Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
Hello all, I have enjoyed reading the latest discussion, thanks to all those contributing. I thought I had worked out how I wanted to vote, but have been rethinking now. I will vote yes, basicaaly for the same reason Tim does, to break away from the British Monarchy, having been to England, and spoken to people there who think it is completely ridiculous that us Aussies are still attached to the Queen! And I want Australia to stand on its own. I dont know what the future holds, but i think its a step towards being our own nation that we cannot ignore. I dont mind the President being elected by the Parliament, but will rethink that if the wrong person manages to get in, become politically attached to Howard and not open fetes in a nice way! I am going to carefully reread the preamble, and then make a decision on that. thanks again, karyn __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
Tim, I was just about to beg off the discussion (time constraints and the risk of circular argument) and ask other people for their point of view when Melanie jumped in. Good. I hope she will inspire others. I just want to comment on the the trend in the interpretation of the second article of the Bill of Rights and that is that I believe this is an artefact of the elected Judiciary. Elected judges have to be sensitive to the loudest community opinions and they also have to raise the funds to run. The NRA fills both these positions very well. I dare say that if judges were appointed and had the ability to be more concerned about the intent of the law and not their reelection they would find differently with respect to article two (the right to bear arms). Cheers, Trudy tdunlop wrote: > Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I tried to keep the context > throughout and it starts to get a bit unwieldy! Anyway, it's good to have a > forum for such discussions. > > > >tdunlop wrote: > I thought this was the case too, but it isn't true. The idea that the 2nd > ammendment is about the right to be armed within a militia as opposed to as > an individual citizen is not supported by virtually any current legal > opinion in the US. I only know this because I happen to a have read a few > things about it recently, including a brilliant article by Daniel Lazare who > wrote a book called The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing > Democracy. He quotes chapter and verse of the historical and current > interpretation of the 2nd and it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it > bestows the right to bear arms on the individual. I'll just quote a little > to show the (to me surprising) extent to which this "individualist" > interpretation has grown recently. Lazare writes: "Although the Supreme > Court has not ruled on the Second Amendment since the 1930s, it has > repeatedly upheld gun control measures. But there is evidence that judicial > sentiment is beginning to take heed of the academic change of heart. Two > years ago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that he thought > it was time to rethink the Second Amendment; Justice Antonin Scalia > apparently thinks so as well. Then, just this past April, two weeks before > Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up Columbine High School, a federal judge > in a Texas gun case issued a ruling so enthusiastically "individualist" that > it was virtually a brief in favor of what is now known in academic circles > as the "Standard Model" of the Second Amendment. "The plain language of the > amendment," declared Judge Sam R. Cummings, "shows that the function of the > subordinate clause [i.e., the portion referring to a well-regulated militia] > was not to qualify the right [to keep and bear arms], but instead to show > why it must be protected." Rather than mutually exclusive, the collective > right to join a state militia and the individual right to own a gun are, > according to Cummings, mutually reinforcing. Although anti-gun groups > predicted that the decision would soon be overturned, it is clear that a > purely collectivist reading is becoming harder and harder to defend; the > individualist interpretation, harder and harder to deny." > > As to how easy it is in the US to change the constitution: it takes a 2/3 > majority of both houses plus three quarters of the states to, as Lazare puts > it 'change so much as a comma'. So "as few as thirteen states - > representing...as little as 4.5 percent of the total US population - would > be sufficient to block any change." His conclusion, at least about the 2nd > is that "we the people" are "powerless" to change it. > > The overall point I'm making - and it doesn't really contradict anything > Trudy has said - is that a bill of rights is no panacea. I'd like to see us > have one, but I would still like to see parliament retain the final power of > ammendment. That way we are less likely to have the impass described by > Lazare over the 2nd. > > So I just hope that, however the referendum goes, we get an ongoing chance > to look at constitutional issues. In the meantime I'll vote yes to break > the British monarch nexus and deal with other matters after that - and > hopefully sooner rather than later. > > Tim --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, ex
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
To this point I have not said anything, but I just thought I would point out a couple of things about this ongoing "fingers in the pie" discussion about A)president and B)A Bill of rights. To save length I wont requote huge bits of past correspondonse, I just hope you realise what, and who, I am refering to. 1. This idea that an appointed president will be less party political then a directly elected pres. To me, this is obviousally true. The idea of Howard appointing his mates, which could techinically happen currently, would not hold under the proposed republican model. The 2/3 here is a crucial factor -- unless one party holds 2/3 of the seats, or minority parties hold considerable power (possible, but I will ignore for now) -- both labour and the coalition would have to agree (I am assuming of course that members vote along party lines). This to me indicates that a party-political appointment is unlikely -- some sort of compromise would be need to be reached between the parties. On the other hand, if the party in power holds 2/3 of the seats they have obviousally recieved a considerable mandate, and the appointment may be political but obviousally that is the mood of the time. (i am not happy with this, but i believe it is still fair.) A directly elected president IS likely to be party political. I believe I can support this assertion. Just looking at referendums in the past most people vote along party lines. This can be seen again and again. I believe that the same principle would hold for a direclty elected president. The allagation that... >>>"There are many times when the rights of minorities or of the individual >>>have to be upheld against the views of the majority. "Democracy" is fine >>>for many purposes, but it can lead to tyranny just as easily as any other system unless there are processes to prevent its abuse. Look at the outpourings of the staunchly democratic "Bulletin" magazine in the late 1800's if you want to see just how nasty democracy can be to minority groups. We didn't have a "White Australia" policy for decades beacuse of the wishes of power elites. We had it because it was politically expedient - to advocate its overthrow invoked the wrath of the democratic majority. Okay, I agree with the first comment more or less completely. The response to this was ""But these are not the failings of democracy but the failings of >>education and political will."" I have a serious problem with this comment. The Failing of Democracy in Australia IS that democracy assumes a politically interested and educated population. This is simply not a reality. I know this is a sweeping comment, but Australia on the whole is fairly a-political. The tendancy is to follow party lines when a decision in the odd referendum (or direct presidential elections) is held. Democracy is inextriciply (sp?) linked to the people who it represents.. the voting community. We can not blame it on the failings of education and political will.. they are the same thing as the failing of democracy. This is the prime reason I personally disagree with a directly elected model. The Australian population, IN GENERAL, is not sufficently intrested or educated to vote for the best Candiate. It could be argued of course, that neither is parliament, but they most know SOMETHING to get that far. (hee hee) That said, I still believe strongly in democracy. This leads me to me second point... 2. That an appointed president is somehow less democratic.. Nobody sofar has really gone into depth about this. But I would just like to introduce it to the discussion, and say that I do not feel that my democratic rights are being infringed by MY ELECTED REPRESENTITIVE making a decision rather then a direct election. 3.This comparasin to Indonesia. Okay, I take this point well... That we could run the risk of behind doors deals of dodgy's politions.. There is however a huge difference between the Indonesian multi- party system and Australia's two and a half party system. Argue over labels if you want, but still, there is a huge difference. I object to the argument that because Megawati Surkano's party holds more seats it is somehow less democratic that she is not president. (sorry if I have misquoted somebody here.. but that was my understanding of the argument) Megawati's party DID NOT HOLD A MAJORITY.. If Indonesians follow their parties like Australians tend to (I am not sure that they do, but for arguments sake) then MORE INDONESIANS WOULD PREFER WAHID AS THE PRESIDENT, THEN MEGAWATI. I know that this argument is seriousally flawed, but I hope you understand what I am trying (unsuccsessfully??) to get at. That just because a party holds the largest number of seats, doesn't mean that the candiate that party puts forward is the democratic choice. At any rate, we are comparing peas and carrots and I dont know if I understood the argument c
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I tried to keep the context throughout and it starts to get a bit unwieldy! Anyway, it's good to have a forum for such discussions. > >tdunlop wrote: > >> Thanks for the response, Trudy. Here's some further thoughts. >> >> Trudy wrote >> >> >A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the >> *legitimate third arm* of government (why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests constitutional and other matters now. There would have been no Mabo decision or a Native title act without it. It is fine to have elected officials but they are not perfect and some check and balances are needed to protect the >> >people from their excesses. tim wrote: >> >> I don't have such trouble with that. Under the suggestion I made they would still have that power, as a check and balance on the parliament. Under a US-type system, all matters of rights are for the courts alone, not the parliament/congress at all and it becomes a way for politicians, the elected representatives, to fob off rights debates and hand it over to the Court. I'd like to keep the best of both systems, that's all. Trudy wrote: > >Well, there is no need to go to a US type system. I only really used it as an example because you mentioned it at the end of your original post. Plus because it's the one I'm most familiar with. Trudy wrote: >They aren't the only ones with a Bill of Rights. And having a Bill of >Rights does not take away anything from parliament in the >way it legislates. Actually it does. A constitutional bill of rights shifts the law making power in matters of rights from the parliament to the judges. Under a parliamentary system, it is the parliament that has the ultimate say and they can rewrite law that the High Court has allowed. Under a constitutional bill of rights the Court has the final say - the parliament can enact laws, but the Court can over-ride them. There are pros and cons to both methods, but if the issue is about how democratic a system is, then I think there is something to be said for having that ultimate power in the hands of the elected parliament rather than the unelected judges. This does not preculde some sort of document of rights, as I said, it is just a matter of where jurisdiction lies. In fact, I think the big advantage of a bill of rights is that it engenders a culture of rights amongst citizens and it is worth considering on those grounds alone. Trudy wrote: >The only caveat on that is that they cannot take away a person's right >to something under the Bill of Rights. It is there to protect people >from having their human rights taken away by the government. If we'd >had a Bill of Rights, Howard's Wik amendment would have been >more likely to bite the dust. As for US politicians fobbing of rights >debates...our politicians do that also without a Bill of Rights. To your last point - that's why I think we should have a bill of rights though not necessarily one that hands that power to the judges. The fact that under either system politicians might fob off such questions is separate question from whether we should or shouldn't have a bill of rights or what form it might take. >> Trudy wrote: >> >> >I wasn't talking about Howard's appointments. I meant his penchant for authoritarian rule which would lose the brakes of 'convention' under a republic with no Bill of Rights. He has >> already eliminated most bodies of review and criticism and has taken away the people's voice in many matters already. Imagine what he could think up without the restrictions of 'convention'. tim wrote: >> >> I don't understand this point, maybe because I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'conventions'. trudy wrote: > >The conventions under the Westminster system, the traditional rules that are not written down anywhere but are adhered to, mostly. Okay, but why would they disappear under a republican model without a bill of rights? And I'm not sure what the argument is here - is it against an appointed president or against a republic without a bill of rights? I make the point because I thought (maybe wrongly) that the thrust of the argument was against an appointed president. So it raises the question as to why you couldn't have a bill of rights with an appointed president. There's nothing stopping that happening is there? So the question is, is the objection to an appointed Prez or is to any sort of Republic that doesn't include a bill of rights? >> Trudy wrote: >> >> >I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange since every public interaction is political to some degree. tim wrote: >> >> Well yes, that's true, but the fact that you say "to some degree" suggests that the degree of politicisation is variable, so all I'm saying is that a non-elected President is less political than an elected one and that I prefer that. Perhaps I should have said "party political". > trudy wrote: >I cannot agre
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
Sorry, Rod, my email server went down just after five last night. Rod Hagen wrote: > Yes, BUT If a highly codified system had been in place then Mabo would > not have been possible! It was the late Ron Castan's common law arguments > which won the day. It would simply not have been politically possible to > get legislation equating to the original Mabo decision created by the > Australian parliament at any time in my lifetime. You're always very eloquent and much better versed in the legal niceties Rod. BUT...;-) I'll give a go at a disagreement with your conclusions. First of all, Canada's Bill of Rights has not impeded the recognition of aboriginal land rights there. It is true that some were covered by treaties but certainly not all. It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that common law doesn't disappear in the presence of codified law and may be called upon to determine the interpretation of codified law. As far as Mabo is concerned, common law would still have recognised the 'interest in land' (title) that Aboriginal Australians had always had but a Bill of Rights might have prevented the winding back of Aboriginal *people's* rights under Wik. The CERD conclusions deal with human rights with respect to land and a Bill of Rights might have done the same. > I tend to share Tim's reservations about excessive codification. Such > processes today tend to favour those who already possess power, rather than > those who have little access to it. The Native Title Act provides a good > example. For the most part the codification involved in the Native Title > Act now results in a reduction of common law rights. With a Bill of Rights, and depending on what it contained, the codifications would have been limited by what was possible to codify. > Codified systems are > very susceptible to the political whims of the day. Sure, you can get a > "good" document on occasion, but you can also end up with a real doozy (I > wonder how many less US citizens - largely wives and children - would have > lived much longer lives if the "right to bear arms" wasn't enshrined in > the US document!). As Susanne Martin points out in another post the > existence of the Bill of Rights in the US doesn't seem to have had any > substantial benefit in terms of social equity when compared to the > Australian system. OK try this. Think about what America would have been without a Bill of Rights! This is a place where just last month the State of Kansas outlawed the teaching of "Darwinism" in all the schools in the State! And as far as the 'right to bear arms' goes... this is what is in the Bill of Rights: "II - Right to keep and bear arms A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It pertained to the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms in order to defend the State. As to the comment about codified laws I disagree again. ;-) This government and its friends do not recognise that they have done anything wrong unless they have actually broken a codified law. Ethics and the spirit of the law they do not acknowledge. This makes it necessary to have codified laws to protect the people from the whims of government. > Mmm. I haven't heard it suggested that the passage of the referendum would affect >the existing conventions > of government and law. After seeing how Howard treated his 'strict code for ministerial conduct' how long do you think it would be before he decided that a republic was a whole new ball game and would push the limits as far as he could to his own advantage? This is the man who appointed himself nominal 'head of state' in order to open the Olympics! > Well I don't think I'm an authoritarian but I think there are very good > reasons for being afraid of the "democracy" in many situations, > particularly where the rights of minorities are concerned. No system is perfect but it must be looked at how it works over time. > If the > "peoples'" voice had prevailed in the Myall Creek Massacre trials in NSW in > 1836 everyone would have got off, probably with a knighthood and a new gun > thrown in for good measure! Did the 'people' have a right to vote in a trial at the time? Is it any different today when the hysterical revenge seekers try to influence the outcomes by way of talkback radio? > There are many times when the rights of > minorities or of the individual have to be upheld against the views of the > majority. "Democracy" is fine for many purposes, but it can lead to tyranny > just as easily as any other system unless there are processes to prevent > its abuse. Look at the outpourings of the staunchly democratic "Bulletin" > magazine in the late 1800's if you want to see just how nasty democracy can > be to minority groups. We didn't have a "White Australia" policy for > decades beacuse of the wishes of power elites. We had it because it was >
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
to all those who have posted about this reading your comments really helps to inform thanks for yr energies - this is a very important time in our history/herstory/ourstory cheers susanne --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
At 11:22 AM 22/10/99, Trudy and Rod Bray wrote: >tdunlop wrote: > >> I actually sort of disagree, Trudy; that is, I'm still thinking it through. >> >> A bill of rights, although it enshrines certain rights as inalienable, also >> puts the power to decide any given case within the legal system, that is, by >> a group of unelected judges. In other words, it takes such questions out of >> the political system where at least the politicians are elected by people >> and gives it to unelected judges. So while I'd like to see a document of >> rights, I'd prefer (I think) to see its jurisdiction remain within the >> parliament, perhaps under the control of a Senate committee. > >A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the >*legitimate third arm* of government >(why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests constitutional >and other matters now. There would have been no Mabo decision or a Native >title act without it. It is fine >to have elected officials but they are not perfect and some check and >balances are needed to protect the >people from their excesses. Yes, BUT If a highly codified system had been in place then Mabo would not have been possible! It was the late Ron Castan's common law arguments which won the day. It would simply not have been politically possible to get legislation equating to the original Mabo decision created by the Australian parliament at any time in my lifetime. I tend to share Tim's reservations about excessive codification. Such processes today tend to favour those who already possess power, rather than those who have little access to it. The Native Title Act provides a good example. For the most part the codification involved in the Native Title Act now results in a reduction of common law rights. Codified systems are very susceptible to the political whims of the day. Sure, you can get a "good" document on occasion, but you can also end up with a real doozy (I wonder how many less US citizens - largely wives and children - would have lived much longer lives if the "right to bear arms" wasn't enshrined in the US document!). As Susanne Martin points out in another post the existence of the Bill of Rights in the US doesn't seem to have had any substantial benefit in terms of social equity when compared to the Australian system. I tend to agree with you about Judges though. If Judges were elected then I fear we would have far more of the Callaghan ilk and far less like Toohey, Deane and Kirby. On the other hand we have had some shockers through the current process as well. It was their comparative freedom from the dictates of popular politics that enabled Mabo. > >> As to this PM and a republic - well, a PM with his own agenda has the power >> now to appoint whoever he wants - no holds barred. Howard could install a >> mate and is probably inclined and sneaky enough to do it. At least under >> the system proposed in the referendum, he would be constrained by needing a >> two-thirds majority of the parliament, so it's an improvement in that sense. > >I wasn't talking about Howard's appointments. I meant his penchant for >authoritarian rule which would lose >the brakes of 'convention' under a republic with no Bill of Rights. He has >already eliminated most bodies of >review and criticism and has taken away the people's voice in many matters >already. Imagine what he could >think up without the restrictions of 'convention'. Mmm. I haven't heard it suggested that the passage of the referendum would affect the existing conventions of government and law. > >> If the President was popularly elected, I don't really see how it wouldn't >> just turn it into a political office, with the parties running candidates >> and thus opening the way for a President with his/her own agenda. A John >> Howard, it seems to me, is more likely to elected to President than be >> appointed by two-thirds of the parliament. And a John Howard is more of a >> threat under the current system. > >I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange >since every public interaction is >political to some degree. I don't see that swapping an elite monarchy for >another 'elite judge, lawyer, >or-what-have-you' by another group of elites is an improvement. >Sovereignty resides with the monarch at the >moment by consent of the people. When that Sovereignty is taken away from >the monarch by the will of the >people the Sovereignty should return to where it belongs - with the >people. Why is everyone so afraid of >democracy? Only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people decide. Well I don't think I'm an authoritarian but I think there are very good reasons for being afraid of the "democracy" in many situations, particularly where the rights of minorities are concerned. If the "peoples'" voice had prevailed in the Myall Creek Massacre trials in NSW in 1836 everyone would have got off, probably with a knighthood and a new gun thrown
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
tdunlop wrote: > Thanks for the response, Trudy. Here's some further thoughts. > > Trudy wrote > > >A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the > *legitimate third arm* of government > >(why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests > constitutional > >and other matters now. There would have been no Mabo decision or a Native > title act without it. It is fine > >to have elected officials but they are not perfect and some check and > balances are needed to protect the > >people from their excesses. > > I don't have such trouble with that. Under the suggestion I made they would > still have that power, as a check and balance on the parliament. Under a > US-type system, all matters of rights are for the courts alone, not the > parliament/congress at all and it becomes a way for politicians, the elected > representatives, to fob off rights debates and hand it over to the Court. > I'd like to keep the best of both systems, that's all. Well, there is no need to go to a US type system. They aren't the only ones with a Bill of Rights. And having a Bill of Rights does not take away anything from parliament in the way it legislates. The only caveat on that is that they cannot take away a person's right to something under the Bill of Rights. It is there to protect people from having their human rights taken away by the government. If we'd had a Bill of Rights, Howard's Wik amendment would have been more likely to bite the dust. As for US politicians fobbing of rights debates...our politicians do that also without a Bill of Rights. > Trudy wrote: > > >I wasn't talking about Howard's appointments. I meant his penchant for > authoritarian rule which would lose > >the brakes of 'convention' under a republic with no Bill of Rights. He has > already eliminated most bodies of > >review and criticism and has taken away the people's voice in many matters > already. Imagine what he could > >think up without the restrictions of 'convention'. > > I don't understand this point, maybe because I'm not quite sure what you > mean by 'conventions'. The conventions under the Westminster system, the traditional rules that are not written down anywhere but are adhered to, mostly. > Trudy wrote: > > >I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange > since every public interaction is > >political to some degree. > > Well yes, that's true, but the fact that you say "to some degree" suggests > that the degree of politicisation is variable, so all I'm saying is that a > non-elected President is less political than an elected one and that I > prefer that. Perhaps I should have said "party political". I cannot agree. Sir William Deane was appointed and he has been a very political GG. You are assuming that a directly elected president would be party political. Why? There is no need for that at all. > Trudy wrote: > > >I don't see that swapping an elite monarchy for another 'elite judge, > lawyer,or-what-have-you' by another group of elites is an improvement. > > You can accept the appointment of High Court judges as legitimate, what is > the huge difference with a non-party political President? How can you assure that the 'non-party political' president is non-party political. Non membership is not a reliable criterium. Appointing a president is fine as long there is honesty involved in labelling. It seems to me that the people who push this model are really afraid of a real republic. What they seem to want is a monarchy without the monarch. > Trudy wrote: > > Sovereignty resides with the monarch at the > >moment by consent of the people. When that Sovereignty is taken away from > the monarch by the will of the > >people the Sovereignty should return to where it belongs - with the people. > Why is everyone so afraid of > >democracy? Only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people decide. > > Who's afraid of democracy? When I said that it was in general. My comments were not a description of you so don't take it personal. I am expressing my point of view as it relates to how the arguments of groups of people appear to me. > The whole thrust of my comments on a Bill of > rights was to keep the debate in the democratic parliament, for example. > Democracy isn't just defined by voting. An appointed President could act on > behalf of the people, thus making them sovereign. A dictator can act on behalf of the people too but it doesn't make it a democracy. Sovereignty is not something you give to the people. It is theirs to bestow. > Laws, for example, could > be made in the name of the people as they are now made in the name of the > crown with either a directly elected or an appointed President. True. > Why would you accuse someone of being authoritarian because they don't agree > with your views on the matter? Where did I do that? I said that only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people decide. It is about control. If the people de
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
Thanks for the response, Trudy. Here's some further thoughts. Trudy wrote >A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the *legitimate third arm* of government >(why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests constitutional >and other matters now. There would have been no Mabo decision or a Native title act without it. It is fine >to have elected officials but they are not perfect and some check and balances are needed to protect the >people from their excesses. I don't have such trouble with that. Under the suggestion I made they would still have that power, as a check and balance on the parliament. Under a US-type system, all matters of rights are for the courts alone, not the parliament/congress at all and it becomes a way for politicians, the elected representatives, to fob off rights debates and hand it over to the Court. I'd like to keep the best of both systems, that's all. Trudy wrote: >I wasn't talking about Howard's appointments. I meant his penchant for authoritarian rule which would lose >the brakes of 'convention' under a republic with no Bill of Rights. He has already eliminated most bodies of >review and criticism and has taken away the people's voice in many matters already. Imagine what he could >think up without the restrictions of 'convention'. I don't understand this point, maybe because I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'conventions'. Trudy wrote: >I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange since every public interaction is >political to some degree. Well yes, that's true, but the fact that you say "to some degree" suggests that the degree of politicisation is variable, so all I'm saying is that a non-elected President is less political than an elected one and that I prefer that. Perhaps I should have said "party political". Trudy wrote: >I don't see that swapping an elite monarchy for another 'elite judge, lawyer,or-what-have-you' by another group of elites is an improvement. You can accept the appointment of High Court judges as legitimate, what is the huge difference with a non-party political President? Trudy wrote: Sovereignty resides with the monarch at the >moment by consent of the people. When that Sovereignty is taken away from the monarch by the will of the >people the Sovereignty should return to where it belongs - with the people. Why is everyone so afraid of >democracy? Only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people decide. Who's afraid of democracy? The whole thrust of my comments on a Bill of rights was to keep the debate in the democratic parliament, for example. Democracy isn't just defined by voting. An appointed President could act on behalf of the people, thus making them sovereign. Laws, for example, could be made in the name of the people as they are now made in the name of the crown with either a directly elected or an appointed President. Why would you accuse someone of being authoritarian because they don't agree with your views on the matter? People of good will can have different opinions without one side being accused of being authoritarian, can't they? As I said, I'm not against direct election, I just think there are disadvantages with it and that there are advantages with an appointment model and with voting Yes in Nov. Doesn't make me authoritarian or undemocratic. Trudy wrote: >There are ways of ensuring it doesn't become a 'political' battle or the domain of the rich. I'm sure that's true and it's one of the reasons I don't rule out a direct election model. One for instance would be to limit a candidate's access to paid advertising. I'd like to hear some more if anyone has them. But I still don't see that the major parties or their proxies would not be closely involved in any election process. Trudy wrote: >A good example of what can go wrong is Indonesia right now. One party received the greater number of votes >and then backroom wheeling and dealing succeeded in subverting the will of the people as expressed at the >ballot box. The only reason Megawati got anything at all is because of the need to stem the rioting. Well okay, but I don't know how convincing it is here as a comparison. Trudy wrote: > >I agree but there is no reason why the people can't elect the fete-opener directly. That would be the >democratic thing to do and the people should demand it as their right. The fact that the political/corporate >clique don't trust us to do it should make us that much more determined not to have our rights taken away. But some of us don't see it as having our rights taken away. Although I'm inclined to have a directly elected Prez, I don't see that an appointment model strips me of any fundamental rights - I vote for the politicians and they represent me - I don't vote on every piece of legislation that goes through and although I'm not always happy with the result, I don't feel my rights have been stripped by having them do things on my beha
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has the bill of rights worked in america to improved the lived experience of ALL its citizens? no - i am not into flogging dead horses (sorry to horses) with all the volumes of 'our' current lore, treaties, and domestic instruments - preamble, constitution etc - are we 'equally' treated all are equal 'before' the lore it already says affirmative action says women are supposedly equal 'after' the lore genocide is not even admitted 'in' the lore is it a matter of words or titles - really editing the existing 'papers' isn't going to do it for us - others have tried it elsewhere - wipe the slate clean and sharpen pencils - don't be bullied re Why is everyone so afraid of democracy? i for one have seen what is committed in the name of democracy here - it is not taking notice of the voice of the peoples or we would not have genocide, the gst, hunger, unchecked rape ... if we have more than just a notion of democracy - why is the referendum couched in its current terms with so much public outcry - why are people thinking about drawing boxes on ballot papers why isn't the referendum just to get 'the people' to formalise the identity we have had internationally for most of this century - ie a republic not a monarchy - only some australians believe the myth that we have a queen of australia - others want to make us think this is true time to get really real - blank slate - statements of 'at least' - is scraps from the table (can't remember who said this) again - don't be bullied - take the time to get it right for the kids susanne martain --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
tdunlop wrote: > I actually sort of disagree, Trudy; that is, I'm still thinking it through. > > A bill of rights, although it enshrines certain rights as inalienable, also > puts the power to decide any given case within the legal system, that is, by > a group of unelected judges. In other words, it takes such questions out of > the political system where at least the politicians are elected by people > and gives it to unelected judges. So while I'd like to see a document of > rights, I'd prefer (I think) to see its jurisdiction remain within the > parliament, perhaps under the control of a Senate committee. A Bill of Rights would be tested by the High Court of the land - the *legitimate third arm* of government (why do people have such trouble with that?) - just as it tests constitutional and other matters now. There would have been no Mabo decision or a Native title act without it. It is fine to have elected officials but they are not perfect and some check and balances are needed to protect the people from their excesses. > As to this PM and a republic - well, a PM with his own agenda has the power > now to appoint whoever he wants - no holds barred. Howard could install a > mate and is probably inclined and sneaky enough to do it. At least under > the system proposed in the referendum, he would be constrained by needing a > two-thirds majority of the parliament, so it's an improvement in that sense. I wasn't talking about Howard's appointments. I meant his penchant for authoritarian rule which would lose the brakes of 'convention' under a republic with no Bill of Rights. He has already eliminated most bodies of review and criticism and has taken away the people's voice in many matters already. Imagine what he could think up without the restrictions of 'convention'. > If the President was popularly elected, I don't really see how it wouldn't > just turn it into a political office, with the parties running candidates > and thus opening the way for a President with his/her own agenda. A John > Howard, it seems to me, is more likely to elected to President than be > appointed by two-thirds of the parliament. And a John Howard is more of a > threat under the current system. I find the argument of 'turning it into a political office' quite strange since every public interaction is political to some degree. I don't see that swapping an elite monarchy for another 'elite judge, lawyer, or-what-have-you' by another group of elites is an improvement. Sovereignty resides with the monarch at the moment by consent of the people. When that Sovereignty is taken away from the monarch by the will of the people the Sovereignty should return to where it belongs - with the people. Why is everyone so afraid of democracy? Only authoritarians are afraid of letting the people decide. There are ways of ensuring it doesn't become a 'political' battle or the domain of the rich. A good example of what can go wrong is Indonesia right now. One party received the greater number of votes and then backroom wheeling and dealing succeeded in subverting the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. The only reason Megawati got anything at all is because of the need to stem the rioting. > Personally, I'd rather the office of President stay non-political, because I > think they are of more use in encouraging the institutions of civil society > than they are in being involved in the political process. So although > people make fun of the GG as office for a fete-opener, I think opening > fetes, making speeches at funerals, encouraging community projects etc is a > good and useful role for a President to play, especially if he/she is doing > it independent of the political parties. I agree but there is no reason why the people can't elect the fete-opener directly. That would be the democratic thing to do and the people should demand it as their right. The fact that the political/corporate clique don't trust us to do it should make us that much more determined not to have our rights taken away. A former politician with brakes on is no more worrying than anyone else for president. There have been GGs in the past and they did the job well. > I have to admit too, that I would really just like to see the nexus with the > British monarchy broken, which is the main reason I'll vote Yes. And I > don't see that a No vote will guarantee a second referendum anytime soon - That is what they would like you to believe. The problem is that if the 'Yes' vote makes it this time there is no impetus left to change anything. The Political/Corporate Club will have what they want and we can go whistle. They're not about to share their power with us. I think we should fight the Australian inclination to say 'she'll be right' and not accept a camel when we could have a proper model for a republic. One that is inclusive and protects all of the people. > and you can imagine the scare campaign that will come from al
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
I actually sort of disagree, Trudy; that is, I'm still thinking it through. A bill of rights, although it enshrines certain rights as inalienable, also puts the power to decide any given case within the legal system, that is, by a group of unelected judges. In other words, it takes such questions out of the political system where at least the politicians are elected by people and gives it to unelected judges. So while I'd like to see a document of rights, I'd prefer (I think) to see its jurisdiction remain within the parliament, perhaps under the control of a Senate committee. As to this PM and a republic - well, a PM with his own agenda has the power now to appoint whoever he wants - no holds barred. Howard could install a mate and is probably inclined and sneaky enough to do it. At least under the system proposed in the referendum, he would be constrained by needing a two-thirds majority of the parliament, so it's an improvement in that sense. If the President was popularly elected, I don't really see how it wouldn't just turn it into a political office, with the parties running candidates and thus opening the way for a President with his/her own agenda. A John Howard, it seems to me, is more likely to elected to President than be appointed by two-thirds of the parliament. And a John Howard is more of a threat under the current system. Personally, I'd rather the office of President stay non-political, because I think they are of more use in encouraging the institutions of civil society than they are in being involved in the political process. So although people make fun of the GG as office for a fete-opener, I think opening fetes, making speeches at funerals, encouraging community projects etc is a good and useful role for a President to play, especially if he/she is doing it independent of the political parties. I have to admit too, that I would really just like to see the nexus with the British monarchy broken, which is the main reason I'll vote Yes. And I don't see that a No vote will guarantee a second referendum anytime soon - and you can imagine the scare campaign that will come from all quarters against a direct election model. So I worry about the prospect of anything ever changing and of living and dying in colonial times. But I don't see a Yes vote as the end of the matter and I'm certainly open to further constitutional change, including to direct election. Trudy wrote: >And it illustrates very clearly why we need a Bill of Rights. If the republic gets up there will be no >'convention' to put a brake on a PM with his own agenda. I find it very scary to even contemplate a republic >under Howard. > >Trudy > >tdunlop wrote: > >> I couldn't put my hands on it last night, but the full quote from the >> Kingston book is as follows: >> >> "When the stakes are high the politicians get heavy, and John Howard >> personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, alleging pro-black bias by >> myself in particular and the paper in general. Some Liberals called the >> Herald the 'Aboriginal Morning Herald', in protest at the number of black >> faces and stories in the paper. I argued that the Wik debate was similar to >> the movement for black civil rights in the United States and that our >> coverage must be factual but uncompromising when blatant injustice was >> perpetrated on a minority with no clout but the justice of their cause." >> >> For a guy who apparently beleives in the monarchy and parliamentary >> democracy, Howard is the most presidential of politicians. He has >> personally blocked drug trials in the ACT, labelling of GMOs, has had a >> remarkable influence on appointments to various govt and quasi-govt bodies, >> and guides debates in a deliberate, though often invisible way, such as the >> Republic and, obviously, Indigenous matters. That it extends to pressuring >> editors shouldn't be a surprise, though it is a surprise to hear that it >> works so effictively. He was also rumoured to have rung Lachlan Murdoch >> about what he felt was pro-Republic bias in The Australian. Anyone who >> thinks that the office of PM isn't powerful should probably think again. So >> much of the tone of social/political debate is set by politicians that if >> the most powerful of them gets it into his head to put a finger in the >> various pies, then it is going to have a big influence. The most obvious >> example is his tacit endorsment of hansonism. As Keating said in his last >> speech before the 1996 election: "When the government changes, so does the >> country." Ain't it the truth. >> >> Tim >> >> --- >> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ >> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body >> of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce >> This posting
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
And it illustrates very clearly why we need a Bill of Rights. If the republic gets up there will be no 'convention' to put a brake on a PM with his own agenda. I find it very scary to even contemplate a republic under Howard. Trudy tdunlop wrote: > I couldn't put my hands on it last night, but the full quote from the > Kingston book is as follows: > > "When the stakes are high the politicians get heavy, and John Howard > personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, alleging pro-black bias by > myself in particular and the paper in general. Some Liberals called the > Herald the 'Aboriginal Morning Herald', in protest at the number of black > faces and stories in the paper. I argued that the Wik debate was similar to > the movement for black civil rights in the United States and that our > coverage must be factual but uncompromising when blatant injustice was > perpetrated on a minority with no clout but the justice of their cause." > > For a guy who apparently beleives in the monarchy and parliamentary > democracy, Howard is the most presidential of politicians. He has > personally blocked drug trials in the ACT, labelling of GMOs, has had a > remarkable influence on appointments to various govt and quasi-govt bodies, > and guides debates in a deliberate, though often invisible way, such as the > Republic and, obviously, Indigenous matters. That it extends to pressuring > editors shouldn't be a surprise, though it is a surprise to hear that it > works so effictively. He was also rumoured to have rung Lachlan Murdoch > about what he felt was pro-Republic bias in The Australian. Anyone who > thinks that the office of PM isn't powerful should probably think again. So > much of the tone of social/political debate is set by politicians that if > the most powerful of them gets it into his head to put a finger in the > various pies, then it is going to have a big influence. The most obvious > example is his tacit endorsment of hansonism. As Keating said in his last > speech before the 1996 election: "When the government changes, so does the > country." Ain't it the truth. > > Tim > > --- > RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at >http://www.mail-archive.com/ > To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body > of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce > This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission >from the > copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under >the "fair > use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further >without > permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." > > RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/ --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
I couldn't put my hands on it last night, but the full quote from the Kingston book is as follows: "When the stakes are high the politicians get heavy, and John Howard personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, alleging pro-black bias by myself in particular and the paper in general. Some Liberals called the Herald the 'Aboriginal Morning Herald', in protest at the number of black faces and stories in the paper. I argued that the Wik debate was similar to the movement for black civil rights in the United States and that our coverage must be factual but uncompromising when blatant injustice was perpetrated on a minority with no clout but the justice of their cause." For a guy who apparently beleives in the monarchy and parliamentary democracy, Howard is the most presidential of politicians. He has personally blocked drug trials in the ACT, labelling of GMOs, has had a remarkable influence on appointments to various govt and quasi-govt bodies, and guides debates in a deliberate, though often invisible way, such as the Republic and, obviously, Indigenous matters. That it extends to pressuring editors shouldn't be a surprise, though it is a surprise to hear that it works so effictively. He was also rumoured to have rung Lachlan Murdoch about what he felt was pro-Republic bias in The Australian. Anyone who thinks that the office of PM isn't powerful should probably think again. So much of the tone of social/political debate is set by politicians that if the most powerful of them gets it into his head to put a finger in the various pies, then it is going to have a big influence. The most obvious example is his tacit endorsment of hansonism. As Keating said in his last speech before the 1996 election: "When the government changes, so does the country." Ain't it the truth. Tim --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
Yes, Tim, that would explain a lot. It happened very suddenly so I think that John Howard is probably the biggest part of it. It is a disgusting situation when one man can demand of supposedly 'free' media his own view of the world. It is more often found in dictatorships. Still, that is one direction that Howard has been diligently taking us - bit by bit, and with such stealth that most people haven't even noticed it. Trudy tdunlop wrote: > Trudy wrote: "The biggest change I've seen is in the Fairfax press. > They used to carry a lot of indigenous news > but now do so hardly at all. When they do, it is not posted online and > not available to the wider audience. > They have not carried one item about the Stolen Generations case. I > can't pinpoint exactly when the change > in policy happened but it was less than a year ago, I think." Hi > Trudy and all, May be a hint to the situation you mention in Margo > Kingston's book about Hn. She says in that quite explicitly: > "...John Howard personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, > alleging pro-black bias by myself in particular and the paper in > general." Maybe this explains it in part. Tim --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie
It is an obscenity for John Howard to even mouth the word ''Reconciliation". Laurie Laurie and Desley Forde [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tim Dunlop wrote.. -Original Message-From: tdunlop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: RecOzNet2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 10:16 PMSubject: [recoznet2] fingers in the pie Trudy wrote: "The biggest change I've seen is in the Fairfax press. They used to carry a lot of indigenous newsbut now do so hardly at all. When they do, it is not posted online and not available to the wider audience.They have not carried one item about the Stolen Generations case. I can't pinpoint exactly when the changein policy happened but it was less than a year ago, I think." Hi Trudy and all, May be a hint to the situation you mention in Margo Kingston's book about Hn. She says in that quite explicitly: "...John Howard personally lobbied my editor-in-chief and editor, alleging pro-black bias by myself in particular and the paper in general." Maybe this explains it in part. Tim
