Hi ALTRAV, no need to thank me, I would do the same for any lesser mortal.

Hi Yuyutsu, the British tenure over the continent of Australia has always been rather rancid with many. Simply having one of their number sail up, pop in, and claim the whole bloody place in the name of their fearless leader is at best, suspect! Like all colonial powers the British were good at claiming sovereignty over others and their abode. Despite the toasting, flag waving, volley of shots and the three cheers, it was all very much achieved at the point of a gun.

As for my wife's cousie bros, yes even the Hawaiians are seen as part of the Polynesian Empire, knocking Cookie on the head and then fricasseeing him, well put that down as one for the losing side.

Good morning CM,

//Most know (DO THEY!) that the Queen trumps our constitution in Military issues (SHE DOES!) due to the "Royal Perogative (IS THAT SO!) over the military" based on 1600's precedent from memory (THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES!). This was the basis of the "Military Callout Legislation 2000". (WELL, THAT MAKES IT ALL HONKY DORY!)

CM, yes, thanks for the 'heads up', I think I have answered this in my previous post,but I'll try it again.
Yuyutsu, if I understand your question correctly.
I did answer in the affirmative. ie; yes.
Because, if a piece of land or property was purchased and is owned by one or more people, they can do whatever they want within the bounds or confines of that property, (legally).
The problem is that morals and ethics, although a valid component of human beings, is not practiced by a majority of people.
In so doing the govt is called upon to enshrine the will of the majority into 'law'.
So, if I understand your question correctly, you would suggest that if someone is making others uncomfortable because of what they are saying, then the 'majority' of those people may eject that person from their property.
Yes they can do that because it is their property and their 'private' space.
But if you are suggesting we can do the same in public then, NO, because it is not the same.
In public we are all equal, everyone 'owns' public open space.
That's why we have laws, which represent the majority of people,just like in your own home.
In public I can say whatever I want, because the majority said so (or we could not have demonstrations, ergo; freedom of speech).
I get that you do not like being put in a situation that makes you uncomfortable.
Who does?
But I'm sorry Yuyutsu, just as I have had to 'suck it up' for the 67 years of my life in this miserable Nanny country, so it is that you do too.
Welcome to the 'lucky country'.

Paul,I don't have a problem with someone 'owning' a country, which is weird for a 'wog' to be a Monarchist.
I don't mind because as much as there is a lot of opposition to the idea, it happened in a time and a way that was completely acceptable or the 'norm' for that era and culture.
Now I have preached ad nauseum about the rights of ownership.
I know to many cultures the idea of owning a country or even some of it's land is abhorant to them, but that is the standard or 'norm' of today by the majority of our culture or those with tenure over the land in question.
I fear for the day we become a republic.
That will be the end of what little control we have now over our lives and our future.
There are people, evil people out there, who wish to rule the world and have been slowly infecting countries so eventually we will all come under one world order.
These are bad evil greedy people.
The only way to thwart them is to remain under the safety net or umbrella of our current ruler who has no such evil and corrupt ambitions.
She won't stand in our way should we decide to go down the road to hell and become a republic, as she has done previously, by giving up other Commonwealth Countries.
Believe it or not, we are better off staying exactly where we are. Give the dirty ole man with the lollies the cold shoulder, when he comes a callin, and tell him to move on, we'll stick with Mother England thank you very much.

Dear Altrav,

«just as I have had to 'suck it up' for the 67 years of my life in this miserable Nanny country, so it is that you do too.
Welcome to the 'lucky country'.»

It's relative: I had to suck up even more before coming here - at least we have no conscription in Australia, so I'm lucky indeed to be here. Still more can be done and I'm here to advocate for following moral and spiritual principles, rather than getting many things right just by chance, as we do in Australia.

«...they can do whatever they want within the bounds or confines of that property, (legally).»

Legally?? While morally they ought to do whatever they want, you should know well that the legal situation is different and [wrongly,] Australians can currently be prosecuted for 1001 things they do in their private space.

«In so doing the govt is called upon to enshrine the will of the majority into 'law'.»

No majority can exist unless an agreed group of reference is first established. So long as participation in the group is non-voluntary, majorities mean nothing (say 10 men meet 9 women on the beach and decide that they can rape them because they are the "majority" on that section of the beach).

«But if you are suggesting we can do the same in public»

Not "we", as individuals, rather the "public" who collectively owns the place, IF such an owning-group (called "public") indeed exists.

It seems to me that we are confused between at least two different types of "public" spaces: owned spaces and unowned spaces. In my view both types do exist, because ownership is gained by significant investment (in the broader sense, not just financial), cultivation and development. While demarcation between the two types can be difficult, still both ends of the spectrum (e.g. cities versus outback) can be easily distinguishable.

I understand that legally-speaking the state/king/queen grabbed all land to itself and unless privately-owned calls it "public", but I don't give a hoot about human laws and am rather referring to the natural and moral realities.

Yuyutsu, I do appologise.
As CM pointed out, if you are promoting a moral hypothesis as opposed to my legal stance, then we are talking at crossed purposes.
This is not a problem.
I simply was not putting the pieces together.
Thanks to CM, I think I'm back on your track now.
So let me see.
I have not faced this moral dilemma before as I see morals as a form of emotion.
Being more of a pragmatist and the fact that I absolutely avoid emotions when it comes to discussions or debates, I am somewhat disadvantaged in this area.
But I will 'give it a go'.
Firstly morals and ethics are being practiced, I know this.
I also know that they are a personal choice by any and many individuals, just like religion, politics and so on.
Now if you are suggesting that because you are in a public place where other people also are, that one should conduct themselves in such a manner as to not offend or upset others around you, I would say that would be a kind and christian decision to respect anothers wishes or feelings.
Now that seems well and good, but what of the wishes and feelings of the person accused of upsetting the others?
Did anyone consider his wishes and feelings?
If he is a drunken slob then he deserves no quarter nor should he get any sympathy.
On the other hand what if the accused has a perfectly legitimate reason for his conduct.
Does he get sympathy and help from the public or should he be ejected from said property or public space?
In Massachusetts in the USA after the passing of the (what I call the) queers bill, people were being attacked not only verbally, but just on that one medium, the queers, gaiz whatever you wish to call them, surrounded a local church, whilst parishioners were inside holding service, and all yelling abuse.
The police said because the queers were legal now they had the right to demonstrate and the police were not empowered or authorised to intervene.