The concept of a bill of rights, or some equivalent, is not new to Australians. It is a political topic that has been raised numerous times in our past, and for one reason or another, has been defeated.

But now, I feel that arguments against such a change to our legal system are lacking in the current, and potentially future, landscape of our country.

Short History

Since federation in 1901, Australia's constitution has remained relatively unchanged. Whilst there have been amendments made, largely the original intention has remained. Thus far in our history 6 versions of our constitution have been ratified (including the original), with the latest changes in being accepted in 1977.

For those that are unaware, Australia's constitution defines mostly how our political and governmental systems are to operate. It contains the following provisions:

1. The Parliament
2. The Executive Government
3. The Judicature
4. Finance and Trade
5. The States
6. New States
7. Miscellaneous
8. Alterations to the Constitution

You will note that nowhere in the above is there a mention of any inherent rights of the people (not even in the Miscellaneous section). This lack of inherent rights makes Australia the only Liberal Democracy in the world which does not protect the rights of its people by constitution.

Well, OK, the above statement isn't entirely true. The constitution does protect the right to vote (Section 41), the right to trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51), and prohibition on discrimination on the basis of state of residency (Section 117). The constitution also contains an implied right to freedom of political communication, although this only implied.

The remaining protections that we enjoy are based solely on legal precedent.

The Arguments Against

The opposition to and arguments against some description or form of a "Bill of Rights" in Australia are well documented at this point. For the sake of completeness, lets rehash:

1. A "Bill of Rights" will limit our rights.
2. It would limit the power of government to govern and provide an "undesirable" amount of power to the courts.
3. Parliament can be relied upon to protect our rights and not introduce legislation that restricts or removes them.
4. A bill of rights will be constitutionally hard to change.
5. It will only benefit criminals and minorities.
6. It will clog courts with claims, and this is undesirable to Australians.

The Arguments Against are No Longer Valid

Firstly, I'd like to address some low hanging fruit in the above list of arguments against a bill of rights.

Argument 4. If the Bill of Rights is Entrenched (that is, incorporated into the constitution), then that IS EXACTLY THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!! Do you really want a corrupt government to change your rights on a whim? or change your rights to suit their own agenda? Having an Unentrenched Bill of Rights is almost useless because politicians can amend or change or that particular type of legislation much more easily and, in the event of a corrupt government, reduce your rights to zero. That is a rather cynical point of view, I know, but should our legal system not be set up to protect us from the worst case scenario?

Argument 6. If the introduction of a Bill of Rights is the catalyst for mass legal proceedings then clearly things have been down right shit for a while. You cannot blame a legal instrument designed to protect peoples rights, for people actually standing up for their rights. That is insanity at best and probably means you're on the wrong side of those rights to begin with.

Argument 5. No. Of course the rights will be extended to minorities and criminals. That is the point, that there is a very specific baseline of rights that our society abides. Does that mean that criminals and minority will be the sole benefactors of such an instrument? Of course not, and if that is your view, I would dare say that is from a position of ignorance rather than of informed decision making. Go back to the drawing board and get a better argument you donkey.

Now to start addressing the Meat and Potatoes.

Argument 1. A Bill of rights will not limit your rights. It is the minimum baseline that is to be afforded to the people. The law can and should expand upon the minimum. The bill is designed to prevent the law from encroaching on your most basic rights.

Argument 2. The implement would not restrict the ability of a government to govern, instead it sets boundaries on the relationship between government and people. It says to the government "This is mine, you cannot touch this". And if the government does not respect your rights, that is a sign the government is not serving you the people and they should be removed from government. It really is that simple.

Argument 3. This is the crux of my rant right here. Maybe we used to be able to trust the government, that time has gone. It seems to be almost like clockwork that whomever is in government in this country, they introduce some new bill that slowly removes and revokes freedoms and liberties that we once enjoyed, and then they vote it into an act while the nation is looking elsewhere. Sure the media has something to answer for in this, but ultimately the responsibility lies with the elected officials.

There are supposedly measures within our system to prevent a rogue government. Mainly the appointment of Her Majesty's representative the Governor-General. The GG is the final step in the process of the approval of acts of parliament, he or she is meant to be the "keeper" so to speak. They are the final layer of protection for the people on behalf of the Queen. And yet, we still have draconian laws past that let our government hold people for up to 14 days in gaol without charge or notification of their crime, and no right to legal counsil during that time.

Take for example the "Trusted Digital Identity Bill". Did you even know that was even up for consideration? I'll forgive you if you didn't, hell I didn't. Thanks to a friend of mine I was made aware of it. After being told it existed I went looking. But it is no where to be found except for a propaganda webpage put up by the federal government. The webpage references legislation, but the legislation is not available for viewing ... Hmmm ...

What about the metadata retention laws? What about the proposed "Cyber Troll" Laws? These are all laws that are supposidly meant to "keep us safe", and maybe they do, but at what cost? and what is the real risk?

With the recent history of legislation, the current governments, and systems can no longer be trusted to respect our rights. We need to set our boundaries, and ensure those boundaries are respected.

Attempts at a Bill

In 2001, 2017, and 2019 there were attempts made by various politicians to introduce an Unentrenched bill of rights to parliament. At each stage these bills were defeated. After reading the 2019 variation, I can confidently say that these particular politicians were on the right track, but they did ultimatly miss the mark in the substance of the proposals. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying however. I also belive that what ever form we settle on, the Bill of Rights needs to be Entrenched within the constitution.

What Now?

If you belive like I do, and it's time for Australia to have a bill of rights, then you need to reach out to your local member and have them do their damn job for once and take these issues to Parliament. I've included below references to claims made in the rant. That's it, I'm exhausted, rant over, bye.

References

For those wishing to view the constitution or the mentioned bills for themselves, please see the links provided below:

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation Skip to Content

Federal Register of Legislation

Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation Skip to Content

Digital Identity Australian Government

Your Digital Identity allows you to prove who you are online, and you can re-use your Digital Identity whenever you need it.

Australian Government Digital IdentityDigital Transformation Agency

Terrorist act offences

Discover what constitutes a terrorist act offence under Australian law.

Attorney-General's Department

Access to and retention of internet metadata

Access to and retention of internet ‘metadata’On 5 August 2014, the Government announced its intention to update Australia’s telecommunication interception laws. This is part of broader efforts to enhance powers available to security agencies ‘to combat h

Should Australia Have a Bill of Rights?

A bill of rights is a list of the fundamental rights of citizens of a country. It exists to protect the rights of individuals from being violated by the state or by other individuals. Australia is the only liberal democracy not to have a bill of rights.

Go To Court

Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019

Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation Skip to Content

P.S. I did take a stab at a first draft to some rights for incorporation but I cut it out of this rant because I didn't think this was the place for it. I didn't want to be the armchair politician, and I really do want to contribute. So let me know in the discussion below if you want to see them and I'll post them elsewhere for review, and if you like them, tell your local member.

This case is important for a few reasons, but not the ones you might expect.

I despise our cultures elevation of celebrities and the infamous, as a culture we put too much emphasis on their actions and behaviors, we encourage our children to idolise them, and we provide them privilege we would otherwise not reserve for anyone else.

An yet I am placing this legal battle in the realm of important. I am doing this because I believe that this case, with the attention that is being devoted to it, will highlight a lot of problems that our society ignores.

Problems like defamation, like the court of public opinion, like the "Me Too Movement", and the abuse of Men by Women and society.

Accusations are not facts

Since Amber wrote her article claiming Johnny had abused her, he has no longer been able to work and he has been required to live with a brand that will haunt him for a long time to come. He will be looked down upon by a mass of people, the police will immediately suspect that he has perpetrated a crime by being in mere proximity, and he will be shunned almost everywhere he goes.

And yet, he has not been proven guilty ...

Just because I claim that you used a bad word, does that make it true?

Just because I claim that you stole from me, does that make it true?

Just because I claim that you beat me, does that make it true?

For some reason I cannot fathom, our society believes accusations over facts. If the facts say that Johnny beat Amber, then he should be punished. If they say that Amber beat Johnny then she should receive the exact punishment that he would. I do not condone violence, I despise it. So no matter what the accusation, the evidence must be heard before a decision can be made, and this goes for our society as a whole.

Feelings over Facts

I believe that a significant portion of this behavior to come to conclusions before evidence can be traced to two things, human nature in general, and modern feminism.

I believe that in order for our society to grow to a state of equality and prosperity for all that we need to be able to overcome some of our innate human tendencies, whilst at the same time not loosing our humanity. This is a steep ask but I think this case is a demonstration of the human tendencies we need to learn to control within ourselves.

Women (read Feminism/Wokeism) think that Men in the world have all the privilege, rights, and "powers". Well I encourage you feminists to take a page out of your own book and "check your privilege". Here are some examples:

• You say that you are afraid to walk alone at night.
• I am afraid everyday of a mere accusation that will ruin my life.

• You say that you can't go anywhere without some creep stairing at you.
• I am afraid of living in an appartment building near a school and being labeled a child sex offender.

• You say that men have all the "power" in relationships.
• I don't want to get married because if we separate, you take my children, half of my savings, half of my superannuation, and half of my house.

• You say that you wish your child had a father figgure.
• I have to fight in court for years to be allowed to see that child once a month.

• You say that I abused you.
• The brusies on me from you cannot be seen.

Who is lying?

The unfortunate reality of this case is that someone, somewhere, is lying. Both parties may be lying, we just don't know. Amber claims she was attacked multiple times. Johnny denies. Both have evidence to the contrary.

This is why we cannot just believe one person over another, like the sayings go:

There are two sides to a coin.

There are always two sides to an argument.

Just because an accusation is made does not make it true.

The implications of an accusation.

What startles me about this is that even though no one has been convicted or acquitted, Johnny can no longer work, and Amber has the power of Feminism at her bequest. His right to work, move, and speak is no longer available to him, because he is "a wife beater". The court of public opinion has no place to exist, to ruin a persons life. And yet we have let this court do such things to a man that may yet be proven innocent.

Further, assuming Johnny is proven to be innocent in this case, will he ever be allowed to work again? I find this doubtful. In cases like his, and many others too, Cancel Culture reigns supreme. This "culture" relies upon the instantaneous reactions of the few to spur the masses, facts be damned, and that is what is hurting our society.

Abuse

I myself am a victim of abuse and similar circumstance to what surround Johnny in this case. That is probably why it hits home with me.

And yet, at no point in this rant am I ever saying that I believe one side or the other. I feel for Johnny, and if the accusations are true then I hope he achieves the justice commensurate with the crime against him, unlike my abusers who have walked away cleanly with no repercussions. My only hope is that they are no longer abusing anyone else.

But again I need to see and hear the evidence of the case before making a judgement. And so should you.

Abuse in any form is despicable. We should educate our children to recognise abuse, to despise it, to discourage it, and to avoid it. And in cases like this where it does happen, we need to let the courts decide the outcome, not public opinion.

Conclusion

After all of this is said and done, nothing will be accomplished if we as a society continue to divide ourselves over these matters. If Men cannot understand a Woman's perspective and experience, then the reverse is also true. We, as a society should learn from the proceedings in this legal case, use it, not the people in it, as a tool to understand the wide implications of abuse, lies, deformation, and physical actions. Use this case as a learning point to educate our children that abuse to anyone is wrong, that everyone faces challenges in their lives, and that we need to work together to solve our problems.

Abuse, in any form is wrong, no matter the reason.

Power ... a mystical substance that is the driving force behind Modern Feminism. No longer is feminism about fighting for the equality of women, it is fighting for the superiority of women.

Real Feminism is Still needed.

Feminism has come from humble and just beginnings. There was a time when I agree that feminism was needed. That time has long passed in most of the western world. Feminism has evolved, or more aptly, been twisted, into what some refer to as Third Wave or Modern Feminism. This new form of feminism is nothing but a shouty, undignified, squabble designed to silence and ridicule anyone that seeks true equality and denies the superiority of Feminists.

Feminism, not Modern Feminism, real Feminism, or even better yet, Equalism, is still needed in some parts of the world. Middle Eastern country's, African country's, these places and others have a genuine need for equalism. But how many western feminists do you hear addressing the rape issues in Africa? I haven't heard one addressing this in the main stream. The issue in that country is so prevalent that it has sparked the need for someone to develop an "Anti-Rape Condom". But no feminist group has dared to fund, promote, or discuss this, why?

RapeX, the South African Anti-Rape Condom

A prototype anti-rape device was fashioned as a female condom with teeth lining the inside.

Snopes.comDavid Mikkelson

Because discussing and taking action on women's issues in these country's do not suit the modern feminist agenda of gaining and holding onto unlimited power. Until it does. In an interview you will see later, a Feminist leader purports to be concerned about the reproductive rights of women in Brazil. I doubt very much that she is actually concerned, she only brings this to the interviewers attention because it suits her own agenda and she immediately ties it back to her current situation and debates, she is using those less off than her to her own advantage, but never in main stream media.

Please indulge me while I elaborate on this point some more.

Illusions of the Feminist Dictators.

If Modern Feminism really is about equality for all women then why are they not taking their fight to these country's that really need them? I can tell you, because it won't benefit them. They want their offices, their high pays, their nails done, and their benefits. They don't want to give that up to help real women in real need. They want what ever "Power" is and they are not afraid to use others to get it.

One of the levers I have heard and read multiple feminists pull during discussions in recent times, and going back to the rape statement made before, is that there is a "Rape Culture" in our society, that men need to be held to account for the rape that they commit. There is a lot to dig out of these statements and not a lot of time so I'm just going to straight for the jugular on this one. Rape culture is a lie, a myth, a fallacy. Why? I am a man. If "Rape Culture" existed my parents would have done things like encouraging me to have sex with women whenever I wanted. Did they? Fuck no! My parents taught me to respect people, treat others like I want to be treated, be kind, be just, be fair. My Parents never encouraged anything that could have even had the slightest possibility of being twisted into "Rape Culture". And not just my parents, my friends parents too. If this existed then at school, at work, in social circles men would be encouraging each other to perform sexual acts on women with or without consent, I would of learnt about it in school and how it "isn't that bad". News flash, none of that happened or happens. If it was a "Culture", it would prevalent, it would be rampant, it is not. If it is a culture then why do most men despise and discourage such behaviour? The answer is their is no "Rape Culture". So why do Feminists pull on this lever? To put their "oppressors" back into their box, silence them, and take the "Power" that those "oppressors" have. It's that simple. Instead of getting real solutions to real issues we get shit like this shoved down our throats:

Instead of Modern Feminism addressing real issues that plague women, we get even more shit like this:

I could do an absolute deep dive into both of these videos, unfortunately I'm a little late to that party and there are plenty of other video's and articles out there. So maybe I'll do a rant about these, and others, some other day.

I do however want to address one point from the "Project" video that I am sick and tired of hearing. Women are not the only ones that need to look out for themselves. I've accidentally wandered into sketchy area's, been walking alone at night to my car in dimly lit area's, and such other situations that get described by feminist all the time. And I have, in these situations, been on my guard, aware, and yes I admit, a little cautious and afraid. I held my keys in between my knuckles just in case, I made the dash, I did all the things that the police recommended in that video and that I have heard female friends of mine tell me they have "had to do". That isn't a women's issue, its human nature, its a societal issue. Stop talking about this from your victim hood complex perspective and maybe you might get some traction.

Real issues are no where to be seen.

I mentioned my opinion on Modern Feminism to a friend of mine, her reply was that feminism is still sorely needed in the western world. As we spoke and discussed this topic she highlighted to me that there are, in fact, some gender disparities that are occurring in our own back yard in what would, socially, be considered minority groups in this country. Within these groups there are still issues affecting women in this so called modern culture, that I have not heard in any main stream source. I am speaking rather vaguely here, to protect the anonymity of myself and my friend, but rest assured, I was shocked to hear that a lot of what feminism fought for in the 70's, and the privileges that women have in our society as a whole today, the privileges I see women enjoying every day, are still being denied to some women of certain cultural backgrounds. Not by our society at large, but by these microcosms that exist in certain area's. This is illegal in this country, for good reason, and yet it exists.

So again, why have we not heard of this in the main stream media? Because it does not advance the pursuit of "Power" and wealth for Modern Feminist leaders.

The Narrative is Questioned, And the Narrative Falls Apart.

Instead of trying to help the women being denied modern freedoms as I mentioned above, we are told things like, "Women get paid 75 cents for every 1 dollar a Man gets paid".

I again want to put this one six feet under while the topic is raised. Women do not get paid less than men for the same work in this country, because it is Illegal to do so.

From the Sex Discrimination Act 1984:

Sex Discrimination Act 1984

Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation Skip to Content

Part II—Prohibition of discrimination
Division 1—Discrimination in work
14  Discrimination in employment or in superannuation

(1)  It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities:
(a)  in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment;
(b)  in determining who should be offered employment; or
(c)  in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered.

(2)  It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground of the employee’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities:
(a)  in the terms or conditions of employment that the employer affords the employee;
(b)  by denying the employee access, or limiting the employee’s access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment;
(c)  by dismissing the employee; or
(d)  by subjecting the employee to any other detriment.

If women were being paid less than men for the Same Work then why are there not countless lawsuits, civil actions, and riots in the streets? And don't tell me that it can't be proven, damn straight it can. Tax Records, Payroll records, Bank Records, they can all be forcibly brought to court if required. Take a further look at the statistics when they are questioned, seriously, watch these people struggle to answer simple questions, relevant questions, that if answered truthfully, would bring their world crashing down:

Modern Feminism pushes these narratives, like the above, in front of you in order to gain what ever form of power they perceive to be relevant at the time. They are less focused on the real issues that still remain in the world and in this country, and more focused on their own greed.

From the Horses Mouth

In the documentary "The Red Pill" by Cassie Jaye, there is a beautiful example of the domination that Modern Feminism has on the western world. The interview with Katherine Spillar talks a lot about control, another word for power. Her interview is conducted in her fancy office, with her paid receptionist, surrounded by what I can only assume is an expensive operation. She uses a lot of emotive and generalised language in order to portray what is perceived as an imbalance of power where men hold all the cards. Women are the universal victims, and men are the universal perpetrators according her and the doctrine with which she subscribes. She also uses the word "maybe" a lot, she sites situations and ideals that men "Might" have, without providing proof, and knowing that no one will question her because she is a feminist. She then admits, in her own weird way, that women have an advantage but then backpedals quicker than you could believe in order to maintain the narrative, and returns to the idea of power and control. Notice that she sights no sources and no data during her whole argument.

Amazon.com: Red Pill, The : Cassie Jaye, Paul Elam, Dr. Warren Farrell, Harry Crouch, Fred Hayward, Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan, Marc Angelucci Esq., Dr. Michael Kimmel, Katherine Spillar, Michael Messner, Cassie Jaye: Movies & TV

Buy Red Pill, The: Read Movies & TV Reviews - Amazon.com

Are Modern Feminists loosing the fight for Power?

Ultimately no, and then ironically in some area's, feminism is loosing the fight for power and superiority. How? Well it all comes down the scale of oppression. Are you more oppressed than some other faction? Guess what, you win. The prize? You now get to oppress others! How wonderful! And that is where feminism is loosing their fight, not to men, not to "patriarchy", but to those who claim to be more oppressed. Social issues have now become a race in the oppression Olympics. Yes I am talking about "trans" people in sports, specifically "trans" men in women's sports. Because these people claim to be more oppressed, more displaced, they claim that they have the right to take away that which is rightfully belongs to someone else. But this is a rant for another time.

The Rant Draws to a Close.

Once all of this is said and done, I encourage you to do your own research. Not on the book of faces, or any other social media. Read the facts, read peer reviewed studies, read the law, compare and scrutinise everything. Feminists are at war and the goal is power. Sure, they have genuine concerns sometimes, but so too do men and other portions of society. We can not raise up one faction over another just to make them feel better, or else we will be doing the same thing to others as has been done to them in the past.

Fight for equality, not femininity, or masculinity.

To end this rant, I want to leave you with part 1 of an unedited interview from the documentary mentioned before, The Red Pill, and a quote that I think we should all consider.

I call myself an equalist, I don't call myself a Masculist ... to me that's just making the same mistake. - Fred Hayward

Political discourse is fundamental to the operation of nations. It allows us to openly discuss our differences and gives our elected officials the information they need to act on our behalf. Afterall, they are Public Servents who are meant to be representing the collective interest of their electorate. How else do they know what their electorate wants?

But all too often, in recent times, has that discourse turned into rage, anger, and hatred. A hatred that is spilling into facets of life where it is not needed, not wanted, and not productive. The Left despises the Right and vice versa, all for what, to continue the argument? The only common denominator that I can reduce this issue down to is language.

Language might seem simple enough to us now, but the languages we speak have developed over hundreds, even thousands of years. And as our languages have developed so too have we, in a somewhat symbiotic relationship.

Language, Behavior, and Thought. The Symbiosis

Our words, our language, effects our behavior, our thoughts, the way in which we treat others. It reaches far beyond a simple comment said "off the cuff".

language is closely associated with symbolism, and so with conceptual thought, problem solving, and creativity.

How the Language You Speak Influences the Way You Think

The relationship between language and thought is far from straightforward.

Psychology TodayNeel Burton, M.D., is a psychiatrist, philosopher, and writer who lives and teaches in Oxford, England.

While our language doesn't strictly determine our thoughts, the influence that it has on our cognitive process's is drastic. Take for example the Aboriginal people of Australia. Few of the original aboriginal languages had words for "left" or "right", so when it came to navigation, or describing a part of the part of the body, they would say "my east foot" or "go west half a day then north". Before English was introduced to the Aboriginal people this type of language and speech made them hyper aware of their surroundings. Similar concepts are available in other languages. Greek as exampled by the above article, has multiple words for "blue" and so native speakers are more readily able to describe and recognise different shades of blue. The anecdotes to this type of language-behaviour interaction are numerous, I encourage you to investigate more on your own time.

The more we speak of a thing, the more we believe that thing to be true, even if it isn't. Think about how often peoples memories are distorted by changing of tone or singular words in a story. Who do you know who is an exaggerated story teller, with each retelling the same story becomes more and more elaborate, and yet, to the story teller, that is how they remember it. All because of their flamboyant speech.

The more elaborate the words, the more stark the difference. The more we exaggerate our stance to make a point, the more decisive we will be.

The Language of Others Shapes our Perception

It's not just our own internal monologue, or external expressions that can affect how we perceive an idea, an incident, someone else's speech, or anything else that we observe. The words and language of others also determines our own memory, which in turn influences our future actions.

Take for example, a group of witness's to a crime. The Police take statements from the witness's individually as soon as possible from the time the crime was committed. Assume at this point, that the witness's have not had a chance to discuss the incident together. This initial statement is the baseline, the actual facts as remembered by the witness. Now a week passes and the police call in all the witness's at the same time for a second statement, they are in the same room together for a period of time before the first person is called. They start to talk, the different details, the different language used by each person will influence the perception of the incident with others. Eventually key and critical details will be completely different. This difference can then be compared and measured by the second statement to the original baseline.

To illustrate this point, take note of how language is used by a person of authority in the below social experiment. This is how others influence you, and drive you further apart or towards someone else, even without you knowing or thinking about it.

So how does this concept relate to political discourse? Let me put another situation to you. We have a friendly conversation about something we don't agree on, so far we have been able to discuss the topic with relative civility. Then I start to use more aggressive language, for what ever reason, I have some sort of internal justification for the language. It's not over the top, its still respectful, but intense non the less. The conversation ends. Sometime later your friend asks you what you did yesterday, you remember the conversation and you tell them about it. What language do you use to describe the interaction? Am I a bigot? A pig? A self entitled ass-hole? The language you use now will affect this persons perception of me. Some time goes by and now your friend and I meet. They now have a bad impression of me and no matter what I say, no matter how civil I am, I am that bigot you described. Discourse and free flowing ideas can no longer happen, human nature has shut them out because of your influence.

Fancy Words, What do they Mean?

The more that we speak in over exaggerated tones, aggressive tones, fantastical speech about political issues and leanings, the further and further that we will be driven apart. This because of certain "one-up-manship" this is inherent amoungst the prevailing personalitites that tend to lead these political circles.

The below link to from Stanford University showcases various articles which explore the concepts I have mentioned here. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything here, the studies mentioned provide the substance to my anecdotes. Overall it drives the point of speech influencing thoughts and actions.

The power of language: How words shape people, culture

At Stanford, linguistics scholars seek to determine what is unique and universal about the language we use, how it is acquired and the ways it changes over time.

Stanford NewsStanford University

Ultimatly, what all of this is saying is that in an attempt to get the other side of the debate to agree, people have firstly forgotten to listen, and secondly, resort to sensationalising the arguments in order to push their own agenda, societal and human courtesesy be damned.

The Divisive Effect of Left and Right

So what does any of this discussion around language have to do with politics? Everything! In the western world, the more we divide ourselves with language, the worse off we will be, the less we can agree, the less we can negotiate, the less we can advance our society.

With the types of language being spewed in political circles today there is no wonder why our societies are not advancing. People and Politicians are too concerned with "fighting the other side", "slowing the rise of the Left/Right" and all this language is doing is dehumanising the other side, why? Because they don't belong with us? Because their idea's are wrong? All you fuckwits on both sides are doing is driving a wedge between people, between yourselves, between a civilised and productive society.

It's time to stop it with these senseless labels, dehumanising speech, and aggressive stances. No one deserves to be treated the way that people are being treated in these types political and social circles. It's time for you children to open your minds to other ideas besides your own, judge ideas by the morals and standards that we have developed as a society over hundreds years, by the scientific principles that have gotten us this far, not just by what is "hot right now". Listen to others, don't shout someone down because you disagree, listen, maybe they can teach you something. God knows maybe we can all learn something.

Rant ... Over ...

With the federal election in Australia right around the corner (i.e. sometime this year, also known as whenever the current government could be arsed) I think there is merit in a timely reminder on how our voting system works in this country. Why do I think you all need a reminder? Well because I doubt very much you knew how it worked in the first place. This was made all to clear to me during a recent conversation with family when they had the system completely wrong, and would not listen to reason, instead relying on hearsay and ignoring factual references, because, what the hell do I know?

Now, let me be clear, I don't blame you for not knowing how this all works. In fact, I blame our government and school system. In my opinion, the government has a vested interest in ensuring that you not know how it works, because if you don't, then one of the two "major parties" is likely to be voted back in, which keeps them, and their corporate wallets, happy.

Disinformation

The reality is, that there is not enough information, in the correct format, made readily available to the public about the voting systems here in Australia. Yes, I said "Systems", plural. We have two, and we vote with both at the same time.

This issue is only made worse by our parents and grandparents giving us their distorted views on the voting system when we first turn 18 years of age. We respect our parents and grandparents, and that is great, but that doesn't mean they are always right, sometimes things change, or in this case, we just understand things slightly better than the previous generation. This is natural, and it's not a criticism on our fore bearers.

Further on in this article I have included some videos about how the voting in Australia works. The reason I have included more that one is not because I need to cover two voting systems, it is because even in the official documents, and other publications put forth by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), it is not made absolutely clear to the public how their votes will be counted. It is only when combining information from official, and academic sources, that a clear picture of our voting systems is revealed. This is disheartening because this type of information should be easily available to everyone of voting age, and at all intellectual levels, in order to ensure fair, and just elections.

If you want to check out the official information from the AEC, I suggest you check the following webpage:

Preferential voting

Australian Electoral CommissionAuthorised by the Electoral Commissioner, Canberra

Two Houses, Two Systems

Lets start by reviewing the basics. Australian Government is made up of two "Houses". The "House of Representatives", also known as the "Lower House". And the "Senate", or "Upper House"

The voting for each house is slightly different, but it is still preferential in both cases. The difference is whether or not it is Your preference that is counted, or the Political Parties Preference. Before this gets too confusing lets look at the simpler of the two, the lower house.

Voting in the House of Reps

To vote for the House of Representatives, you must fill in YOUR preference in each of the boxes that is on the ballot paper. This is important to remember because, as will be explained in the below two videos, if your preferred candidate is eliminated from the running, then your vote is redistributed as per YOUR preference. So your vote still counts. People don't seem to grasp this concept for some strange reason. I blame brainwashing ...

Regardless, the below two video's (one from the AEC, and one from Griffith University) should make this clear.

So, what are the take-a-ways from this? Well the main one I want to highlight is that if we, as the Australian Public, want a government that is not Liberal or Labor, we can have it! And at this point I think we need it. There are other issues, and it's not 100% that simple, but at the same time it really is. Your vote counts, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Vote for your Senator

And now, the complications arise. Whilst the votes counted for a seat in the senate are still based on preferential votes, they way they are counted is ... convoluted, at best, especially compared to the lower house's system.

Unfortunately the details given by the AEC both in written and visual form let us down once again.

Remember when your parents told you about how, if a party that you vote for looses in an election, that the party now gets to decide where your vote goes? Well this system is where that comes from, but that statement is also not entirely true. Below are, once again, two videos. One from the AEC, and one from the government funded ABC network. Admittedly, the ABC video is sensationalised, but it also illustrates the point.

If you vote "above the line", and you fill in ALL of the boxes, it is YOUR preferences that are counted. The same can be said for voting below the line. However, if you miss any boxes, then your vote may be subjected to redistribution by the Parties (or individuals) preferences. I give you the below video's as an illustration of this point.

So what have we learned about the voting system in the Senate? It's complicated, although not unnecessarily so given what the vote needs to accomplish. Bottom line, make sure you fill in all the boxes and understand your candidates, its the only way you can ensure your vote goes where you want it to go.

Conclusion

Australia's electoral system is both simple, and complicated. There are intricacies to learn, and hurdles to overcome. Knowing how your vote is counted in both houses will help you make the most of your vote. It is my hope that you take away this information and spread the word to your friends and family, disperse the fallacies, and educate the country, the government may not like it, but the rest of Australia will thank you.

What's this? Is it Rant 30 already? Not quite, we're still getting things started.

Rant 30 is a brand new site by Phil Anonimouse that is just beginning. Things will be up and running here shortly, but hopefully not too shortly. In the meantime, why don't you subscribe if you'd like to stay up to date and receive emails when new content is published!

About Rant30

Well, we're glad you're here, and we hope you stay. Rant30 is a place for our Supreme Authors to rant, vent, and get hot and spicy takes out into the world. It's uncensored, unadulterated, and un-politically-correct news and opinions.

We're tired of being told what we can and can't say. We're tired of being told to be quite. And so now we're doing something about it.

Please, join us as we explore this depraved world, and hopefully, we will come out the other end sooner rather than later.