|The Japanese court has ruled in it's constitution that it is fair for teachers to have|
their pay cut for refusing to stand for the national anthem.
The Australian reported on Friday that a Japanese teacher had her pay cut by her school for refusing to stand for the national anthem. This proves that the Japanese court has strength that the Australian court (sometimes bias) needs to learn from.
Why can the Japanese court rule that in their constitution, teachers who refuse to stand for the national anthem, a strong part of the country, can receive a pay cut, but in Australia everything is so fair. The Australian court has a weak spot in that they give everybody a ‘second chance’. Why should someone who refuses to stand for the national anthem, essentially not acknowledging the national spirit or pride, have the same pay as someone who acknowledges the national spirit and pride? Some one who is not acknowledging a country’s spirit or pride is essentially someone who does not appreciate the society in which they live in, and why should they receive an equal pay as someone who acknowledges and embraces the society, especially a teacher. A teacher is a role model. It is proven that primary school children are more influenced by their teacher than their parents. If this is the case, then why are we allowing people like this, whom refuse to stand for the national anthem (which, by the way, does occur in Australia) to teach our children to be productive ad giving members of society?
And why can’t we follow the path of Japan with a justice system which actually deals out justice? In 2007, A 24 year old man broke into a house and raped a 4 year old girl. He was given a 2 year suspended sentence, with bail, and was roaming the streets, all thanks to Judge Chris Geraghty because he was Aboriginal. So, a shocking crime is laid to rest because the judge stated that ‘the man was of Aboriginal origin’.
And in 2002, a 50-year-old man who had previously bashed his wife to death raped a 15 year old girl, his only defence being that in the Aboriginal tribal ceremony, it was promised to him. And the judge, Justice John Gallop only sentenced him to one day in prison. So, a man with previous murder history raped a girl, and is in prison for one day. That’s it, in and out, and them left to roam the streets? We really need to adopt the ways of Japan.
|Judge Sarah Bradley let three rape cases go free. Why are these people|
in the Justice system?
Well, standing for the national anthem is not even a necessity in our country which has the worst justie system in the world. Like the greyhoune industry, it’s the bad ones that spoil it for the good ones, yet the difference is, it’s the majority of judges who are the thick-headed ones here. It’s the majority of the ones who think it is okay if a ten year old girl is raped, saying she probably agreed. Well, lets see if she would have agreed to being raped at ten. When she probably didn’t know what the word meant. I suppose this Bradley woman, if she is human at all, is all for the Safe Schools program too. All for under age sex. All for underage drinking. Oh, yes this woman is an idiot who obviously doesn’t understand the spirit and beliefs of this country, and for that, she should be booted. Why she is still in the justice system beats me. She is a criminal, and as far as I am concerned, she is half of the problem that we have such high criminal rates in this country. Part of the reason why these rapes occur.
And if Japan finds refusing to stand for the national anthem a breach of their national spirit, then what would they think of a breach of bail orders. This month, two thieves were brought in front of the courts to an imbecilic judge. There aren’t enough words to describe her stupidity. She ordered that the female in this ‘armed robbery’ should be allowed bail. Why, I’m not sure. We’ll come to that in a moment, but in this incident, the female criminal was ordered not to make contact with her co-accused. The man was to be brought into the courtroom to face the same judge while the female was leaving. The female co-accused yelled to her accomplice ‘I got bail’, totally breaching the bail orders, but the judge decided that ‘technically’ she didn’t breach the orders as she hadn’t signed the bail orders, so she kept her on bail. Why was the judge looking for a technicality. This technicality shouldn’t count. She was still ordered not to communicate with her co-accused, and after being told that, she defied that order by a judge and communicated with her co-accused. The judge was looking for a way to get the female criminal out of gaol time before her next court appearance. The defence wasn’t made. It didn’t need to be. This stupid judge defended her for her. Is that the new role of the judge? IS the judge now meant to defend the accused and not make a proper and non-bias decision?
But last year, an offence much larger than the one that occurred in Japan occurred. A man refused to stand for the judge as he proceeded into the courtroom. The man has committed an armed robbery, and he should have been the one begging for mercy, yet he refused to stand for the judge, the one issuing out mercy. He should have done time just for this offence, but did he? No!
|Man Monis was given bail for no apparent reason. This led to the|
man being able to compete the Sydney Siege.
So, what have we established? The Japanese system is the best way. Harsh penalties will mean that the crime will not be committed again! Yet the Australian Justice system is weak, and allows those who are of different race, colour or background get away with shocking crimes. So, they are the ones creating racism. They are dividing up society into those who can get away with crimes and those who can’t. Why are we allowing this? When media outlets find it so easy to make the ‘racist’ call at conservatives and their backers.
For more information on the cases of rape by Aboriginal people, go here.