's just stuff that used to be done.”

Obviously they can define it. Standing up is respectful and sitting down is disrespectful. What they have to show is why this is so. What is the reasoning behind it other than to bully and intimidate people?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have no wish to argue with you.
Everyone in Australia must obey laws established by
our elected governments. Equally, all Australians are protected
by the rule of law. Australians are free to protest
the actions of government and to campaign to
change laws. However, no one is "above the law."
Religious laws have no legal status in Australia.
I can't make it any clearer for you. Elected parliaments
are the only bodies able to make our laws or delegate
the authority to make laws in this country.

Non recognition of the legitimacy of any of our laws
will not stand up in our courts.

phanto
As I'm not cracking jokes in Mr Graham Young's Forum but making opinions there's nothing more to be said . Seriously .

"Obviously they can define it. Standing up is respectful and sitting down is disrespectful."
Ah but they don't say that in the definitions in the Act . It would be a joke ( banned under the Dead Serious Phanto 2017 section 666) to write " all persons shall incline the spinal column forward by 20-45 degrees when the attendant says "Stand" or get the slammer for a fortnight". Bowing is deviating from "stand" so legally the woman obeyed if her spine is upright , more than the wobbly ones.
Do not laugh , smile or lighten up even if a phantom.

Dear Foxy,

You have no wish to argue with me, yet you do.

No wonder you complain that you can't make it any clearer for me, or convince me of that which is untrue in the first place.

* People in Australia are fully able not to (that is the antonym of "must") follow the laws of your elected government. Yes, they might be persecuted as a result and suffer gravely at the hands of those evil forces, so what does it prove?

* It is simply not the case that "all Australians are protected by the rule of law" because one can only be protected against that which they wish to be protected against.

* No one is "under the law" unless they willingly accept that position. You seem to - I don't.

* Elected parliaments are the only bodies able to make YOUR laws: this does not imply that they are the only bodies able to make laws in general, which is obviously a false statement.

Undoubtedly, non-recognition of the legitimacy of any of your laws will not stand up in your courts, just as a leopard cannot change his spots - this fact we agree on, but it doesn't make your laws one iota more legitimate.

"* Elected parliaments are the only bodies able to make YOUR laws:"
That's only because the British empire said so, so probably no-one has any authority beyond their own keyboard. The Poms said the Governor-in Council ( the Cabinet or wooden box) appoints judges with equal pecking order to Parliament. Judges can block laws by the peoples' house cabinet and make their own common law with a side board of plonk . That's the law with peanuts or chips.

Yuyutsu,

Perhaps not explicitly, you don’t.

<<No one is "under the law" unless they willingly accept that position. You seem to - I don't.>>

But by benefiting from our laws, both directly and indirectly, you have implicitly accepted them and are therefore “under” them, whether you like that or not.

NNN:

"Do not laugh , smile or lighten up"

That's what all attention seekers say when they have been exposed for what they are. Pretty much proof of it actually.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The law establishes the rules that define a person's
rights and obligations in our society. The law also
sets penalities for people who violate these rules,
and it states how governments shall enforce the rules
and penalties. However, the laws enforced by government
can be changed. In fact, laws frequently are changed
to reflect changes in a society's needs and attitudes.

Our society could not exist if all people did just as
they pleased without regard for the rights of others.
Nor could our society exist if its members did not
recognise that they also have certain obligations toward
one another.

I would have thought that you would
recognise the fact that law is a set of enforced rules
under which a society is governed and is one of the most
basic social institutions - and one of the most
necessary. You surprise me.

NNN, I shutter in terror every time I have to call a plumber! He carries a weapon of mass destruction, he calls it his invoice book.

Just the other day good mate Daveo the plumber, called around to have a look at my hose connection.

Was there 15 minutes, just long enough for him to knock back my last thee coldies, I asked for an itemized account:

DAVO'S ACE PLUMBING

Parts....... $1,000
Labour...... $2,000
PS Fee ..... $5,000
GST For Me...$1,000

Cash Only, mates rates...$10,000 (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

I said "it seems fair Daveo, but the PS Fee $5,000?

Davo's answer; "Don't yah want me kids to have a Private School education!".."Besides, I've got Overheads, he's run'n in the third at Randwick this avo, get on the good thing!" Me; "What happen to your nag Monkey Wrench last week? Davo; "I dropped 10 grand on the mongrel me self, what's your beef?"


All I could say then was "Allah have mercy!"

As Davo walked out the door, with my wife and two kids as part payment, his parting words to me were. "Ah. cock, next time I come in.... ON YAH FEET!"

Good mate that Davo, salt of the earth, give yah anything, except maybe a good plumbing job and a fair dinkum bill.

Dear Foxy,

You are facing a legitimate problem - but this doesn't imply that your specific solution to that problem is legitimate.

Your problem is, so I understand, that you want to be safe and feel safe. Obviously there is no absolute safety in this world, where the unexpected can still happen no matter what you do, but you still wish for a degree of relative safety - you want to reduce to a reasonable minimum your chances of being killed, maimed, raped, robbed, swindled, arsoned or being run over by a stray car driven on the wrong side of the road by a drunk driver.

Fair enough!

But then, perhaps for fear, perhaps for lack of creative imagination, rather than exploring the full range of options, you stick to one particular solution, the one you grew up with and already know. While you are willing and open to explore minor variations, such as democracy vs. autocracy or monarchy, or whether parliament consists of one, two or three houses, etc., your basic solution revolves around:

1. A society based solely on a geographical area that includes everyone who lives in that, typically large, area - whether or not they want to belong to the given society.
2. Laws that bind all the people within that geographical area, whether they accept them or otherwise.
3. The concept of guilt, attached to breaking the above laws, along with the concept of punishment together with a judicial and policing system which enforces these laws, using whatever degree of violence is required to achieve this objective.

If I need to describe such a system with just one-word attribute, then this would be VIOLENT. If I am allowed to add a second attribute, this would be PRIMITIVE.

You may personally not experience this solution as violent, perhaps because only rarely you find yourself at the receiving end of its stick, but other people are HURT by this solution of yours, often even more hurt than they would from the original problem (lack of safety).

(continued...)

(...continued)

While my direct personal suffering from this solution is quite moderate, I don't want to take part in, or to be protected by, such solutions that inflicts suffering on others in my name.

The question is, can't you achieve your unquestionably-deserved objective of (relative) personal-safety by any other means that do not hurt others, or at least not as much?

For example, let's look at one simple modification that goes some way toward alleviating the suffering that is caused by this system - decrease the size of states!

This would allow those who are unhappy with the laws in their area to move, not very far elsewhere where the laws and norms of society are more palatable to them.

If all you are after is personal safety, then you don't need to force your ideas and laws over millions of people against their will. A smaller area for a state, say with a few 1000's of people, where everyone knows everyone else, could serve this purpose just as well.

"Oh no", you might say, "this would be an economic disaster..."

- if that's the case, then it exposes ulterior motives: now society, its state, its laws and its punitive mechanisms exist not solely for personal-safety, but for economic gain. If so (and no, I know that you haven't claimed this, not so far), that would mean that you are willing to cause suffering to others just for your personal economic gain. This is greed and many nations are built around it, rather than around creating safety. Would this kind of behaviour sit comfortably with your conscience?

[doesn't it ring a bell for some of us regarding the difference between refugees and economic-migrants, the former being more forgivable than the latter?]

No, I don't think that you are an evil person who is happy to hurt others for personal gain - Quite the opposite. I rather give you the benefit of the doubt, that you simply always went along with what you are used to and what they taught you in school, without considering all the implications and unintended consequences.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You so much for having gone to this much
trouble to explain your position to me. I must
admit you have given me a great deal to think
about.

I've always believed that a world without laws
would be problematic. That society could not
function because everyone would operate
according to their own desires and we would all
be open to all manner of abuse.

I thought that in our society no one is above the
law, which is, after all the creation of the
people, not something imposed on them. The
people in a democracy submit to the laws because
laws prevent or deter people from behaving
in a manner that negatively affects other people.
Laws regulate society, enforce rights and
resolve conflicts.

However, I shall think about what you've posted.

Foxy,

If you want to see a world without laws then may I recommend Mars?

phanto
You're giving me too much attention. Could you control someone else, good girl .

Tony
Yes stand up to plumbers , the clowns. "Stand-up comedy has its origin in free speech in Greece 400 BC, used to tell reality without censorship. Stand-up comedy in the United Kingdom began in the music halls of the 18th and 19th centuries. The heavy censorship regime of the Lord Chamberlain's Office required all comedians to submit their acts for censorship . The comedian was then obliged not to deviate from the act in its edited form ( or " phanto "). "

Yuyutsu
The problem is as you describe it. Or rather , the various problems have various attempts to handle them. Is designing smaller units a solution? Is part of a cup of tea cooler than the whole cup?
An early small unit was the Dutch ship Batavia where the shipwreck community had violence. The Port Jackson community also in 1788 was not nice . Humans produce sewage and maybe there's a limit to solving that as with law . We have local police and courts and councils and OLO where heads are banged on walls .

Is Mise
China is on the way to Mars which is a sand island in the south China space. " Serious crimes committed in space in the future will likely fall under the jurisdiction and laws of the United Nations, and be heard by the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty signed by 103 countries." Of course the US in not under the ICC law and won't stand for the judge even if she is Muslim. In such cases a heart warming blast from a pair of Colt .45s at 10 paces will settle the dust .

Dear Is Mise,

What?

Read my posts you silly man!

cont'd ...

However, you're right about Mars. ;-)

Foxy,

There was only a very remote time in our past when there were no laws, whenever a group of people join together they make laws to regulate their group.
Yuyutsu's world would be one of rapine and murder and heft where the strongest would prevail over the rest, and you are going to give this weird view consideration?
Yuyutsu is in favour of unlimited gun ownership, and other offensive weapons; at least in such a world one would be able to defend one's self without fear of retribution from the law.

Does Switzerland have something useful?
It's prison rate is 83 in 1000,000.
Australia has about 200 ( one quarter being Aboriginal) so 150 Europeans etc.
Spain 148.
Germany doesn't have much crime because they have laws against it....
90 ( one third being foreign) so about 60.
The larger size of Germany doesn't seem to make it worse than small Switzerland. UK is about the same as European Australia but Japan has 60 like Germany. The worst is America First at 724. On this basis , it seems Great Democracy isn't great.

Dear Is Mise,

Various opinions can be considered that does
not necessarily mean that they will be adopted.
Part of a discussion forum is hearing everyone's
point of view - isn't it?

Is Mise, glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking on guns. you have a way to go, but next thing you know, you will probably agree with a law that prohibits children under 5 playing with loaded guns unless supervised, and defiantly no automatic weapons in the school yard during recess, lunch time only.

If we didn't trade with Mars, where would we get our supply of 'Mars Bars' from ...Pluto? We trade 'Earth Bars' for 'Mars Bars'. Don't you know anything.

Paul,

Lunch time is a recess, don't you know anything?

Dear Nick,

Of course, smaller states are not a complete solution on their own. One vital element that was missing in your examples, is that you must be able to leave if unhappy. Once a state sees that its best citizens are leaving in droves to neighbouring states where individual/group freedoms are more respected, then it will try to mend its ways. Such competition over freedom does not exist when one big state spans a whole continent.

---

Dear Is Mise,

«Yuyutsu is in favour of unlimited gun ownership»

UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED.

Once you agree to participate in a society, you need to follow its constitution, which could possibly include the ability of that society to limit your gun ownership, whether by means of laws or by some other means - why not?

The problem with existing states/societies is that they never sought the permission of the people who live in its claimed territory to be included in that society and be subjected to its constitution.

Yes the number of N Zealanders coming to Oz must have some effect in the Gov Generals' bunker. But not much. If a guy lands on the beach with a year's supply of baked beans , sleeping bag for the roadside , drinks from creeks and takes zero benefits he may argue in court that he's free from Law . He could claim a beach as his own like Capt Cook did but that comes down to gun barrels as you say.

Taxes and death . In WWI there was anti-conscription and in Vietnam conscription, random boys were ordered to lose their lives without the right to vote. The armies used to shoot deserters which defines what "liberty" really means , a spray-painted type of slavery.

I see from the yahoo picture that it wasn't just a veil this enemy was wearing, it was a body bag. Women who dress in body bags are declaring that any man who can see them will want to jump them and that any woman dressed so she can be seen is inviting sex. Thus the body bag is a demonstrated insult to all men and to all women not wearing body bags. So the sight of a woman in a body bag is offensive to decent people, in the same way that the sight of a bloke displaying a swastika is offensive to decent people.

Now that's no reason to ban such clothing, but it is every reason to regard with total contempt anyone getting about like that.

There are also good reason to hold contempt for a religion which preaches coercion of people who don't believe in it. Not only contempt for the religion, but for the "holy books" that express it, and for anyone who peddles it or has peddled it - all the way back to its desert bandit originator.

Mr Trump is wrong to bar people from the USA based on their place of birth, but he would be dead right looking very hard at anyone seeking to bring into his country a religion that calls for enslavement of non-believers. So should we in Australia.

Amen, amen to that.
" Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services with a fine of one shilling (£0.05; about £17 $30 today) for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood were executed for sedition in 1593.

Matthew was one of James I's chief supporters at the 1604 conference and he promptly began a campaign to purge the archdiocese of nonconforming influences, both Separatists and those wishing to return to the Catholic faith.. prominent Separatists were confronted, fined, and imprisoned. He is credited with driving recusants out of the country, those who refused to attend Anglican services.

Brewster is known to have been fined £20 (about £3.89 thousand today, $6000) in absentia for his non-compliance with the church.

William Bradford of Austerfield kept a journal of the congregation's events that later was published as "Of Plymouth Plantation". Of this time, he wrote:

"But after these things they could not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted & persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were but as flea-bitings in comparison of these which now came upon them. For some were taken & clapt up in prison, others had their houses besett & watcht night and day, & hardly escaped their hands; and ye most were faine to flie & leave their howses & habitations, and the means of their livelehood."

Paul 1405:

“NNN, I shutter in terror every time ...... good plumbing job and a fair dinkum bill”

You have set the bar pretty high in your attempt to convince yourself that you are not just seeking attention. The effort that went into that post was a sign of someone desperately trying to deny his own behaviour. Trouble is how will you be able to keep it up?

Trying to co-opt NNN into your passive aggressive stance shows another glimpse of how desperate you are to avoid taking responsibility for your disruptive attention seeking.

NNN:

“phanto
You're giving me too much attention. Could you control someone else, good girl .”

It’s no good pleading with me to stop focusing on your attention seeking behaviour. You will have to come up with a better approach than that.

“The comedian was then obliged not to deviate from the act in its edited form ( or " phanto "). "

If you have a problem with my focus on your neurotic need for attention then you should deal with me directly. The way you hide behind cryptic clues is rather cowardly.

phanto
You know a great deal about psychiatric practice and terms. A lot. You have covered most of OLO and outside enemies too. I will write as I wish to write but you are no longer funny.

"«Yuyutsu is in favour of unlimited gun ownership»

UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED.

Once you agree to participate in a society, you need to follow its constitution, which could possibly include the ability of that society to limit your gun ownership, whether by means of laws or by some other means - why not?"

So, to your way of thinking, Muslim terrorists, or any terrorists/criminals who do not recognize our society and its laws can do whatever they like?

Dear Is Mise,

If you failed to notice, Muslim terrorists and other criminals already do whatever they like.

While they do whatever they like, you also do whatever you need to protect yourself and your family from harm. This is called 'self-defence' and has nothing to do with laws: as they never agreed to become part of your society, you are under no obligation to treat them in a civil way.

(as a side note, however, even where social laws do not apply, the laws of God cannot be bypassed and you will ultimately be accountable for your actions, especially if you overdo it and act against those who threaten you more severely than what is truly required for self-defence)

The focus should be on you, not on them: rather than being negative and blaming them saying "they are wrong", "they are guilty", "they ought to be punished", "I hate them", etc., you should be positive and say (and act accordingly): "Me, my family and those that I love are going to be safe and I will do whatever it takes to make them as safe as possible".

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

The Human Freedom Index 2016, a global measurement of personal, civil and economic freedom, established jointly by the Cato Institute of the US, the Fraser Institute of Canada and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom of Germany, places Australia as the 6th freest country in the world, on a par with Canada and the UK.

The top ten freest countries are as follows :

1. Hong Kong
2. Switzerland
3. New Zealand
4. Ireland
5. Denmark
6. Canada, UK, Australia
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

Here is the link :

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016.pdf

I guess 6th place is not too bad considering that there are about 200 countries in the world. We could certainly do much worse than that.

Nothing’s perfect. There’s no paradise on earth, I’m afraid. There are many freedoms I used to enjoy when I was a kid wandering about in the Queensland bush with my old 303 rifle I bought in the local army surplus store. No licence needed in those days. I even took it on the plane with me to Sydney. The pilot gave me permission provided I took the bolt out.

No need for a licence for the stray dog I grew up with either. As my mother wouldn’t let me keep it when it strayed into the garden as a little puppy, I shared it with one of my mates whose grandmother agreed to be the official owner (his mother wouldn’t let him keep it either). Nippy wandered around freely with us, spending a few days here and a few days there as he pleased, occasionally disappearing completely for several weeks. But he always showed up again somewhere or other, usually with severe cuts and scratches as though he had been in a fight – probably during the mating season.

I understand your feelings, Yuyutsu, but, all in all, I’m happy to be able to use public facilities occasionally (buses, trains, hospitals, schools, etc.). I regret the old bush tracks but I guess bitumen roads and modern bridges are better in the flood season. Worth paying for.

.

Thank you, Banjo.

The report is interesting indeed, but ridiculous too.

Switzerland second? They have conscription - a conscript is a slave, conscripts have no freedom of movement, they may not even move an arm or a leg without permission. Further, Swiss men are forced to keep a gun at home whether they agree or not. The alpine snow may be white but that place is very dark and Australia should score far above.

Look at the arbitrary bias: for example, a country scores points if women have the same rights for divorce as men. In the Philippines, divorce is equally illegal, so they get a score of 5/10.

One may well be comfortable in their society and happy to pay the price for roads, bridges and hospitals - this is fine and perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't address the moral issue: How dare I be part of and cooperate with such a body which forces itself on others who are not similarly comfortable and happy as myself to pay the price? It could be that 99.9999% are happy, but even if there is just one(1) person who is forced to live under the laws of a society against their will, then by accepting that society I am guilty of accepting evil and by being a member I am guilty of benefiting from coercion.

The one primary freedom that trumps all other freedoms is the freedom to belong or to not belong to a society (while remaining on the territory that it claims) and on that account, all countries get a score of 0 or thereabouts.

Suppose there existed a society where murder, rape and wife-beating were legal while internet-access, expression, demonstrations, political parties, religion, homosexuality, foreign-currency, divorce, etc. etc. were all banned - yet belonging to this hypothetical society was optional for all, then while I would personally hate to live in such a society, I would still find it perfectly moral, way more moral than say, Australia, where the option to opt-out from society is absent.

BP thanks for your link it is most interesting, lovely set of graphs. Unfortunate they are arbitrary, The findings in general are, if a country overall is wealthy, it rates higher than a poor country, both in human and economic terms. From a economic perspective Australia rates 7.93/10, and personal freedom 9.29/10 yet so many Australians are tied to the economic treadmill, granted they have lots of material goods, but they often pay a high price in personal freedom to satisfy that materialism, placed in servitude for the whole of their life just to service that wonderful life time debt they have incurred trying to get there. If we could quantify well-being and produce an index, we may find unexpected results. On the imaginary 'Happiness Index' Australians rate a poor 4.76/10, yet Fijians rate 9.83/10. Seems all this wonderfulness is simply based on Western values, then for Western countries are rated high, and the rest are stuffed.

Military intervention in Australia rates perfectly at 10/10, so benign. Yet Australia is one of the most militaristic countries in the world, as evident by our involvement in wars the world over. The average world citizen is much more likely to be killed by an Australian than say an Ethiopian, What then is the potential of military intervention in Australia by Australians, very high given the past history and right circumstances.

Yuyutsu, from my point of view the above is one of your best posts.

Yuyutsu is possibly from US? The revolution like the other ones make people feel they own the authority and can reject it for back-sliding. Many Americans feel they own guns as defense against Sam.
Oz only had Eureka stockade for a couple of hours. A permanent gun communal enclave would look like Scotland at its worst .

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« ... Australia, where the option to opt-out from society is absent »

.

I must confess that I didn't know that, Yuyutsu.

Would you be so kind as to let me have the references to the law that forbids "opting-out from society", together with the relevant sanctions ?

.

NNN:

"I will write as I wish to write "

There is no need to tell me your plans. You do not need my permission. Just go ahead and do it.

boring...

Dear phanto,

There is also no need for you to tell NNN
what to do either.

Quid pro quo.

Foxy:

And there is no need for you to tell me what to do when NNN is quite capable of doing that himself. It is patronising.

( now that's funny)

NNN:

It is true! You do not know what funny is.

phanto,

There is no need for you to tell Foxy that there is no need to tell you what there is no need to do, either. That’s also patronising.

Banjo
Forbidding to opt out of society?

Courts Legislation Amendment
(Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016
New South Wales

Schedule 1 Amendment of Supreme Court Act 1970
Schedule 2 Amendment of Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Schedule 3 Amendment of District Court Act 1973
Schedule 4 Amendment of Local Court Act 2007
Schedule 5 Amendment of Coroners Act 2009

Good grief , the coroner as well. Refuse to be arrested by police for refusing to stand, refuse to stand when resist arrest is heard, refuse to be arrested for refuse to be arrested.

Dear Nick,

Gun ownership is the least of my concerns. In his post to Foxy (Monday, 13 February 2017 10:23:38 AM), Is Mise referred inaccurately to my views on that matter, so I responded in order to correct that wrong impression - otherwise I had no reason to ever mention that subject.

I would be more than happy, in fact even prefer, to live in a society where gun ownership is limited - provided only that all the people of that society accepted its constitution which allowed the said society to limit them so.

---

Dear Banjo,

«Would you be so kind as to let me have the references to the law that forbids "opting-out from society", together with the relevant sanctions ?»

I see that Nick was faster than myself to respond - well done Nick.

I would rather start from the beginning of the cycle of life: It is offence to be born without being registered with the so-called representatives of society or without having a name which society can call you by - http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch21s12s03.php

A $1250 fine may not seem a lot, but if you are not part of society, then you wouldn't have even $1 of society's money to pay that fine with.

Well, well there was a referendum , didn't know that:
eferenda: 1898 & 1899

"As the ANA had proposed in Corowa, the people of the colonies then had to vote in a referendum on the Constitution. The 1898 referendum was held in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania. The result was a majority in all four colonies. The New South Wales parliament, however, had previously stipulated that it would not accept a majority in its colony unless there were in excess of 80 000 votes in favour of Federation. Despite an overwhelming majority in every other colony, New South Wales only reached 71 595 'yes' votes and the Constitution Bill was not passed.

A second round of referenda was held in 1899 and the 'yes' majority was secured in all of the participating colonies: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.. With over 107 000 'yes' votes for Federation in New South Wales, Queensland gave the vote to their own people who passed the Bill."

Yuyutsu could vote in OLO or tell Mr Turnbull who may allow a multi-cultural option . The Principality of Hutt River WA is a free state which may have an alliance with Republic of Yuyutsu.

Yuyutsu and nicknamenick,

Would you please refrain from referring to Banjo Paterson as Banjo.

Philips,

As I have already explained to you the only logical response to my behaviour on this forum that seems to bother you is to put up or shut up. Do something or stop whingeing about it. You are neither doing anything that is likely to be successful nor letting it go.

Your refusal to make a choice just shows what a supreme coward you really are.

Yuyutsu
The break-up of the Australian Caliphate is on the move. If you need an advisor for Republic comedy you know where to find one.

"On the 30th March 2013, Murrawarri people from the Culgoa River region of northern New South Wales declared their Sovereignty of their lands under the name of the Murrawarri Republic.
In a formal declaration the peoples of the Murrawarri Republic attested that they have never ceded their Sovereignty, Dominion or Ultimate Title over their ancient homeland nor did they give permission for the colonisers to enter their ancient land and for their mother earth to be violated through progressive illegal acts, practices or policies of the British Crown, Former British Colonies, the state of New South Wales and Queensland or the Australian Federal governments."

nicknamenick - They will soon quickly change their minds when the Government then says you are not eligible for social security or any other dole payments if you are independent.

Foxy, will you tell NNN, to tell BP, to tell AJP, to tell Yuyutsu, to tell Banjo, to tell PS, to tell phanto to tell Paul1405, that I have nothing to tell him.

Thanks folks.

Like what, phanto?

<< As I have already explained to you the only logical response to my behaviour on this forum that seems to bother you is to put up or shut up. Do something or stop whingeing about it.>>

All you’ve suggested I do is request that your posts be deleted, but you’re not breaking any rules. You were, however, being hypocritical by chastising Foxy for doing exactly what you were doing, so I thought I’d point that out in a way that sounded amusing. I see Paul’s having fun with it now, too.

No one here is whinging.

Going back to the thread, a new development in Victoria,

"Guy, Pesutto: Liberal Nationals to bring respect back to Victoria’s justice system

Monday 13 February 2017

The Liberal Nationals today commit to restoring respect in Victoria’s justice system.

Disrespectful behaviour in court room proceedings which is deliberate, such as refusing to stand for a judge or respect the authority of the court, should be an offence.

..The offence will carry a maximum penalty of 14 days imprisonment or 10 penalty units, or both

Matthew Guy, “Our state is in the grip of a crime tsunami and Daniel Andrews and Labor have no solutions to make Victoria safe again. The Liberal Nationals won’t stand by and be spectators whilst our community becomes less safe.”

Philips:

"so I thought I’d point that out "

How does pointing it out change anything? Nothing you can do can change my behaviour so you still have to put up or shut up. You are still avoiding the decision like the coward you are.

Why does it have to change something, phanto?

<<How does pointing it out change anything?>>

Why can’t bringing it to the attention of yourself and others be enough?

<<Nothing you can do can change my behaviour …>>

Apparently. That’s a pity. You’ll never grow with that attitude.

<<… so you still have to put up or shut up.>>

You still haven’t clarified what you mean by “put up”. What do you have in mind there? I’ve already explained why flagging your posts for deletion would be pointless. Nor would I even want to do such a thing.

<<You are still avoiding the decision like the coward you are.>>

Oh, I’d love to decide one way or the other. If only I knew what my options were.

Philips:

If you can't find a way to put up then your only option is to shut up. How you put up is your problem. Why would I help you with that?

Philip S
It's all sorted and Yuyutsu can add to this , no doubt:

"Meanwhile a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Department told TIME it hadn’t replied to the Murrawarri People’s Council assertion of sovereignty because “there are no constitutional means available for the establishment of separate political communities in Australia,”

( Anderson) says all nonindigenous citizens will be encouraged to stay put with favorable tax concessions and new employment opportunities. The council is also looking at a large number of potential income streams to pay for it all, including a repatriation fund, foreign aid from the U.S., the establishment of a tax haven, exporting kangaroo meat and suing the British for looting their country."

A favourable roo-trade with Brexit Britain looks a winner , with roo and chips the new Pom trend.

No one has yet explained how the Court, or anyone else, is to know that it is Moutia Elzahed in the floor to head covering or if it is one of her mates.

Again, phanto, that depends on what you mean by “put up”.

<<If you can't find a way to put up then your only option is to shut up. How you put up is your problem.>>

I’m sure I can find many ways to ‘put up’, but I have to know what you mean first before I can come up with them. You see, to request that another ‘put up or shut up’ is to ask that they either justify themselves or remain silent.* But given that I justify my actions to you every time you question them, you cannot possibly mean that. So again, how is it that you think I should ‘put up’ as the alternative to shutting up?

*http://www.google.com.au/search?q=put+up+or+shut+up+meaning&oq=put+up+or+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.3518j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

<<Why would I help you with that?>>

Because you’re the one who claims that I need to decide between whatever it is you mean by ‘putting up’, and shutting up. You have presented me with what you claim to be my only two courses of action, lest I be a coward; if you cannot explain what the ambiguous option is, then your charge of cowardliness falls.

Looks like you’re the one who needs to either put up or shut up now, eh?

". Moutia Elzahed in the floor to head covering ".
Just curious , what do Driver Licences for these ladies look like?
Is there a limit to the eye blockage for safe driving? Do their husbands give a stream of "watch the pedestrian left , check the Christian on the right of the semi-trailer , police car bearing 23 degrees to starboard , duck the incoming rounds , chuck a U , no not here at the lights , no not...

Paul1405:

"Foxy, will you tell NNN, to tell BP, to tell AJP, to tell Yuyutsu, to tell Banjo, to tell PS, to tell phanto to tell Paul1405, that I have nothing to tell him."

You just told us something.

nicknamenick,

Forget that trivia, the 13th Feb marked the anniversary of Rudd's apology to the 'Stolen Children'.

However an Indigenous politician from Arnhem Land is alleging that the practise if continuing to this day(!)

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4619019.htm

Perhaps you can help Andrew Bolt out with a list of ten (10) 'stolen children', ie., children that were not removed because of serious abuse and neglect.

Reference Sky News, The Bolt Report, 13 Feb,
http://player.whooshkaa.com/shows/sky-news-the-bolt-report

Philips:

It is quite simple you either need to find a way to stop the behaviour of mine which you find necessary to complain about or to stop complaining about it. They are the only logical things for you to do.
The more you avoid those things the more cowardly you look.

Thanks for the clarification, phanto. It’s consistent with your suggestion that I flag your posts for deletion.

<<It is quite simple you either need to find a way to stop the behaviour of mine which you find necessary to complain about or to stop complaining about it.>>

So what you’re saying is that I have only have two options: (i) find a way to stop your silly behaviour, or (ii) remain silent; and that if I don’t take either of those two options, then I will look like I lack courage in a way that is contemptible.

<<The more you avoid those things the more cowardly you look.>>

You need to go into more detail here if you want your claim to be taken seriously. I’m not seeing the logic. Tell me, how would rejecting both your recommended courses of action render me a coward? Let’s say, for example, that I respond to you because I want to prevent others from mistakenly thinking that you have a point when you don’t - how does that demonstrate a contemptible lack of courage on my behalf?

I’m starting to think you don’t know what ‘cowardly’ means, either.

Dear Nick,

You asked me to add:

"Meanwhile a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Department told TIME it hadn’t replied to the Murrawarri People’s Council assertion of sovereignty because “there are no constitutional means available for the establishment of separate political communities in Australia,”"

The people of the Culgoa River region (the fact that they happen to be aboriginal should not make a difference) never asked for a "separate political community" - they claimed independence from Australia altogether, hence whatever's written in Australia's constitution does not apply to them and their land.

Once the said department are willing to wear their thinking-hats, ask them: "Is Christmas Island part of Australia?". If a remote island that is not part of the continent of Australia can still be part of the state of Australia, then what stops a region within the continent of Australia from not being part of the state of Australia?

The Attorney-General would be wise to consider sending an ambassador to the Culgoa River region to establish friendly relations with its people.

Now Philip is absolutely correct to assert that independent people are not eligible for social security or any other dole payments. However, I doubt his estimate that «They will soon quickly change their minds» and sell their mother[land] for a few bucks of dole.

Beg to differ, if independent absolutely everything provided then does not have to be provided security, medical, the right to access Australian land.

Hutt River declared war on Australia which then meant it became a sovereign state. It issued 10000 $20 coins and has 14000 citizens mainly overseas, with 40000 tourists also largely from overseas.

"In April 2016, the Principality of Hutt River finally received an official nod from Australia’s head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Leonard, the sovereign of Hutt River, received a letter with the Queen’s good wishes on the anniversary of the Principality seceding from Australia 46 years ago, on April 21, 1970. It reads in part: “I am to convey Her Majesty’s good wishes to you....the forty-sixth anniversary of the Principality of Hutt River.”
-
This puts the country in the same status as the Principality of Wales and of Monaco, Liechtenstein , Asturias and the co-principality of Andorra.

"In January 2017, Prince Leonard announced that, after ruling for 45 years, he would be stepping down as prince, to be succeeded by his youngest son, Prince Graeme."
-
The legal enforcement by judges of their own tradition of standing in court is a variety of the Adolf Hitler salute . The nazi salute became compulsory for civilians with the "Heil Hitler" while the army retained the military salute. " In football, the England football team bowed to pressure from the British foreign office and performed the ( nazi) salute during a friendly match on 14 May 1938."

Does the Hutt River passport allow its holders to repackage neglected and abused children as 'Stolen' to shelve the blame onto others?

Does Hutt River enjoy Gesture Politics while its children are forgotten?

As you say NNN. it is all about dollars. Sure better than a job though, you'd say.

Meanwhile, somewhere not in the diversionary Hutt River,

"Aboriginal mothers in WA jails discuss domestic violence in lives, as study finds 'culture of fighting'
By Nicolas Perpitch
Updated 36 minutes ago

Aboriginal mothers 17 times more likely to die from homicide

"There was no way I was going to stand back and let a man flog me, so I gave just as much as he tried to give."

Those were the words of Leonie, the pseudonym for one of 84 Aboriginal mothers in West Australian jails who were interviewed for a new report on the role of intergenerational violence in their lives.

Almost 90 per cent of the women reported experiencing violence in relationships with their partners and families, and 54 per cent admitted using violence against others.

But they said they would often not report family violence to the authorities for fear the Department of Child Protection (DCP) would remove their children.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/aboriginal-mothers-in-wa-jails-talk-about-violence-in-lives/8270166

.

Dear nicknamenick and Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for those articles of law which I read with interest and saved for future reference.

Though the “Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016” that nicknamenick posted relates specifically to New South Wales and the “Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996” that Yuyutsu posted relates specifically to South Australia, no doubt the other Australian states and territories have similar legislation. Many other countries probably do as well.

However, Yuyutsu wrote :

« ... Australia, where the option to opt-out from society is absent »

According to the OED, the term “opt-out” means “to choose not to participate in something”. Therefore, to “opt-out” of society, one has to either cease being a member of that society, or not become a member of it in the first place – not just break the law or treat it with contempt.

The law applies to all members of society. It does not apply to non-members. Anybody who lives within society, for any length of time - even temporarily - are deemed to be members and subject to the laws.

Not respecting the law is one thing, but “opting-out” of society is another. Failing to respect a red light when driving a car is, by no stretch of the imagination, “opting-out” of society. No more than a rugby player is deemed to “opt-out” of the team if he does not respect the rules of the game. In both instances, sanctions are applied.

I found no evidence in the laws you indicate to support Yuyutsu’s claim that the option to “opt-out” from society is absent in Australia.

I see nothing to prevent anybody, who so wishes, to cease participating in Australian society and living in total seclusion as a hermit, without leaving the country, or, failing that, migrating to some other country of his or her own choice.

But I welcome any evidence you might be kind enough to indicate to the contrary.

Allow me simply to add that I consider that the value of a democracy depends, inter alia, on how it treats its minorities.

.

"I consider that the value of a democracy depends, inter alia, on how it treats its minorities"

How the minority treats one another too, especially its vulnerable members.

Who wants a return to the dark days of the black curtain that descended after that overbearing idealist Whitlam enabled self-management for Aborigines?

The Australian society can never stand aside again and allow the self-imposed black apartheid that allowed the abuses of women and children to occur and without media reporting.

Philips:

If you are not doing anything wrong then there is no need to be so concerned about whether you need to put up or shut up or whether or not you are a coward. That is all you need to know. Further information or clarification just feeds your paranoia.

"phanto,

There is no need for you to tell Foxy that there is no need to tell you what there is no need to do, either. That’s also patronising."

It's patronising Foxy to defend her unless you think she is incapable of defending herself.

Just to go back to one of Toni Lavis' comments: no, an atheist does not have to swear on the bible, she can just affirm that she will tell the truth, etc.

As I understand it, a judge is in charge of his or her court, backed up by the State. To speak out of turn, or not to stand for him or her, or otherwise disrupt proceedings, can amount to contempt for the authority of the judge, i.e. of the court, i.e. of the State.

Spot-on, Foxy !

Cheers,

Joe

Banjo Paterson
".. living in total seclusion as a hermit, without leaving the country,."
Roadside camping may need RTA or council approval . All land is owned even it's vacant Crown Land. Yuyutsu will probably care for his own , whether princes or paupers. The North Korean leader provides for all who need it and judges and juries in Yuyutsu republic will extend the 2 finger salute with the public being limited to 1 finger on present indications.

Leo W, maybe you would prefer a return to the good old days of pre Whitlam. To the days of post war conservative rule in this country when Aboriginal people were totally marginalized and forced to live and die in squalor that existed on the edges of towns and cities, virtually existing as non persons! Is that your kind of society?

Paul1405,

Might you be Lee Rhiannon's boy acolyte Shoebridge? That is his spin. Not even a pretence of addressing the subject at hand.

Greens politics first and last.

The neglected and abused children must continue to suffer without any possibility of help.

phanto,

Well it didn’t take you long to resort to your amateur psychology again, did it? The tactic in which you present only one possible explanation for an individual’s behaviour, when there are in fact many, so that they may leave you to carry on with your nonsense unchallenged.

<<If you are not doing anything wrong then there is no need to be so concerned about whether you need to put up or shut up or whether or not you are a coward.>>

You assume I’m concerned. What if I were just curious? Or perhaps I knew your supposed logic wasn’t logical at all and wanted to expose the fact by posing a question to you that I knew you could not answer.

<<It's patronising Foxy to defend her unless you think she is incapable of defending herself.>>

You assume I was defending her. What if I was just pointing out your hypocrisy? Which, by the way, is on display again in this very ironic comment of yours.

NNN, as an old drill sergeant used to ask us young soldiers: "What is the best thing about banging your head on a wall ?" Answer: "It feels really wonderful when you stop."

Muslims (for the most) will feel compelled to not straighten their spines, nor their knees, as will atheists when in front of aforementioned bewigged and sashed members of the judiciary.

Anyone of any religious or theological persuasion can exercise the right to silence and also not swear on the Bible, as can Mormons insist only on swearing on their 'version' of the bible when in front of the law.

Remembering at all times there are 2 systems of law at play in this country.

1. 'Justice' for those who can afford a plumber (in his/her wig and finery) to attend the leaking WC and

2. 'Justice' for those who cannot afford the plumber (sans wig and finery) where the WC will continue to leak and the depth of muck will probably consume you.

Philips:

Whatever I say or do pales into insignificance in comparison with your desperately neurotic need to defend yourself. You cannot let anything go that in anyway casts a slur upon your understanding of yourself. You are by leaps and bounds the most defensive person on these forums. Your fear of not being in control of your own self understanding is pathologically paranoid. You need to suck people into your game like a vampire and you get very agitated when people refuse to play along with you.

Whether I am an amateur psyhcologist is irrelevant. Whether I am right or not is the only thing that matters.

".atheists in front of bewigged and sashed members of judiciary".

How could they genuflect to "My lord" as convicts did?
" Already, magistrates throughout Australia are now designated in court as "Your Honour" in place of the former honorific "Your Worship" ._ Judge Kirby in place of a former red-robed supernatural deity.

Knights of course bend the knee and get the sword-blade under the ear
involving standing, bowing and kneeling while chewing gum. Luckily Sir Prince Philip of Yarralumla and Wattle rose again after the gymnastics enforced by priestly Tony Abbott who resumed his seat.

Keep the amateur psychology coming, phanto. This is amusing stuff.

<<Whatever I say or do pales into insignificance in comparison with your desperately neurotic need to defend yourself.>>

You assume I’m defending myself. What if I’m just having fun? I might be curious as to how absurd your arguments will get. I might want to make it obvious to you or others just how irrational and silly your behaviour is. What if the person you’re communicating with is sitting at the keyboard with an amused smirk on their face rather than the panicked, agitated look that your amateur psychological diagnoses attempt to portray?

You never consider any of this because your psychoanalytical methodology only allows for one explanation per behaviour, and you ensure that it is the most unflattering possible explanation.

<<You cannot let anything go that in anyway casts a slur upon your understanding of yourself.>>

Or one of my many above-listed possibilities.

<<You are by leaps and bounds the most defensive person on these forums.>>

You assume I’m getting defensive. You have not provided sufficient reason for one to arrive at such a conclusion, given all I’ve said thus far.

<<Your fear of not being in control of your own self understanding is pathologically paranoid.>>

You assume I’m experiencing feelings of fear. You have not provided sufficient reason for one to arrive at such a conclusion, given all I’ve said thus far.

<<You need to suck people into your game like a vampire and you get very agitated when people refuse to play along with you.>>

You assume I’m playing games and becoming agitated. You have not provided sufficient reason for one to arrive at such a conclusion, given all I’ve said thus far. On the contrary, I think my tone has been consistently relaxed. You, on the other hand…

What game, by the way?

<<Whether I am right or not is the only thing that matters.>>

Correct, and your appallingly inadequate methodology ensures that if you’re ever correct in your diagnoses, then it is only by sheer fluke that you are.

Of course, with a woomera of 600mm holding the cricket ball the tangential orbital velocity doubles , 2nR, and you're getting near pistol MV. Bowling grapeshot scores points.

It's all very Pythonesque...

Arthur - AKA "the courts": (very angry) BE QUIET!I *order* you to be quiet!
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by
divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!
Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it,didn't you?!

.

Dear nicknamenick,

.

You wrote :

[ ".. living in total seclusion as a hermit, without leaving the country,."
Roadside camping may need RTA or council approval. All land is owned even if it's vacant Crown Land ]
.

That’s true, nicknamenick, but roadside camping is more of a Romani gypsy lifestyle. They came here with the First Fleet and remain well-entrenched as fully fledged members of Australian society.

Hermits are quite different. They are individuals who live in total seclusion from society. They just want to be left alone. Like Yuyutsu, they are often quite religious.

Yuyutsu is a Hindu name that means “the one who is curious to fight”. In the Hindu epic Mahabharata he was a son that Dhritarashtra had with Sughada, the maid of his wife, Gandhari. Yuyutsu was conceived with Sughada because it was feared that Gandhari couldn't have children. At least, that's their story!

From a religious point of view, the solitary life is a form of asceticism, whereby hermits renounce worldly concerns and pleasures to come closer to the deity or deities they worship and also in order to devote their energies to self-liberation from "samsara" (a Sanskrit word meaning "wandering" or "world", with the connotation of cyclic, circuitous change, a cycle of aimless drifting, wandering or mundane existence).

I think the eremitic lifestyle would suit Yuyutsu quite well. His mysticism is no secret.

I tend to imagine hermits living in seclusion in mountain caves deep in the bush, frugally surviving on whatever nature provides – perhaps in the Kimberleys or the Snowy Mountains, for example. (As a matter of fact, I got lost myself with a couple of mates in the Snowy Mountains for three days and three nights. We found our way back by pure chance but could have remained there forever - even though it was Crown land! Nobody missed us and we hadn’t told anyone where we were going).

The original Christian hermits lived in the desert, particularly in the Sahara. Perhaps the Central Australian desert might be appropriate – though I shouldn’t fancy that myself.

.

Hi BP, I find your post most interesting, I did wonder where our friend Yuyutsu got his nic from. Could our Yuyutsu and the Hindu Yuyutsu be one in the same. I also didn't know gypsy's were on the first fleet. I assume they were not free settlers.

Hermits living deep in the forest in caves, is their only concession to the outside world a broadband connection so they can post on the forum? My partner has a wish, as she gets older, to get a "bus" and travel around her native New Zealand picking fruit, entertaining people and working the markets, things she has done before. The things she has done in life, unbelievable. Like picking turnip tops in the cow paddocks, and watercress from the rivers, early in the morning, along with her baking, to sell at markets, and on the side of the road. Teaching Maori language to people of both races, working in mental health, where she was able to get people whom had been locked away for years, out in the community, to show folks, that these gentle people were not freaks to be hidden away. On her own she took a bus load of 'friends' into town, on a table they set up they showed things and painting etc they had made in the home, took her guitar and a sign, telling who they were, people were interested, and it eventually became a regular outing. This was at a time when such things were just not done. The intervention of a PM saving her job of 10 years. "T" can count two Prime Ministers David Lange and Robert Muldoon as personal friends, David Lange made a special trip up north just to attend her wedding. "T" has done a host of other interesting things in life, and still is.

I should have added from the above story I have far more respect for some unsung people in life than for some pompous clown in a wig sitting above us all, demanding respect!

In social worker Australia there would probably be designated facilities for hermits with application forms and regulations for meditation distances from the next hermit. Unemployed hermits get reduced fees and yearly reviews.

The Barkindji are Intyi "people belonging" , "riverine people" of the Barka river, Darling river . Skr bhaga "beautiful" , induja "Narmada river" which Hindu pilgrims walk along for 2000 km. People of the Barka walk the length of the Darling river 2000km in Murrundi Ruwe Pangari Ringbalin ceremony, where Skr ringbalin is "walking. warrior". The warrior Ngurunderi made the river. Skr /Old Javanese negarane diri "country's outstanding ruler" . The legend resembles Matsya Purana , Hindu text known in Indonesia.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«to “opt-out” of society, one has to either cease being a member of that society, or not become a member of it in the first place – not just break the law or treat it with contempt.»

I fully agree, but this assumes an ethical society.
If a society is unethical to the core, then I see no reason why one should respect it and follow its laws.
A society which forces itself on others without their consent, is unethical to the core.

«I found no evidence in the laws you indicate to support Yuyutsu’s claim that the option to “opt-out” from society is absent in Australia.»

A guy was afraid to pass because a dog was barking at him, so his friend comforted him: "Don't be afraid, you know the rule: 'a dog that barks does not bite'", to which he replied: "Yes, I know this rule, but does the dog know it?".

So while the law that states that one must register their babies with the state should not by any logic be binding on those who never agreed to belong to the said state in the first place, I wonder whether the Australian authorities are aware of this logic and would behave accordingly.

«I see nothing to prevent anybody, who so wishes, to cease participating in Australian society and living in total seclusion as a hermit, without leaving the country,»

Compulsory voting, jury duty, attending court as witness, census, reporting certain crimes, failing to pay land tax.

However, being a totally secluded hermit is only one lifestyle and admirable as it is, the option of living in this continent without belonging to the Australian society, should be open for all: individuals, families and communities.

---

«Yuyutsu will probably care for his own»

Yuyutsu would probably prefer to live within a society and accept its laws - once this society reforms itself and no longer forces others to belong to it against their will (or otherwise leave the continent which it claims to own and control).

Hi Tony,

Yeah, and why do they all wear those funny two-toed socks ? Bastards.

So if some other group (not yours, presumably, Toni) has a tradition of respect for people trying to do their job, like judges, then it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't blindly tag along ?

I salute you in your valiant quest for non-rapey Japanese porn - there is hardly a more worthy or brave hobby. Let us know how you go.

Cheers,

Joe

New born babies arrive through birth canal and protest loudly about the horrors they experienced and now observe . After intensive therapy and warm milk they learn the strange accent and values of their new land. They could be invited to become citizens and suggest an improved legal system and fiduciary revenues with negative gearing in quasi-emoluments for leveraged futures options. An up-graded national song is also on the agenda.

Paul, I recognise your leftist leanings, but you should learn that you are not standing for the particular Judge, you are standing in respect of the Laws he / she administers / represents. If you do not like our laws and violate them you have to take the consequences of the penalties they impose. If you think our laws are not more than pompous then identify their failings or move to where you can respect a State law in your liking.

Posted by Paul1405, "I should have added from the above story I have far more respect for some unsung people in life than for some pompous clown in a wig sitting above us all, demanding respect!"
Posted by Paul1405

Dear Josephus,

«If you do not like our laws and violate them you have to take the consequences of the penalties they impose.»

Easy said by people who do like the laws under which they live, perhaps because they are lucky to be in the majority.

«If you think our laws are not more than pompous then identify their failings or move to where you can respect a State law in your liking.»

Would you actually leave your home and move to some foreign country (if they let you) if the "Cannibalism Act, 2025", legislated by a democratic majority, declared that "Christian Communion is a forbidden form of cannibalism. Penalty: feeding to the lions"?
(judging by some of the comments, there are already some members of this forum who are militant atheists that would be more than happy to make such laws)

Would you not rather remain in Australia with your family, despise the state and its laws and continue to eat the Body of Christ in secret?

Now what if similar laws were legislated across the globe because they were called for by a United-Nations treaty?

What I keep calling for, is to keep the states small so that everyone will find a reasonable place on this planet where they can live happily with the law.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Yes, sometimes the law is an ass, but usually it's workable and necessary to maintain peace and some semblance of order in society. Without it, I would probably run amok.

As an equal-opportunity atheist though, I have to say I don't think Christians should, now or ever, be fed to lions, or gays chucked off tall buildings, or young women be slashed and cut to remove all means of sexual pleasure. Widows (and widowers) shouldn't be thrown onto burning pyres, young girls shouldn't be married off at their fathers' pleasure, consenting adulterers should be left alone, and women allowed to wear what they like, and to go wherever they like.

Cheers,

Joe

" not standing for the particular Judge, you are standing in respect of the Laws"
So the post office clerk makes us stand in line and stand at the counter. We stand as the council truck roars up and seizes our worldly garbage. Even the life saver gets in the act. Next they will remove all chairs from Centrelink and I won't stand for that.

Judges are not demanding personal respect above the respect anyone worth two bob pays other human beings doing their jobs. In the Courtroom the judge is conducting a legal procedure in which everyone present must acknowledge the law that governs it. Those who reject the rule of law are doing so because they are criminals. The Moslem terrorist wearing a body bag and refusing to acknowledge the judge was a criminal living the lie that the law of her phoney cult displaced the law that prevailed where she sat. She was no better than the evil woman who, asked on TV what title she had to the land on which she was living in an illegal settlement in Palestine, brandished a Bible.

I saw an Aussie get a sentence and he walked outside the door and gave the magistrate 2 fingers with a prayer of some sort . British by descent he looked, but what can you expect from rabbit poachers.

How did you get on, nicknamenick?

Assuming you were next, or were you waiting for a friend?

Yuyutsu
"What I keep calling for, is to keep the states small so that everyone will find a reasonable place on this planet where they can live happily with the law."
This gives 2 options:
You can travel from state to state looking for the ideal community that has your approval . Then you could just move in or give your agreement to conform.
Or you can find one that's ripe for revolt and do a take-over. You then could become life president or run an online opinion forum.

leoj
The clerk signed a JP form for us and the high desk made us stand. The Irish prime minister stood at the top of narrow stairs to compel the Queen to be lower when they shook hands . The military like the high ground.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

[ “to ‘opt-out’ of society, one has to either cease being a member of that society, or not become a member of it in the first place – not just break the law or treat it with contempt”

I fully agree, but this assumes an ethical society ]
.

The OED definition of “opt-out” (which I am pleased to see we agree upon) does not assume an ethical society. Whether the society is ethical or not makes no difference. If you (or anybody else) wants to “opt-out” of society one has to leave it or not join it. It’s as simple as that.

If you decide to join it or remain in it, then you are expected to live according to the laws of that society (whether they are ethical or not). If you do not, then you are in trouble.

If you contest the laws of society, you are fighting an uphill battle, Yuyutsu, which you pretty certain to lose. It can only bring you more trouble than its worth. You are wasting your time and energy. It may also prove to be a very costly enterprise.

You may even end up in jail.

It reminds me of that well-known character of the 17th century Spanish writer, Cervantes, in his famous novel, “El ingenioso hidalgo don Quixote de la Mancha” who reads so many chivalric romances that he loses his mind and decides to set out to revive chivalry, undo wrongs, and bring justice to the world. He and his servant, Sancho, mount their horses and wage war with their swords and spears on windmills which don Quixote mistakenly imagines to be his enemies.

The moral of the story, Yuyutsu, is that it’s silly to fight windmills. You just can’t win.

.

Joan of Arc , Oliver Cromwell and Ned Kelly were individuals like Nick Xenophon or Donald Trump. Yuyutsu could go for Gov- General why not , the last one gave political opinions to the media. Or the Yuyutsu Why Not Party could join the cross-bench and make a difference different from all the other contestants making a difference.

I wonder if nicknamenicknamenick really exists, or is actually a reincarnation of Ern Malley, cooked up by some under-grad pranksters ?

There's two minutes I'll never get back.

Joe

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The difference between Yuyutsu and Don Quixote is that the latter tried to fix society while the former recognises that this is not possible due to the dark nature of the age that we live in. The most I aspire to, is to save the moral fibre of myself and of those who care to listen.

Governments will still do what governments do for millennia to come, oppressing others with their laws and policing mechanisms, but we should be aware that since we have no contract with them we have no moral obligation to keep their laws.

I cannot blame those who comply with laws out of fear, this is understandable but in principle this is no different than paying evil ransomware criminals for restoring one's files, which encourages them to continue.

Yes, when one opts out they are no longer members of that society in any way and may not for example enter its public areas, but this does not mean that one should have to pack up and leave their own home as a result and go find another place to live... under some other oppressing society, for this whole planet is divided among them.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.
You wrote :

« Governments will still do what governments do for millennia to come, oppressing others with their laws and policing mechanisms, but we should be aware that since we have no contract with them we have no moral obligation to keep their laws »
.

That is a very sweeping statement, Yuyutsu. What you say is, unfortunately, true to a shockingly large extent and concerns more than half of the world population, but it is by no means a general rule.

Australia is one of the rare, truly democratic countries in the world - democracy meaning “ruled by the people”. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2016 classes Australia as a “full democracy”, i.e., :

[ A country in which not only basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected, but which also tend to be underpinned by a political culture conducive to the flourishing of democracy. The functioning of government is satisfactory. Media are independent and diverse. There is an effective system of checks and balances. The judiciary is independent and judicial decisions are enforced. There are only limited problems in the functioning of a democracy. ]

Obviously, that does not mean that it is perfect. It simply means that it is one of the freest countries in the world.

Neither the federal nor the state governments make laws in Australia. Ordinary citizens are elected to Parliament to represent Australians and make laws on their behalf. Propositions for a bill to become law may come from various sources (government departments, community groups, business groups, lobby groups, political parties, parliamentary committees, etc.).

Our federal and state parliaments (the representatives of the people) make laws and our federal and state governments enforce them. If we don’t like what they do on our behalf, we vote them out and replace them with more appropriate representatives.

As to the “social contract” to which you make allusion, Jean-Jacques Rousseau postulated that State and Law were the product of the “General Will” of the people. The state and the Laws are made

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

by it and if the government and laws do not conform to the “General Will”, they would be discarded. While the individual relinquishes his “natural rights”, in return he gets civil liberties such as freedom of speech, equality, assembly, etc.

Citizens are deemed to have passed a “social contract” with the state.

I suggest you consult the following :

http://pages.eiu.com/rs/783-XMC-194/images/Democracy_Index_2016.pdf

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/democracy_map/production/index.html

http://www.dkosopedia.com/static/d/i/c/Dictators_and_Non-Democratic_Governments_2e4b.html

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/bills-and-laws.html

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I acknowledge that, relatively speaking, Australia is one of the freest countries in the world.

I could argue whether Australia's system of governance is indeed democratic, but that is irrelevant and would only lead us away from the topic, for even if Australia was democratic, 'democracy' only describes the internal workings of a society rather than who are its members.

Being counted as a member of a group (and expected to comply with the obligations that come with that) forcibly and without consent, is obviously wrong. Likewise, even if one is personally comfortable, it is morally wrong to benefit from belonging to such a group that forces its membership on others.

Yuyutsu
Here are some suitable locations and no-one gets in the way.
The Island With Bear Grylls - promo | SBS World News
www.sbs.com.au/news/video/332785219582/The-Island-With-Bear-Grylls-promo
Generations of men have wondered if they could survive on a desert island. Survival expert Bear Grylls makes makes this challenge a reality for 1 ordinary citizen ...