Pollies should keep their word

[silverfaun]

I MAKE no bones about it. I think important social policy decisions ought to be made by the elected representatives of the people. So in that sense voters ought to have the last word, not unelected judges who opt to read our Constitution in some newfangled “living’’ way that has the effect of giving them, the judges, more decision-making power over important social issues.

And not those who purport to be on the side of “international law’’. Take a closer look at international law sometime and you soon realise that treaties are made by the executive, over the head of the legislature, and that so-called “customary international law’’ hasn’t got a democratic bone in its entire body.

We need a lot more scepticism when people wander around purporting to make their understanding of international law somehow determinative on a host of important issues, not least how to deal with illegal immigrants.

So I side with the voters, and I do so even when I’m on the losing side of votes, which has certainly not been a rare occurrence in my life. But there you have it. No one living in a country of millions of people can sensibly expect to be on the winning side of every important social issue. And when you lose, as you will, the proper response is to work hard to convince others to change their minds.

The proper response is not to parade around claiming to be the victim of the tyranny of the majority. That phrase itself is almost empty of meaning, as though democracy doesn’t mean that the majority will ultimately prevail and as if majorities know how to do tyranny. Look through history and you’ll see that it’s small, unrepresentative groups that do tyranny properly, not majorities.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/pollies-should-keep-their-word/story-e6frgd...

[azureline**]

I have used up my free viewing so can't access that link.

Did you write this? or is that all in the link?

[silverfaun]

And all these international treaties and conventions we are signed up to, nobody asked me or even bothered to inform us it was done..

[izabsmiling]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

I MAKE no bones about it. I think important social policy decisions ought to be made by the elected representatives of the people. So in that sense voters ought to have the last word, not unelected judges who opt to read our Constitution in some newfangled “living’’ way that has the effect of giving them, the judges, more decision-making power over important social issues.

And not those who purport to be on the side of “international law’’. Take a closer look at international law sometime and you soon realise that treaties are made by the executive, over the head of the legislature, and that so-called “customary international law’’ hasn’t got a democratic bone in its entire body.

We need a lot more scepticism when people wander around purporting to make their understanding of international law somehow determinative on a host of important issues, not least how to deal with illegal immigrants.

So I side with the voters, and I do so even when I’m on the losing side of votes, which has certainly not been a rare occurrence in my life. But there you have it. No one living in a country of millions of people can sensibly expect to be on the winning side of every important social issue. And when you lose, as you will, the proper response is to work hard to convince others to change their minds.

The proper response is not to parade around claiming to be the victim of the tyranny of the majority. That phrase itself is almost empty of meaning, as though democracy doesn’t mean that the majority will ultimately prevail and as if majorities know how to do tyranny. Look through history and you’ll see that it’s small, unrepresentative groups that do tyranny properly, not majorities.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/pollies-should-keep-their-word/story-e6frgd...

---

Is this the same Author as the above ?

The worst of friends

Coalition government? You can keep it

18 May 2013

As for those people who a few years back were keen optimists about the prospect of coalition government, I wouldn’t expect that many of them would today admit as much. As I said, the hard, cold facts, more than anything else, can make people change their minds.

James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, who is on sabbatical at the University of San Diego.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/8911661/the-worst-of-friends-2/

and more http://www.spectator.co.uk/author/james-allan/

[silverfaun]

Taken out of context.

[izabsmiling]

You’re no John Stuart Mill

On the constitutional preamble and section 18C, the Attorney-General is not off to a good start

15 February 2014

Our Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, takes more than a little pride in painting himself as an old-fashioned classical liberal. Think of the great philosopher MP John Stuart Mill and you’ll have the general idea. That is the strand of right-of-centre politics with which Mr Brandis identifies. Yet when it comes to some of the big issues of the day, our Attorney-General’s liberal scorecard ain’t good. J.S. Mill would not be impressed. Start with the government’s push to amend the preamble

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9138011/youre-no-john-stuart-mill/

In other words, all us doubters should just trust Big Tony. Really? That’s the response of a classical liberal? Just trust the great man and stop thinking for ourselves? I don’t know what sort of right-of-centre voters Mr Brandis hangs out with but the ones I know tend to be (like Mill himself) fierce individualists who want arguments in favour of the policy, not appeals to reverse ad hominem fallacies and ‘we must trust you’ genuflections in the direction of the Dear Leader.Maybe that works in some of Australia’s unions these days, but if that’s the game plan for winning any upcoming referendum, then it will lose. So that’s zero for one for Brandis.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9138011/youre-no-john-stuart-mill/

[izabsmiling]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

Taken out of context.

---

interesting reading thanks Silverfaun 

[ca04]

if polies worked to the constitution then the people would have their say in these things as the constitution does not allow party line voting rather it  says "the elected members will represent the wishes of their constituents". 

[silverfaun]

At least we will be given a chance to vote on the preamble. I totally object to the arbitrary way we are locked into treaties and conventions and other instruments.

If we are going to be signed up we should at least be told what it is and what it means.