LOGIN  ~  REGISTER
Home About Join Contact Media News
About Us
Recent News
Search

2007/06/23
Martial Law or Maternal Law: What would you vote for?
Category: What Women Want : 

Author: What Women Want (12:53 am)
It seems that John Howard's mastery of wedge politics is back. Last time it was the Tampa and the misery of refugees. Now it is Australia's first people. Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd seem to agree that moves like Martial law will improve life for Indigenous Australian children. The seemingly 'soft issues' of improving family structures and enabling self determination are in fact way too hard. Tick a box policy like anal and vaginal probes for children and shipping in the Army are the flavour of the day.

Much of What Women Want is about improving families community and society through strong support during pregnancy and child rearing (where it all begins). A community in a remote province of Canada, Puvirnituq developed the first Inuit controlled birthing service. They shared many of the problems of Aboriginal Australians, substance abuse, domestic violence, Incest and suicide. The huge success of this venture has been made into a documentary. Interestingly it parallels this program with the forced evacuations across remote Australia. The Puvirnituq program has not only reduced many social problems across the community it has actually improved the outcomes of pregnancies (fewer babies die than when women were forced to give birth in a large centre). The C/s rate is 3% as opposed to 27% when women were removed.

The community has control and it is much healthier and happier. see

http://www.jagfilms.com.au/pages.asp?pageid=60&submenu=64

So What would you vote for: Martial Law or Maternal Law?
| Comments (35) | Trackback (0) | Reads (-1)
Trackback URL of this entry
http://www.zero1temp.com/home/modules/weblog/weblog-tb.php/3
Printer Friendly Page Send this Blog to a Friend
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/23 0:38  Updated: 2007/7/23 0:38
 Mark Boxsell
Further to my comment about badly-hidden agendas, is your correspondent Mark Boxsell the same Mark Boxsell who bombarded the SES with emails seeking support for a crazy scheme in relation to the State Emergency Service?

This guy is an electronic stalker. He collects email addresses from websites. It's possible that his "supporter" on your blog is none other than himself.

I wouldn't for one moment suggest that he's a nutter.

By the way, I hope you will be very careful about handing out your preferences: do your wheeling and dealing in writing. It seems that a commitment is not necessarily a commitment.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/24 9:44  Updated: 2007/7/24 9:44
 Re: Mark Boxsell
An electronic stalker would not leave his name at the bottom of a blog or email.

In relation to the ses email (and good work on your wonderous powers of deduction), after seeing my two in-law pensioners slugging their guts out day after day, asking for nothing; I sent an email asking if there was any support amongst ses units for a petition to the NSW government to allow payment to be made to ses members involved in EMERGENCY OPERATIONAL ROLES, ie call outs and major storms only! Not really a crazy scheme, if you wait five minutes and think about it. I was met with open hostility, so I dropped the subject.

You are correct I found the emails on the unit web pages, it took all of about 5 minutes.

I am not a stalker. I tried to do something to help people I thought were very derserving, however the senior members who recieved the emails found this insulting to their little sesdoms. I am very sorry for all the pain and suffering I must have caused by suggesting that taxpayers should fund emergency service work!!! I guess alternative birthing is a much better use of the government dollar!!

Regards,
Mark Boxsell
PS: Have some integrity and put your name at the bottom before you try to insult someone!!!!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/25 4:23  Updated: 2007/7/25 4:23
 Re: Mark Boxsell
I would call choice about birthing equally as important as any other issue, certainly.
However, because men will never have to experience pregnancy, childbirth and all that ENTAILS, then it is understandable how angry, hostile and openly prejudiced a man can be about female choice.
Not.
P.S. One begins to wonder: Why doesn't Mark, the activist, the helpful, go and set up his own anti-female-choice-let's-get-the- SES-right-party? Oh, that would be too easy. Far better to take the hard option and log on to criticise the attempts of others to make the world a better, fairer and less female-ignorant place.

Signed, specifically for Mark,
by Sojourner Truth II

Poster Thread
astrickland@netspace.net.au
Posted: 2007/7/18 21:12  Updated: 2007/7/18 21:12
Just popping in
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 1
 Joyce
I draw your attention to the following comments from former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, in The Age on 13 July. He, too, seems to think it's a land grab. And now that I've read the words on the memo myself, I agree with him.

"What is the Government's real agenda, many are asking? Why does the explanatory memorandum on the legislation to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights Act read: "The principal objectives (of this bill) are to improve access to Aboriginal land for development, especially mining …" What has that got to do with child abuse? And what logic is there in the proposal to remove the permit system, whereby Aboriginal leaders decide who can come onto their land? Surely that will only enable non-indigenous pedophiles to have easier access to Aboriginal children. Yet non-indigenous pedophiles are a significant part of the problem."

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/5 4:29  Updated: 2007/7/5 4:29
 Mark Boxsell
“It seems that John Howard's mastery of wedge politics is back”

It does not matter what your stance is on the Australian Governments reaction to the indigenous problem in the Northen Territory, as long as you can cite a term you remember from a political studies lecture and demonstrate no understanding of the meaning. This would seem to be the philosophy of What Women Want. The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, is indeed a master of wedge politics, but the political motivation behind this new policy is not wedge politics. In fact this policy artfully forced the opposition into backing the plan, removing the gap between the two major parties in the minds of the electorate. This is very similar to centre politics as it captures a majority of the central portion of voters. Mr Howard’s policy did not allow the opposition to distance themselves from it because they would risk appearing to be against helping little children who are suffering from all kinds of abuse.

This is in no way a conspiracy theory, but only two things stop a government from doing something they want to do; politics and money. The government had the money to intervene and artfully manipulated the politics to allow them to do it. Not to mention anyone in opposition to their policy has voiced tired arguments about racism and land grabs, forgetting the actual civil liberties violations that are being suffered by these aboriginal people as we speak. Any where else in our country, the crime you are committing does not empower the state to take legal actions against your entire community.

Child abuse is unforgivable but we have a legal system, that despite the opinions of some critics, actually works. This system should have been expanded in these communities to neutralise the problem in the same fashion as in the rest of the country, and the perpetrators sent straight to prison where at all possible.

In summation, What Women Want Australia Party seem inept at articulate a valid argument either for or against the Governments actions and also have failed to even adequately analyse the events of the past couple of weeks. The only comfort is, that their outdate policy of discrimination on the basis of sex, will ensure electoral failure.

Regards,
Mark Boxsell

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/7 1:52  Updated: 2007/7/7 1:52
 Re: Mark Boxsell
Thanks Mark! See ladies? Men will do and say anything to undermine female power. Now don't let them dissuade or distract you and get on with promoting the wellbeing of women and children. Men can be so selfish and manipulative and Mark's 'intellectualisation' of his opposition to sharing power equally is transparently evident in that little tirade.
BOY do we need a women's party!
Keep it up ladies.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/15 23:02  Updated: 2007/7/15 23:02
 Re: Mark Boxsell
Well said Mark. Not only are your comments well thought out and rational, but they starkly contrast many of the people on this blog. I would support what you said regardless of gender and BTW other bloggers, I am a woman.

I also ntoe that the Young Australian of the year who is an indeginous Asutralian supports John Howards actions.

And for the crazy conspiracy theorists out there: The liberal policy is being supported by the opposition and try this for size...WWW are giving their preferences to labor.... SO a vote for WWW will be a vote for JH's policy in this area anyway!!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/20 2:18  Updated: 2007/7/20 2:18
 Labor preferences
If preferences go to Labor, that supports Kevin Rudd's policy over John Howard's. Not the other way around.
And in any case, the preference issue only counts if you relinquish your opportunity to designate your own preferences by simply choosing to tick a box in the top of your ballot form.
Personally, I number all of my own preferences to the Nth degree. So no preference arrangements between parties don't make much difference.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/20 2:59  Updated: 2007/7/20 2:59
 Re: Mark Boxsell
WWW Has made no decision re preferences. To those that have e-mailed me and asked, I have said we will talk to all parties as is appropriate. You cannot say what our vote will be for as you have no idea the substance of the negotiations. These issues will be decided amongst our members on the basis of our policies.

Justine Caines- Founder

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 7:41  Updated: 2007/6/28 7:41
 Reinforcements
Even incest victims can fall pregnant. I don't care if they give birth to these children without a c section, they should not be raped and pregnant in the first place!!! I'm not for any political party, but in this case I celebrate both major parties uniting on this issue.

Poster Thread
amband@bigpond.com.au
Posted: 2007/6/28 8:25  Updated: 2007/6/28 8:25
Just popping in
Joined: 2007/6/28
From:
Posts: 1
 Re: Reinforcements
Child abuse,incest etc, are State matters and Howard has no authority here. The Commonwealth can intervene to some degree in a territory as the N T, but States are sovereign!

Howard as taken this right to the Labor States for no other reason than to, by extension, discredit Rudd!

I doubt his sincerity

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 10:18  Updated: 2007/6/28 10:18
 Re: Reinforcements
I'd love it if JH intervened to solve the situation, but his simple statement that he will "review the strategy in 6 months" tells me that he is simply parking this issue until after the election. Worse still, he is probably using it to keep our attention away from the fact that he has done NOTHING for 10 years!!!!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/30 21:42  Updated: 2007/6/30 21:42
 Re: Reinforcements
Whether you doubt his sincerity or not, the issue of Indigenous neglect is too important to abandon. If any good can be made of this posture on Howard's part, then let it be.
I'm glad they're sending in services. I hope and pray that the services give the original owners of this country a leg up. In particular the women and children. God knows, they need it.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/7/3 6:58  Updated: 2007/7/3 6:58
 Re: Reinforcements
What a glib analysis of this issue (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing that to an extent Howard has rushed into this issue hoping there is some electoral advantage) and everything has to have a connection with C sections...

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/27 20:02  Updated: 2007/6/27 20:02
 Comments...
Unfortunately, what John Howard is implementing is not Martial Law. Martial Law is where the military is in complete control of the justice system, where the rights of an individual have been significantly reduced. However, this is not the case, simply because there has been an increase in troop presence in the NT, does not mean Martial Law.

Making extreme assumptions, as in; the government is looking to take over land in the NT for nuclear waste is ludicrous. None of this is happening, the government would not do this; it is also illegal to transport nuclear waste over water. Considering we do not have nuclear waste of our own, it is surprising the government would do such a thing...

Another comment about this political party, through reading your webblogs and comments on current affairs, it would seem that this party takes an extreme dislike to the policies that men have created. Many times you have mentioned that men continue to destroy society without seeing the larger picture... unfortunately for this party, we live in a society of equality, as much as many would like to argue that; there are many nations around the world in which the people would love to indulge in the freedom and equality we have here in Australia. I believe that if this party wants to represent more than the minority of women who find extreme displeasure in the macro-economic policies of the current Government, but rather look to represent EVERYONE who believes in your policies.

Remember, there was once a time where only men could vote, and that was an obvious injustice and inequality, and I can tell you now, that this party is sending the message to voters that men are not wanted as representatives of the people.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 3:03  Updated: 2007/6/28 3:03
 Re: Comments...
I agree with this writer - many women would like to see you right up there running the country but as I said in my email to you - the name of the party alone is divisive - as are some of your policies - we need to send a strong message to canberra - but you will lose many of the women who would otherwise vote for you with some of your stands....

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 5:51  Updated: 2007/6/28 5:51
 Re: Comments...
This Party Is 100% Sexist. I hope you lose!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 5:52  Updated: 2007/6/28 5:52
 Re: Comments...
Stop f**king referring to the federal government as "Canberra". There are 320,000 other people here you know!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 7:26  Updated: 2007/6/28 7:26
 Re: Comments...
But they are only Canberrans.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 7:18  Updated: 2007/6/28 7:18
 Re: Comments...
I agree, if extreme genergalised unsubstantiated conspiracy theories is what this political party is about I don't think it is what women want. Should it be called "What women should want" or "What a few women want'? You have a great opportunity here, don't get caught up in extreme views and get practical. PS: With a background in political science you are right about the not using the "martial law" comment. Get real!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/29 1:37  Updated: 2007/6/29 1:37
 Re: Comments...
Quote:
unfortunately for this party, we live in a society of equality, as much as many would like to argue that; there are many nations around the world in which the people would love to indulge in the freedom and equality we have here in Australia.


Perhaps many nations and people would like what we have ... but it's not equality here ... not by a long shot. It may be a higher level than some people/places live with. I suggest you (and the Aus Govt.) research the lives and govts of Nordic people. Australia is a joke compared to them. I lived in one of these countries recently for 6 years.

Quote:
and I can tell you now, that this party is sending the message to voters that men are not wanted as representatives of the people.


That is one opinion ... I am a male and in no way do I feel unwanted. That is my opinion.

Australia is so young. Why, oh, why, have we not studied the successes around the world and incorporated them into our ways here. Transport (including bicycle paths), education, health, housing, rehabilitation programs, efficient economies, welfare can all be dramatically improved upon. I am sorely disappointed living with this govt. and the rediculously immature people who run it.

David

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/29 3:25  Updated: 2007/6/29 3:25
 Re: Comments...
IS AUSTRALIA A COUNTRY WITH NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION ?????
THIS POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD BE BANNED !!!!!!!!!!

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/30 21:39  Updated: 2007/6/30 21:39
 Re: Comments...
I send a bouquet of flowers to David. Which Nordic country did you live in David?
I agree that we can only possibly achieve that which we aim for. If all we do is to compare ourselves with less socially just societies and pat ourselves on the back, then what's the point to life?
I for one, would like to see my grandchildren inherit a better society than I was raised in as a girl. There is definitely NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN equality of opportunity for women in Australia. Perhaps there are INSTANCES where some fortunate women have not felt the whip and crushing ceiling imposed in a dominated society. But in general, women are NOT HEARD.
I'm sorry, but the feminist revolution was not the be all and end all for female striving to redress an ongoing history of imbalance.
I am most impressed with David's support for the female voice. It is rare and heartening. It is so rare in fact, that this is why we NEED a women's issue party.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/8/5 11:08  Updated: 2007/8/5 11:08
 Here to say hello
Hi here how are you? I am newbie in www.whatwomenwant.org.au so i hope i will get some friends here :)

Poster Thread
katherine.juestel@downundathundaradio.com.au
Posted: 2007/10/7 7:59  Updated: 2007/10/7 7:59
Just popping in
Joined: 2007/10/7
From:
Posts: 2
 Re: Comments...
"it is also illegal to transport nuclear waste over water."

I don't know where you got this from but I can tell you this is totaly untrue. Govenrments, including the USA, have been shipping their waste over seas for many years. A lot of it goes from places like France and Germany into storage in places like New Mexico. I know, I watched the damn stuff roll by my house on it's way to the salt caves. I watched it being unloaded on the docks in LA and elsewhere.

There is NO maritime or other International law forbidding shipping nucluer waste by sea. None. There ARE laws forbidding it being shipped by air, but those laws are mostly country by country and even then are ignored.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/27 18:09  Updated: 2007/6/27 18:09
 Reinforcements for women and children
Sorry Justine,

But I am a woman and I don't agree with your blog. I think sending in the cavalry to protect women and children, when men are protected under their own laws to rape and assault them as a good thing.

While I value the "birth rites" information you also posted, I think it is a giant leap to say that natural childbirth will negate the need for martial law. And isn't helping the children who are being assaulted right now.

It is about time women and children had this support.... misogyny happens in all communities, if martial law is what these men will listen to then so be it.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/27 18:20  Updated: 2007/6/27 18:20
 If only that was the motive
If protecting children and mothers from abuse was the REAL motive. If this is the case why has Howard repeatly ignored many shocking report previously?. Sadly this is about land rights and obtaining power to seize land for uranium mining and nuclear waste dumps (oh to be politically correct we call the nuclear repositories). Howard is setting Australia up to accept the world's nuclear waste and he wants to dump it in remote areas. On top of the abuse these poor people have now they will have generations of birth defects and cancers. Their life span is so short now. Howard how do you sleep at night? Rudd YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OPPOSITION. They are all in bed together.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 2:04  Updated: 2007/6/28 2:04
 Re: If only that was the motive
this is the biggest conspiracy theory I have ever heard. honestly go and do some research before stating these serious accusations.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 3:00  Updated: 2007/6/28 3:00
 Re: If only that was the motive
I have to agree with the previous writer - although it does sound like a conspiracy theory - I received an email from one of the government agencies in the northern territory who handle these communities and they (who are completely familiar with the truth) are heartily against Howards' stand and I'm happy to send you the email if you like. The real issues will not be addressed and we are only told the very superficial truths like everything else in the media.

Leisa

Poster Thread
katherine.juestel@downundathundaradio.com.au
Posted: 2007/10/7 7:51  Updated: 2007/10/7 7:51
Just popping in
Joined: 2007/10/7
From:
Posts: 2
 Re: If only that was the motive
Truth is the Howard government had shown no care or concern for the people of these communities until the uranium deals with China, Russia and India were on the table and yes, these people ARE sitting on one of the largest deposits of yellow cake in the world. This is a fact, not a theory. Don't belive me, go to google, "yellow cake Northern Territory" and have a look.

The same is true of many communities here in WA.

No, this government doesn't give a flying fig about those people. They will take their land, mine the yellow cake, and then replace it with the waste that is shipped back.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 10:12  Updated: 2007/6/28 10:12
 Re: If only that was the motive
I've done the research. No plan, lots of uniforms (our lads in uniform always make good press ), no doctors, and lots of people to denounce the critics as not caring for the children. Sounds like wedge politics to me!!

Reminds me of 9/11 when wrapping yourself in a US flag meant no one could criticise anything you said. Then we were accused of being unpatriotic, now we are accused of conspiracy theories and being paedophiles.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/27 20:12  Updated: 2007/6/27 20:12
 Re: Reinforcements for women and children
Martial law may be effective in dealing with the males who perpetrate sexual and physical abuse of children, but it's not the answer to subject children to intrusive compuslory medical checks and to threaten removal of children from their familes even as a "last resort". Just remove the perptrators. WWW is right - the underlying issues have long been neglected, the "emergency" is a Tampa-like response, and there is no long-term commitment to engaging indigenous people in policies for their education health and economic development. Instead the whole approach is one of paternalism, and white Australians wouldn't cop it. Go for it, WWW.

Ainslie

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/28 10:01  Updated: 2007/6/28 10:01
 Re: Reinforcements for women and children
I'm sorry Anonymous, but if you were a mother of a child who had been sexually assaulted, had reported it to the autrhorities and seen NOTHING done, would you allow your child to be tested with the prospect of having them removed from YOU.

Wake up. This is a politically motivated, emotionally charged issue and the victims will be victimised.

Do you really think the perpetrators will be brought to justice?

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/6/30 19:26  Updated: 2007/6/30 19:26
 Re: Reinforcements for women and children
Thank goodness you are in the minority of society with this attitude.... PS: If nothing was ever done then DOCS have stuffed up yet again and something needs to change, this is one such change. I actually believe more children should be removed from homes, regardless of race, a child in an environment with repeated incest in abusive environments does not care about wedge politics as much as you do, or where nuclear waste could be left... from what I'm still unclear, or the rate of c-sections in their community. Get real. Sorry just don't care about the parents having umpteen chances to sort themsleves out while a childhood is ticking away and abuse is taking place. Children's rights first. Again thank God I'm in the overwhelming majority in understanding this. Not as complex as baselss conspiracies though.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/8/5 19:28  Updated: 2007/8/5 19:28
 Re: Reinforcements for women and children
I am a woman and I absolutely agree with Justine's blog. I was sickened to see large uniformed men walking into these communities. This is a job for women, not for men. For women with large forearms and floppy thighs to deal with the white paedofiles, and to remind the indigenous women about the respect they should be expecting from men. History shows that alcohol allowed indigenous men to have the same status as white men (they were allowed into pubs). But the women and children suffered for it - indigenous men found a status above women.
Madeleine
what women want weblog
Have you sent in your membership form yet?
Whether you have paid online or not, we need your membership form so that we can register as a political party.
Click here to download the What Women Want Membership Form

Authorised by Sally-Anne Brown, 66 Godson Avenue Blackheath NSW 2785
Copyright © 2007 What Women Want (Australia) Inc.
info@whatwomenwant.org.au
PO Box 625 Scone NSW 2337 Australia
ABN 13160204248