Search results

Philosophy - Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Then there are also those wacko extremists like Catherine McKinnon saying women can never consent to sex because of our patriarchal society! I have a Mabo essay due on Thursday and Crim essay due on Friday :(

Exactly. Although it has to be a "real possibility": R v Banditt [2004] NSWCCA 208 - at 92, per James J: Banditt is on appeal to the HC at the moment, so I don't know whether they will clarify what "real possibility" means. Describing it is always going to be a problem but I would not like to...

I understand and agree, it's just (a) I don't have time at the moment to give an extensive summary of the reasoning and (b) erawamai seems to be/has covered the basic issue anyway. It was more of a general comment, but I certainly take your point. Another issue is that, because the laws are...

I'm really sick of these stupid criticisms. Whether it be the politicking of politicians, the idiotic complaints by women's groups or your average layperson -- so many people who are vocal on sentencing have seriously no clue. I don't want to inhibit people's opinions on this forum of...

That's quite dodgy, you're not supposed to use the guillotine for that. As far as convention goes, as I understand it, one is supposed to use the urgent feature for things like war, crisis, etc -- basically issues requiring immediate resolve.

You mean there was no second reading speech? It's been a while since Public Law but isn't that against convention? I thought they could only do that by declaring it 'urgent' ...and even then there should be questions...?

It is lifted now, yes. Not sure what his honour was doing... maybe just a temporary injunction until he heard detailed argument.

Excellent... I just got home from work, I would have missed it :cool:

Oh damn. That probably will be your only chance :( No you can't do it when you're a lawyer... it would be fascinating to be inside the "mind" of a jury

Generator has posted a number of links to news on the soon-to-be released diaries of Mark Latham (available from Australian bookstores on 21 September). I'm sure there will be a lot of interesting comment coming out of those diaries which might be best dealt with separately in this thread.

I got my SDD teacher a gavel, primarily because he used to loudly whack objects like pieces of wood or metal on the walls and doorframes to get the class' attention. Specially custom made by an old man who lives near me =/

Reward and punishment ;) You can make animals do all sorts of things by conditioning them with pleasure or pain... humans too.

Yes. State and religion should always be separated, for obvious reasons.

I realise the thread went off on a tangent there - it is easy to do because the topics are linked. But yes, let's try and keep it to the headscarves debate. I realise religious views are related, but discussions about God should probably be kept to another thread.

Correct, I cannot prove there is no God definitely - and indeed I do not believe that anyway. (Although I can argue that the conception of an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God is a contradiction.) My case is not that God does not exist, it is that we cannot know whether God exists and we...

No case to answer. Since you can't prove God exists, in my opinion your argument fails. But I'm not going to perpetuate an off-topic discussion, so back on topic: muslim headscarves.

I understand, what I don't understand is why. 1. Mmm. Life as a test. Perfectly logical assumption. Make some beings who are innately flawed. Then punish them for doing the wrong thing (which they are determined to do anyway). Cause massive disasters which they have no control over that kill...

1. Even if he is, getting his/her/its wisdom from an old book is pretty silly. 2. God being omnipotent, omnicient and benevolent is a contradiction. Any fool can look around and see the fact that there is a lot of shit going on in the world.