Close Topic Options

First World Legal Uniformity Of View Of Violence

Addressed to International community child welfare assessors.
Don't be fooled by these people.

I have viewed many different religions and governments and their wars and procedures through my life and found there is little can be done to commit parallel values in all societies and communities.
However, what shocks me the most is the first world itself is effectively run by evil with no face or name and an ever growing power by complex arguments in law giving way to next systematic complication of management of people using laws and enforcement of them.

One of the greatest example of this is Australia, a people whom constantly battle violence and domestic violence and violence against children, and Why? Because they do not stare straight at the mirror and admit they are an Australian, a coward and a child molester with no respect and regard to a particular feature of their everyday ugly deformed by violent damage life.

The violence games I was obliged to participate in with other children at 7 years old in Australia(in the late 60's early 70's) is only akin to the ignorance and naivety of children from a 3rd world country such as Mexico and its drug lord ruled provinces.
One was a game called "Chinese burn" that involved grabbing your opponents flesh and squeezing in agony until one of the two gave in. It was finally prevented because too many children would not go to school and had been badly injured.

About comprehension and attitudes of Violence in Australia relating children:
(Apart the fact effectively they are a massive hypocrite to the points and attitudes toward violence upon people below 16 years of age)
But where this shows the most, is in there television and film scripting that involves fights presented between children that are only stated blandly by their character parents to have been wrong to commit and an attempt in some to cause the appearance of a character child being "moral" in a context of being better or right .EXAMPLE: One such scripting of a serial programme had: It did not hold the parent negligent for how the child(around 8 to 10 years old) is able to be in the fight, the parent character didn't bother to check where the child is after a period of time elapsed, neither was there any proper dialogue of immediate action to communicate to the other opponent childs parent in the script.It also depicts children growing up in a community with/as "enemies" of each other(opposing sides). In summary the film did two things, it showed a subtle bland version of the true character and Australian attitude toward children committing violence against each other in a fight, but also the fact to an observer the attitude and presentation to both children and adults alike an inappropriate(a wrong) attitude and belief that such behavior is normal. Children having a fight with the same opponent more than once in a life time is generally not accepted in any government and community or people anywhere in the world, these appear to think it shapes and builds a personal human character in them. Unfortunately it is simply dangerous violence that often leads to hospitalized children. To glorify it or give children a right and wrong better and more evil is beyond the allowed view of children to have in terms of childrens allowance to damaging or killing other children from a childs personal decision(the distortion it causes). Children only remember they are children, not a policeman or a soldier or any other with power to willfully commit force upon another person.

The greatest example of the Australians now is the "fight clubs" that were in the news about Sydney. Not the venue padded-clothing taught and supervised clubs, effectively they are the same as American street fighting or alike dog fights. These became clubs and parents were only aware when some children were near killed in various bouts.

Foreign countries do not allow their own presence in the real world to show any acceptance of such values but the above to them as well in an Australian mind is classified as "normal behavior".

Australias ""normal behavior"" needs an action called "a little chat"(with an iron bar crashing their teeth to show them one of their main and usual results in child care) about physical violence upon people.
It's inclusive there culture apart bullying being their culture.

It is little wonder statistics are complicated to the public (mainly the foreign communities and nations) in unreadable chunks.
They always have a corrupt way out and in many it is finally only time wasting by extending sentences and definitions and complexities in reports until the meaning is lost as much by complexity as exhaust of resources.

A great example of their lies and distortion of truth is violence itself and firearms.
Homicide incidents in Australia are in three main categories in the past 100 years.
They are
a: Firearm used to kill
b: Knife or blunt instrument used to kill
c: Total brutal physical force

At no time in 100 years has the firearm section of the statistics accounted as much as 25 percent of the years total.
The only time it had a sharp rise in incidence of statistic was when Martin Bryant occurred in the mid early 90's at Port Arthur Tasmania.

Knifes(at point blank by brutal force) makes 30 percent of a yearly statistic

Brutal force of Kicking or punching physically at point blank to commit homicide occurs 22 percent each year.

However, all the news and all the money spent on real prevention and resources is spent on finding and removing firearms.

And the "grande finale", hundreds of Mac 10 rapid fire machine guns are out in public somewhere and were produced in an illegal factory in Australia, There are around 600 firearms thefts each year.
And not many people can obtain legally limited imported firearms and ammunition because there is no legal market in Australia for firearms companies to bother exporting.

Firearms or not, Australia is as violent as ever because of its culture it is based on traditionally, it simply cannot understand to not include children.

Violence View Uniformity Legal World First

This looks like a vent about what is going on in Australia. I have glanced some threads here that touched on those issues but since I know nothing about Australia I don't comment. however I am curious about what you hope to gain out of this.

First World Legal Uniformity Of View Of Violence History & Civil Business Politics

In the context your using the word "vent", "rave" or "rant" is the more accurate word, and no, its an extremely complex issue, just alike any other unattended problem(pardon the pun) that prevails.

What the problem is (and I can add the USA to that in explaining this) "perception of violence and its presentation in ethic to children" has a double standardized answer when teaching or assessing or governing children by law that is every piece akin to the classic problem of the situation when a fight occurs "Its OK when I(jurisdictional/guardian/parent) become violent in an argument but not when other people are then observed arguing".
Sorry about the simplification used here.

The perception of violence placed into children, and the people whom place the perception into them, have a problem they(jurisdictional context) do not contain the ethic that the view they give children in various games and media programs when accounting for the final result in their raising upbringing is the equivalent of child pornography.

A classic example of undecided value in this context in media programs would be Miss Piggies karate strike(Hy-yaa), however, in any terms of presentation to children of problem solving and arguing it is considered when judging it , pain hurts, and damage is not necessarily repairable(grievous bodily harm) and by this point and with known parity, it is well understood that cartoon characters have caused more than their fair share of injuries upon children by children imitating the characters actions.

If you take a look at the point the legal requirement for models in a pornographic magazine that they must be 18 years of age...(remembering the topic title is about Uniform worldwide laws or consensus on what the moral severity is) (and such magazines often have printed such a declaration of the used models ages being legal apart the the age screening law declaration for legal sale of such material)
...it is easy to be aware of the many types of violence are available to a toddler to view if it wants to spend its money on such material, if not and the carers are sensible such material getting to a toddler is not effected.

However, that does not mean they cannot by law see and be taught quite heinous actions of violence alike explicit every piece as affecting as child pornography is in its context to a promoted activity, generally only "warnings" are given with media , not explicit law enabling prosecution.

Unbelievably! I recently ran into an old piece of data on this problem that happens to be absolutely amazing at contrasting, well nay, colouring this concept.
Its the case of an executed female serial killer. Generally they only have some facets of either violence or s-xual abuse or community out-casting that are considered a probable contributor. This one is quite immense for having in some terms the lot, but if that wasn't enough , it how! it has the lot.
Her name was "Aileen Wuorn". Wait until you see the chronological life data that makes her personification.

One theory "why", of Australias' blatant disregard and blindness in apathy to that problem is its actual political status is not dissimilar to Syrias regime, monarchy and is facist, Australia is not a democracy and never has been a democracy.
Australian citizens do not have rights.
Australian citizens have never been able to legally forcibly remove local authorities and leave out of that idea local "enforcing" authorities.
Australians abilities to personally defend themselves in a physically violent fight has never been legal at any time, that is all decided later in a court after an incident if a person has such a point regardless of criminal or no-criminal record.
Australians have had firearms "allowance" removed for most ordinary citizens in the 1980's and not long after the police had their weapons changed from six shot low powered revolvers to 20 shot semi automatic military equivalent standard issue pistols.

To have a democracy, local security enforcers are voted for by the people and as much the people have both personal citizen "rights" and the right to gather to remove their local authorities on the group request.
Australias government only commits the economic decisions, in true facist style when assessing force and laws about using force the government is "advised" what it should do by the heads of the forces. "Referendum" is not much of a point its mute by the point the people get the choices.

Edited: onyx on 14th Jun, 2012 - 12:39am