Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The failure of representation by the major parties
Troy Rollo maintains a political media blog called Your Voice. Thanks Troy for permission for Webdiary to publish the following very controversial piece. If I could direct debate, which I can't, I'd be hoping to have it focus on Troy's opening formula: "As with the factions of the major parties, the major parties themselves are vehicles of power, not of policy." I do fear debate will be distracted by one of Troy's more radical conclusions. Either way, so be it. Hamish Alcorn.
by Troy Rollo
As with the factions of the major parties, the major parties themselves are vehicles of power, not of policy. They are increasingly revealing themselves as the operations of insular groups seeking to bring power to political time-servers without the slightest hint of real world experience. The rank-and-file membership is not even of passing importance to the career politicians who run the parties, and it is hard to imagine how somebody who has never done anything but politics could relate in any way to the people they claim to represent.
The Liberal Party claims to represent the interests of small business. Yet the Prime Minister has never owned or started a small business - he was a mediocre (at best) employee solicitor, then at the age of 35 entered Parliament. These days the "rising stars" of the Liberal Party - people such as Alex Hawke - have not even engaged in significant work outside of political staffing, and so develop their policy ideas without having any base experience on which to evaluate the merits of their policy views. When the Prime Minister seeks the advice of business people, it is not the advice of the owners of small business, but the advice of high profile big business. The interests of small business and big business often differ - and in some cases are directly opposed, as is the case in competition law. The Prime Minister would not have the first clue of what small business needs.
Many of the rank-and-file in the Liberal Party are big on law and order. A typical hard-core Liberal supporter likes to claim that they obey all laws. Lawyers know that is not only unlikely but impossible. It is unlikely because most people feel perfectly happy committing some minor offences, like jaywalking, and regularly inadvertently - if not intentionally - committing traffic offences such as speeding. It is impossible because there is nobody, not even the most talented lawyer, who knows all of the offences on the books, and many offences relate to things that people do every day without thinking they may be against the law. Furthermore, there are technical breaches of the law which, although not offences, are necessarily performed by various classes of people. The prohibition on misleading conduct in trade or commerce, for example, is breached routinely because it prohibits even unintentionally misleading people, and it is impossible to avoid accidentally misleading people all the time.
When people say they obey all laws, they usually mean some subset of the laws. Most often they mean the "important" laws. At most they mean the laws they are aware of - if a lawyer says they obey literally "all laws" you know that lawyer is a shocking liar, because they would have an appreciation of the impossibility of such a claim.
Law and order advocates do have some common areas of agreement though. They normally strongly oppose, and do not commit, property crime and violent crime. To commit murder is the greatest crime and would be inconceivable to them, and to shelter a murderer even more inconceivable. Advocates of strong law and order are predominantly supporters - and often members - of the Liberal Party.
Which brings us to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sent our troops into Iraq to wage war in violation of international law. In so doing, he gave an order that was certain to result in, and did result in, the death of people in Iraq. The law states that causing death with the intention of causing death - and it counts as intention even though causing death is merely a means to achieve another goal - is murder, unless some defence to the murder charge applies. It is not a defence that the decision was an act of State, although it is a defence that the decision was an act of war. That defence is an international law defence, which is why it operates as a defence even under the laws of the other party to the war. But to be a defence at international law then the act of war had to be lawful in international law, and the invasion of Iraq was clearly not, with the Prime Minister's "legal" argument to the contrary being so far-fetched and fanciful that I can say without the slightest degree of exaggeration that its proper place on the book shelves is next to Alice in Wonderland.
Many like to ignore international law claiming that the only law that matters is the laws of Australia, but regarding international law as void, or as not being law at all does not help avoid the result. The defence to murder of "act of war" is a defence that comes from international law - the defence cannot be invoked at all without acknowledging the validity of international law and making the defence out according to the rules of international law.
I explain all this because I want you to understand that what I am about to say, I say not out of political rhetoric, but as an unemotional and inescapable conclusion of law.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, is a murderer. His decisions caused death, and he intended death to result from his decisions - even though that was a means to another end. No defence in domestic law is applicable to excuse him, and no defence in international law is applicable to excuse him. It is not merely some international criminal tribunal that could convict him. He could be charged with murder under the laws of New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, and likely some other Australian States, and if a jury could be found that could separate politics from the legal question, he could be convicted. Once convicted the conviction would be upheld by every court in the land - he would have no grounds for appeal because, as a clear matter of law, he committed the crime. I raise this not to continue fighting the 2004 election, but to highlight a problem with the party political system.
The Liberal Party, many of whose members and supporters believe strongly in law and order, supported John Howard continuing as Prime Minister. Even people who are not strong believers in law and order are likely to have strong objections to the idea of assisting a person who is a murderer continue in office. A strong supporter of law and order would, unless a hypocrite of the highest order, feel compelled to oppose a murderer continuing in the office of the Prime Minister (and yes, I am aware I have just called a significant proportion of the Parliamentary Liberal Party hypocrites of the highest order). If they were active participants in the political arena, they would feel compelled to actively oppose the election of such a person by whatever means was available to them. To many this would apply as a moral imperative, or at least a requirement of conscience, even if that person was a member of the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party, on the other hand, takes a dim view of members who take action to oppose the election of an endorsed candidate, usually expelling them from the party and banning them from rejoining for a number of years. This applies regardless of the reasons for opposing the candidate, so that in effect members are required by the Liberal Party to avoid suppress any compulsion of morals, ethics or conscience that demands they take action against a candidate who is unfit to hold high office. This amounts to a deliberate attempt to suppress the civic duty of honest and responsible members in the name of seeking power. Clearly morals, ethics, conscience and justice are entirely alien concepts to the Liberal Party.
It should be noted that he ALP behaves similarly, although they are more honest about it - at least it does not make the claim of being a broad party that is tolerant of dissent as the Liberal party does.
A member who is expelled is obviously not going to be endorsed as a Liberal candidate for Parliament. So if only those who do not take action to oppose the continuation of a murderer in the office of Prime Minister can lay any claim to a moral or ethical high ground, and only people who do not actively oppose the continuation of a John Howard in the office of Prime Minister can be elected as a Liberal to Parliament, then it follows that the Liberal Party is inherently a machine that seeks the election of, and has secured the election of, persons who are, of necessity, compromised in ethics, conscience and integrity.
That is a major problem. We need people with the highest standards of integrity in Parliament. Since people who have the highest standards of ethics, conscience and integrity are incapable of becoming a candidate for Parliament for one of the major parties, something fairly radical needs to be done to fix the system. And it needs to involve making the existing major parties obsolete.
It is not enough to reform the major parties, nor is it enough to promote minor parties to "keep them honest". We need to seek the eradication of the major parties entirely, replacing them with machines that are impervious to being used as a power-vehicle for the very people who should be kept away from power.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
eager participants vs. glum passengers
G'day Roger F: "that he is the Prime Minister that we ‘had to have’. He truly represents the aspirations of the majority of Australians. Why put him on trial when the electorate is complicit?"
Oh, really? Exception your Honour! Whereas it is true that Keating was totally on the nose, and that fact alone would have allowed 'Lazarus of the triple by-pass' to fall over the line, and noting that Lazarus has since worked the system in what would appear to be (for him) an optimal way, IMHO it's too much of a stretch to say that he represents vast aspirations, and/or that the electorate is truly complicit. From the way Howard operates, one could conclude that the only thing he represents is his own narrow self-interest, and for the electorate to be complicit, they'd have to agree with Howard - but voting for him (and then only by a narrow margin, not to mention the lack of any viable choice) hardly qualifies as agreement, one might'a thunk.
My theory here is that a) the electorate is intellectually exhausted, b) we have no real choice and c) the Labor party is not just no choice but traitorous with it.
Starting in reverse order with the ALP, their sell-out began long ago, after Whitlam, say. The consensus view (if I've understood it correctly), is that Hawke/Keating set the foundations for the current 'good times'; but in doing so they also laid the foundations for the death of trade unions (by encouraging the single-unit contractors, say), and beginning the fall of what remains of the working class into industrial servitude. Phew! What an achievement - of course, globalisation, etc is playing it's part, and the new IR system will probably provide the coup de grâce.
The 'no real choice' comes into play, when we see that the ALP seems to have concluded that they can't afford to alienate 'the big end of town', and have become me-too 'Liberal look-alikes'. Why vote for a forgery, when you can have the original? See? A real democracy would offer a proper choice - which we simply do not have.
Then, as an aside - but still critically important: Labor can't argue. I mean just with words, the Libs set all the agendas and associated 'buzz-words'; Labor has left itself playing 'catch up'. Can't win like that; what utter fools they look.
Finally, the intellectually exhausted electorate. Here, I mean that the vast bulk of the population has been 'captured' by TV, and as proof I offer Hardly-Normal's current and continuing great sales success: the DVD driven 5.1 surround-sound plasma or LCD flat screen home-cinema entertainment set-up. Having voluntarily gone into hock to buy the bloody things, they then all just sit there, à la 'the Simpsons', enthralled. Turning their brains into mush. Of course, this mushing of brains is not a new effect, it's been happening since TV arrived, but now, I reckon, it's terminal. What the frequently somnambulant electorate watches is what they get: a diet of Hollywood soaps peddling all possible perversions interspersed with raucous ads interleaved by seemingly unrelieved pro-govt propaganda. Then a mini-majority votes Lib. Long story short: I'm sure you've heard about 'manufactured consent'? - with such a faux-consent, the electorate becomes the exact reverse of 'responsible'. So much for complicit and a far cry from eager participants, more like glum passengers, I'd say.
Ah, yes. While we're talking about traitors and manufactured consent, the '4th Estate' is a disgrace. What I'd really like to know, is how the AusBC links up and spruiks the same BS, in support of B, B & H's lies, for example? The AusBC's coverage is far too often indistinguishable from the privately owned and largely partisan MSM; so what do the AusBC do? Just echo it all, without a single critical thought? And we have to pay for that? A real democracy would require an honestly informed electorate - a 2nd factor we simply do not have.
-=*=-
Howard is, in fact, on trial. History will be the judge; the Internet has enabled, perhaps for the first time, a bit of independence from the MSM and corrupt victors' history; what we see is probably what we'll largely get, for a change.
And what we see is many: sabotage of Aus' Kyoto responsibilities, the regressive never-ever GST, massive house-price inflation denying to many the great Aussie dream of owning an own home, a massive shift of income to the already obscenely fat-cat rich, privatised for-profit medicine denying reasonable cost health-care to the great unwashed, privatised for-profit education denying a 'first step on the ladder' to so many, the racist kiddies (not!) in the wardah caper, our shameful contribution to the illegal invasion of Iraq - the list is just too long, and all trending 'down'. Gotta stop before I increase my own level of depression... the greatest disappointments come from unrealised expectations (ie aspirations); I expected a bit'a progress, what we're getting from Howard is anti-progress, pure.
Hardware Problem
John, Kym, TINA or ...?
Yes, Roger, but if we really had some alternatives, people of integrity and vision who were able to engage and unite us and call us out of our small mortgage-focussed worlds into real society, don't you think we would follow them too?
I think there is some sort of vicious cycle operating where the people and their leaders are following each other down to the bottom. There must be a point at which the "bottom" becomes intolerable. At present it looks like we're going to have to sink that low.
But vicious cycles have virtuous counterparts. If we had people prepared to do what it really takes to lead us out again...
We might need some additions to the political system to make it possible, though. I'm no systems analyst but it seems to me that the current set-up suits Howard and Co very well.
Satayana Reigns
Robyn, mankind cannot help itself. It seems that we are condemned to repeat history. This is the way of the powerful who have no need of history because they make their own.
There are many things that contribute to the world as it is and perhaps in some respects we are excused.
For example, education still favours producing useful citizens and is less interested in producing informed citizens. The political system expects that Australians be involved for a month once every three years. For the remainder of each government's term, we are expected to "shut up and put up" because we have delivered a mandate (50%+1 a mandate doth make). The judicial system expects no one to understand and even less to participate in its arcane black arts (the law as described by Malcolm B is a country unto itself requiring only a compliant, or fearful, citizenry).
We've had our chances
Roger, I agree with the basis of this statement: “My view, repeated on many occasions, is that he is the Prime Minister that we ‘had to have’. He truly represents the aspirations of the majority of Australians. Why put him on trial when the electorate is complicit? We are the problem, not Howard. If we had an expectation of an ethical Prime Minister we would get one and a shithead like Howard would not get elected.”
While I don’t agree that Howard is an unethical PM, I do believe Australia gets what it votes for. Howard is not the most populist leader we’ve elected but in my view his long term is as much a reflection of his mastery of Australian politics rather than his efforts as a PM. I recall the example of John Hewson. Had he been in possession of even half the political skills of Keating or Howard, I believe he would have been a great PM, far superior to Howard. We had a chance to elect an honest PM with a sense of social justice who presented a detailed plan for the future. Unfortunately, Hewson was yet another casualty of the scare campaign. I see Simon Crean in a similar way, but he never presented a comprehensive plan like Hewson’s “Fightback”. I agree with you, Roger, it would be great to see our politicians elected on the basis of their genuine and specific plans for the future, but as long as the populist scare campaign works, it won't happen. I think one way to encourage better leaders and policy would be to have longer terms (4-6 years) and term limits (2-3 max). Might help reduce the populist pork barrel that gets opened every election.
It Will Change
Chicken or egg?
Roger Fedyk,
The question of whether Howard is the PM we "deserve" interests me greatly. Does he, as you say, "truly represent the aspirations of the majority of Australians" or are the aspirations of the majority of Australians in the state they are currently in because he and like-minded mates are our leaders?
There Is An Answer
Hi Robyn,
Perhaps the question can be rephrased somewhat differently. Most of us who are parents take on the duty to teach our children the rules of civil behaviour and morality. At some point, perhaps as they reach adulthood, do we then have an expectation that all this is of no consequence and that a self-absorbed and morally ambivalent life is OK for us all?
In the main, I would say that most of us would state that we still favour a life of integrity. So what does that say about the enthusiastic support for a leader who admits no inconvenient fact or see no issues with the moral mess that is Iraq?
In his book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer exposes with brutal clarity how the German people and the German military leaders were eager participants in Hitler's lies. At many points between 1933 and 1938, the Germans had opportunities to take a different course. They all chose to believe the lies with the exception of a small minority.
I see lots of parallels in our current situation. For the scales to fall from our fellow citizens eyes they need to follow Howard until his lies and machinations are unbearable. We have created Howard the leader by being complicit in what he does. In numerous polls, Australians overwhelmingly say that Howard is a liar. It does not affect his popularity. That suggests to me that he is following us and not vice-versa.
naked fear; lots'n lots'a
G'day Roger Fedyk. I think we're on the same side, at least on this one (terrorism). It's a common theme and tactic: scare the horses shitless.
1) '98, GST: if the tax base is not broadened - (GST = banging the black economy and a few high-flyers), honest taxpayers will have to pay more; we'd all go broke and Labor weak on the economy.
2) '01, Tampa - kiddies (not!) in the wardah: prevent the Muslim hordes invading; Labor weak on border protection and Labor weak on terrorism.
3) '04, "keeping taxes low" and strong US alliance (illegal invasion of Iraq); Labor will bankrupt you and Labor weak on terrorism.
Each one using fear. Basically daaarlings, you know it's not nice to scare the punters, even though it may work. Scared shitless but worse; no choice on offer: Labor has sold out its base; with no ideas and no hope, it's buggered, as may be a lot'a the workers. The current and rising angst over IR shows how badly Labor has stuffed it up. But: it's no achievement beating a rabble, and it's no good winning without a useful agenda; IMHO the Libs are not for us but agin' us, we the people. Time will tell.
I agree that the rip-off of Iraq (and the rest) will continue, failing a confrontation with China either direct or indirect and with or without Russia &/ the EU. The US is walking a tightrope - more, the thin edge of a very sharp razor-blade at 10,000m altitude. If the US$ crashes & burns, that'll be 'it' for them for a good while, possibly for keeps.
-=*=-
Then: "We let him take us to war." - Oh really, how? We did demo; it is said that the demos were the biggest ever, an' that world-wide. Were we ever allowed a vote? - No, not even after the fact by Latham, who 'caved in' with indecent haste to the US alliance 'pushed paradigm'.
Also, you can't have it both ways:
a) "Rather it is how do we make our fellow citizens take on a modicum more moral responsibility."
b) "Would putting Howard on trial for murder make one skerrick of difference?"
If B, B & H were - still are and forever will be - guilty, then it'd be more than our moral responsibility, surely it'd be our duty to bring them to justice?
-=*=-
But the biggest problem of them all keeps being ignored: the greenhouse.
We're A Team
Hello Phil, I understand what you say and, yes, I see that way in the main.
The demos were ineffective. I guess the anger could not be maintained for too long this time. Same thing in the US and UK. In my opinion, the majority just nodded their heads. The Mule has control of their brains.
Labor is a great disappointment. Failed each test. They may as well have opposed Howard every step of the way. If that had happened they could be admired for their guts if not their political nous. There's no honesty in politics, so I don't have any expectations personally.
My view, repeated on many occasions, is that he is the Prime Minister that we "had to have". He truly represents the aspirations of the majority of Australians. Why put him on trial when the electorate is complicit? We are the problem, not Howard. If we had an expectation of an ethical Prime Minister we would get one and a shithead like Howard would not get elected.
rabid righties
G'day Gareth Eastwood. I use 'rabid righties' as short-hand for 'those most resistant to change', and yes as a pejorative; for those change-resistors are also largely (IMHO) those who would stand to benefit from the current system, which I hold for both corrupt and exploitative. There are also in this rightie-group faux-conservatives who benefit on false pretences ie. only figuratively. The thesis here is some people vote 'their self-image' (however delusional), as opposed to 'what might really be good for them.' (ie. the truth doesn't necessarily set anyone free.) In 'mathematically impossible', I gave some of the pre-requisites for CIRs: 'Current wielders of power would have to yield, natch - all men created equal. A sufficient level of voter engagement. A sufficient level of voter education. A sufficiently honest and truthful mainstream media.' When I said 'come the revolution', I meant it would probably, even necessarily, take one to change from what currently is. Yes, I am aware that it's gone wholly or partly haywire in California; you could ask yourself exactly why you might know more about that than Switzerland? (Answer: TV, the worst influence on mankind, ever - and California is full of maddies, everyone knows that?) I see universal health care as a prerequisite for a modern society. Medicine for profit is, well, for profit: the end result of that is gunna be affordable only for the rich, and at the current growth-rate of health care costs, that will soon become only for the filthy rich. This argument is 'done to death'; the best I can say is this: if the rich had to 'join the queue' like the rest of us, then the general standard would have to rise, the rich themselves would see to it. This is a finite world; some method of rationing will be required sometime, we might as well work out a fair one now - or face endless war, thanks GWBush&Co. Long (health) story short: develop Medicare back towards the original Medibank concept. A safety-net type system ain't good enough: good health for all - within reason. IMHO, there's two problems; the rich don't give a stuff for anyone else and the Drs all wanna be rich (who doesn't). A humane compromise *must* be possible. Go back to the CIR conditions: A sufficient level of voter engagement. A sufficient level of voter education. Given those two, proper responsibility and some good-will, we could conquer all problems. Start by turning all TVs off.
Direct democracy is not a magic bullet
Phil, what makes you think this statement is true? “...all the rabid righties (at least) are against CIRs”
I don’t know if you would call me a “rabid” right kind of guy, but I think it’s fair to say I drive on that side of the political road. I personally have no problem with the concept of citizen initiated referendums. I suspect most people in Australia (including myself) would have a greater familiarity with the Californian model, than that used by Switzerland. However I don’t believe it will result in some form of “revolution” and I especially don’t believe it would result in particularly divergent outcomes from the present system of government.
Phil, have you considered the possibility that increased direct representation and voting may actually result in Australia shifting further to the right?
I am not against CIR, I would like to give it a go. However I do have some concerns. My primary concern relates to the possibility of conflicting populist policies being approved and implemented via a CIR. For example I bet you could get plenty of signatures for the following policies to go to a vote.
1. Unlimited free health care for all Australian citizens.
2. Halving of all personal income tax rates.
If both these policies were passed by a CIR, the federal govt might be bankrupt within a decade. California is already well down this track. Some of its most damaging populist policies include a limit on property tax, all road/car tax revenue must be spent on roads and something like 2/3 of state govt expenditure must be spent on education.
I’d prefer to have these concerns satisfied before I would personally vote for a move to a system that allows CIR’s.
Phil, would you finally accept the outcome if the Australian people voted against your view? A CIR here might well approve mandatory detention, reject gay marriage, introduce the death penalty, approve the terrorism laws and so on (this isn’t how I’d vote). All of these are favourites of the left and I bet the left would disappointed with the results on these issues.
the democracy you have, when you're not really having a democrac
I suggested a proof at [mathematically impossible], that representation simply can't work. I suggested an alternative [referendums] of the citizen initiated type ie CIRs, then I went on to show [I only know of Swiss referenda], that referendums not only work, they are practical and even useful (when the conservatives don't win all the time, that is.)
My first 'Ah ha!' moment of this day is expressed in my post "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." over at [webdiary, Imagine...]; now I've just had a, if not the subsequent 'Ah ha!' moment for this topic: the reason why all the rabid righties (at least) are against CIRs.
It's not as if most of the politicians don't want to give up power (cf. 'will to power', Nietzsche [largely if not totally impenetrable; wiki]), some politicians can't afford to give it up.
I've heard, for example, that Howard is immune from arrest "as long as he stays in power". It means some sort'a hang-over, I suppose, from the time of some 'God-given' rights of Kings and Queens: 'sovereign immunity'. (This could give one a bit of a chuckle moment, when one recalls Howard's own description of himself, 'a pretty ordinary bloke':
Naturally enough, we'll prol'aby never know as to which part of the question Howard agreed to.
-=*=-
Leaving all dark thoughts, like 'wicked obfuscation', aside; and getting back on-track: Lots'a politicians do not want to give up power, some cannot afford to; QED: no CIRs for us, we the people.
Too bad, I suppose, about democracy, "a system of government in which sovereignty rests with the whole people, who rule either directly or ..." (The OXFORD World ENCYCLOPEDIA)
(Oh, yeah. One other thing: it gives Howard another reason to hang on till he drops. Too bad, but only par for the course, really.)
Anyway daaarlings, that is the way things will stay, I reckon - until possibly: come the revolution...
Citizen Initiated Referenda
On the way to the Hype-urb, Olé!
G'day (again) Troy.
The ayes have it: Guilty, your honour! - but so bloody what?
Just previous, this: "I understand your point, sir. No one is responsible. We just kill the fuckers and ho-hum. Is that what you are trying to get across? Your argument seems to me like a pedant's refuge." - thanks and g'day to you, Roger F.
I've said in some other thread if not this one (and a squillion other times to boot): we're goin' down the tubes! - I mean the greenhouse.
Not 'just' that, but our politics is 'out of control'; they don't listen and anyway we have no choice: blah, blah, blah.
Who listens, who even cares?
-=*=-
Apart, perhaps, from no-bloody-one: me.
Because it bloody-well hurts!
(God-damn it! - As my Pommy mate in D-land would say; an' g'day to you, Richard T, too.)
This isn't 'just' a political debate, it's fight for all our lives, and in particular, my life and mine's! (OK; last '!' for awhile, don't really wanna over-dooo the hype, do ya?)
-=*=-
Troy, you then go on with 'mens rea/actus reus' and other stuff; you might as well be talking pure gobbledegook (n. (also gobbledygook) colloq. pompous or unintelligible jargon), as far as this little black duck is concerned - or even, the 'real' world (if that differs from me) for that matter... Such stuff might have some application in a Darlinghurst courtroom or some other elsewhere; the simple fact is that Howard sent us to war, an illegal invasion, and all the many crimes resulting are therefore his. Full-bloody-stop.
Roger F again: "in the main [the law] bears no relationship to how society conducts itself." Me: Why that? We pay for it (punitive taxation), why don't we get something useful to us?
Sooo, the challenge: which clever lawyer is actually do something; charge and get a conviction of the perpetrators B, B and H?
Only one tiny, insignificant little matter, the survival of our world is at stake.
-=*=-
Oh, yeah. Another tiny, insignificant little matter (this addressed to all pro-wars): just how would you like it, how would you feel, if your mother/father/sister/brother/child; uncle, aunt, cousin, step-whatever or friend or neighbour, etc, etc, even just one of your distant country-wo/men - was slaughtered (but not just slaughtered, the 'politically-correct' expression these days I believe is 'pink-misted'), by any one from the coalition of the willing (incl. 'our boys'), in the form of some pimply teenager, say, screeching a falsetto "Let's go play in Iraq!" as he did so. Or perhaps an obscenely noisy cruise missile, or an almost silent 'smart' bomb, dropped by some remotely patrician pilot, from 30,000 feet? Hmmm?
Then lastly, for the really thick pro-wars, this: violence is really stupid - geddit yet? Der...
-=*=-
Now, boys: that was my a bit'a Hype-urb, Olé. See y's.
Measuring the standard of representation
Thank you for the link to the Democrats' constitution, John. Revitalizing the Democrats may well be part of the answer to our problems. It will be very interesting to see what happens to them in SA this Saturday.
I think, though, that we will also need some new ways to make ALL politicians directly answerable to their electors more often than once every three (or four!) years. Yes, it is about ordinary Australians taking control, but at the moment there is very little opportunity for them to do that.
My own federal representative, Kym Richardson in Kingston, follows the Howard party line loyally - as can be expected of someone recently elected as a Liberal. But should this be what we expect? He holds his seat by a very slim margin. I think it was something like 81 votes in the recount. There is no way he can be representing the views of the majority of his electors on all or even many issues if he just votes as he is told to in the party room.
As an elector, of course, I am free to contact his office and give him the "benefit" of my opinion. But there is nothing in place to ensure me that my opinion will influence him to vote for something against the party line even if it was accompanied by similar opinions from all of the other 85,000 Kingston voters - because we wouldn't know each other had contacted him. I suspect if he gets an indication that he may be intending to vote against the majority of his electorate it would start to worry him, and if it was great enough he would probably notify his superiors, but it wouldn't change his vote.
So amongst other things, I think we need some ways for the electorate to keep a better eye on what their representative is doing in their name. His/her performance should be appraised often. They are supposed to be serving us, not the other way around.
I only know of Swiss referenda
Ross Chippendale (g'day) would like to: "read up on the referendums run anywhere as I see Australia as being too big to make it cost effective unless we all have web access."
[wiki]:
Four times a year might sound a bit excessive, and the parliaments and councils surely don't go up for election that often; it's mostly the referendums that keep them jumping.
They are quite used to it; the polling places are “local” to almost everywhere, and as stated, “postal” fills in for “long walks”.
Note: “manually counted”. Due to the kerfuffle in the US with voting machines, I'd like to be very sure of any electronic alternative to paper. Asking the regular Aussie to internet a vote is probably going a step or two too far, anyway. Although, having said that, I heard once that the French had distributed small computers to practically everyone as phone books. If the French had success, then why not Aus?
To start a referendum, all that is needed is a petition or so, and so many signatures:
[about.ch]:
In other words, different counts depending on who requests the change. It seems to indicate, that before the parliament can change any law, they have to sign up 50,000 citizen votes. I wonder how well that'd work here.
Thanks Phil
Hey Phil,
Thanks for that. I should have Googled I guess.
I totally agree about electronic voting, on any issue or level as we all know hackers are quite devious let alone political parties managing such things.
Regardless of that I do see the internet as being the way to go in the future if we actually want people to be involved. As you have indicated, even in a tiny country turnouts are not large. The size and distribution of people in Australia would be impossible with today's conditions.
As an example there are NT Aboriginal communities who currently only vote by the NT Government sending a small team by vehicle to collect votes. Some communities don't have electricity as we do in cities but they are still citizens who need to be catered for. Cost wise it doesn't add up in this country today.
big words
Stuart McCarthy: "...the well-trodden road to hyperbole when you conflate the generic with the specific..."
OK, please translate this into language the average person in the street might understand:
"The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Then you might care to explain, why this "doesn't" mean that B, B & H could not be found guilty of that supreme international crime, containing within itself such accumulated evils as murder, rape - and pillage?
I don't really think it has escaped the world's notice that the US has illegally invaded, then occupied, Iraq quite definitely with a view to controlling Iraq's oil (with themselves at the head of the queue, natch), that oil to be denominated in US$s in turn, to prop up the US' (otherwise essentially worthless) fiat currency. From illegal invasion to oil control is oh, so charmingly, partly or wholly referred to as "geopolitics" in some circles, however impolite.
But nevertheless, it was, is, and will forever remain "murder for oil".
The ayes have it: Guilty, your honour!
Party constitutions
John Pratt, I think my comment on the Democrats came over more acerbically than I intended. I agree that the time to act is now, but I think we may need something quite different to what we have at the moment. That is why I'm becoming more interested in examining the whole system closely to see what else would be possible.
Having not read their constitution, I am genuinely interested in the process that led to the Democrat's GST decision. It has obviously been thought a huge mistake by many Democrat members and it lost them a great deal of support. I am one of those voters who have not voted Democrat since.
I guess I'm interested to know if there is anything in the constitution to prevent a similar thing happening again. Given that some policy will have to be developed by leaders "on the run" because there is no time to consult the membership, is there a requirement to fit new policy in to a set of "core principles", to have the support of an inner sanctum, or something else which gives guidance to leaders as to how the membership expects them to deal with making those decisions quickly?
Is it even possible to draft a party constitution which stops leaders acting against the general wishes of its members? (More questions than answers – often the case with me.)
Time to take control
Robyn, the Australian Democrats constitution.
The constitution was developed by members of the Democrats and voted on. It can be changed and all policy is voted on by members.
The system is there is just needs the voters of Australia to get off their back sides and take control!
Like all democratic institutions it only works when we get involved.
9 POLICY FORMULATION
9.1 Policies shall be formulated with the maximum participation of members and shall finally be determined by the direct and equal say of the membership by a voluntary postal vote.
9.1.1 A policy ballot shall be determined by a simple majority of those voting in such ballot.
9.1.2 Regulation removed by ballot declared on 28/03/2002
9.1.3 Petitions to change policy and initiated after the publication of the first draft of a policy and up to twelve months after a ballot has occurred will not proceed unless endorsed by the National Executive.
9.1.4 Petitions seeking to initiate a party ballot on a matter of policy will lapse should the National Policy Co-ordinator initiate a policy review through the Journal, provided the review clearly allows for discussion of the petitioners' request.
9.1.5 Petitions initiated to change policy must:
(a) Refer to a specific policy item or items of policy;
(b) Be accompanied by a copy of the policy as proposed by the petition;
(c) Have been discussed with the National Policy Co-ordinator in relation to wording and structure prior to circulation.
9.2 Policies which concern one Division only may be decided by the Division concerned by the procedures outlined in the Regulations.
9.3 Emergency policy decisions can be made by the National Executive. Any such decision shall be submitted for ratification by party ballot within two months. The National Executive shall not make any emergency policy decision which contradicts any policy of the Party already approved by a ballot of members.
referendums
The theme is [possible] failure of representation by the major parties.
The subtext is democracy.
First, what do democracy1 and representation2 mean/imply?
I contend, that in order for any person to represent me, that “putative representative” must be intimately acquainted with my thoughts. Otherwise, s/he cannot possibly represent me with any fair degree of fidelity. As for me, so for my 1000s of fellow electors3.
What is endlessly pushed down our throats, is that we are allowed/privileged to vote, perhaps once every three years; quite often less, "at the prime-minister's pleasure." That's all? Bah!
I further contend, that voting is perfectly pointless (tending to insanity), unless, a) there is a meaningful choice, and then b) there is a reasonable expectation that if one's choice were to be elected, then the outcome would be largely what one might desire.
(Note: the Lib/Lab twins do not offer any sort'a meaningful choice.)
For any representative to be so well acquainted with me and mine (and the other 1000s of voters) is perfectly impossible, and that multiplied by the number of candidates at least; even assuming that the candidates could ever think/act consistently, a big ask. Too bloody big.
QED: total failure of the concept of representation, full-stop.
The ancients proposed solutions to this “representation problem” in at least two ways: 1) choosing representatives at random (by ballot, say: a random choice being statistically just as likely - if not better - to be able to “faithfully” represent), or 2) having assemblies of all electors. Although this last sounds fantastic and/or improbable, it is currently practised in the Canton of Glarus, Switzerland4. Which is where we ort'a go, ie. Switzerland, for the rest: CIRs. It not only works, but it doesn't cost too much in time, money or effort.
And that might be democracy1 - what we've got, ain't.
PS I reject the ghastly notion that “Geopolitics does not operate on the level of the individual”. The world is people, all created equal. (If not, why not: please explain.) Whatever laws we might have for individual people (for example: thou shalt not kill) must be applicable on all scales. IMHO, it is exactly that sort'a “Geopolitics” thinking that makes the law - and the lawyer - an ass. If you want my vote (har, har only serious) on the matter, B, B & H are guilty as Troy's initial post charged.
1. Democracy: “A system of government in which sovereignty rests with the whole people, who rule either directly or through representatives. In the contemporary world, democracy is closely associated with the idea of choosing governments by periodic free multiparty elections, but in the past it was understood more literally to mean the people gathering together in an assembly to debate political issues and enact laws. The chief elements of representative democracy are: freedom of speech and expression; periodic free elections to the legislature, in which all citizens are entitled to vote and to stand for office; the right to form competing parties to contest these elections; a government which is responsible to the legislature, and thereby to some degree responsive to public opinion. Where one or more of these elements is absent, as in the ‘People's Democracies', the one-party states of the communist bloc in the period following World War II, the system is unlikely to be genuinely democratic.” The Oxford World Encyclopedia.
2. Representation: “Most generally, a representation is a performing of selected functions or roles of another physical or abstract object/person/organization in predefined circumstances and it is based on the consensus of the group/community involved.” From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
3. Elector: noun 1 a person who has the right to vote in an election, especially one for members of a national parliament. The New Oxford Dictionary of English.
4. Web Results 1 - 100 of about 998 English pages for Canton of Glarus, Switzerland representative assembly. (0.57 secs).
From hit#1: The cantons Appenzell, Glarus and Unterwalden do not perform elections and voting, but a so called Landsgemeinde, an out door assembly of all its citizens. The attendees raise their hands to show if they agree with or deny a particular request.
PPS To get elected proves nothing; it is proof of no talent to govern, let alone “rule”. Howard stood up before us, we the people, and said "We know Saddam has WMDs; blah, blah, blah." IMHO, it was a lie, and that being so, we are “ruled” by a liar. Then, Howard sent “our boys” off to Iraq to, among other things, kill. Lots'a innocent Iraqis have been killed: brutally murdered. Just what sort'a morality is that?
Spot on Phil
Hey Phil, agree with nearly every word.
To show what governments really think of the electoral system, voters, promises and so called democracy you only have to heed John Howard's words When Barnaby was doing his dance, JWH said words to the effect, if not exactly,
"His first loyalty is to the party room".
What else do we need to know? Why are so many so low on the uptake?
I would be keen to read up on the referendums run anywhere as I see Australia as being too big to make it cost effective unless we all have web access. Can you point me where this is detailed please?
The genius of Webdiary
Noted Troy Rollo's comment about Australians needing honest people in parliament. They are there already. Some are in the ALP, some the Greens, some the Democrats and a few more would turn up with a good rug-shake of the Coalition. Trouble is they are largely marginalised, and each party is gradually purging the better types who can think for themselves and have some internal ethical mechanism operating from which they form their views on a given situation.
Robyn Clothier's dry comment concerning the Democrats and betrayal re the GST can be seen as applying across the board. The treachery of the ALP - the public custodian - involving PPP's and the Coalition's kneecapping by stealth of an electorate terrified of interest rates by subsequent IR legislation instead, are good examples. And the Greens seem to be abandoning rainforests, river system etc, as “too hard” (read unpalatable) and concentrating on the more nebulous global warming issue.
The sad thing is, only the better politicians are likely to feel the impact of acrimony resulting from bad faith. This is the essence of what has changed. Most politicians are now ashamed of the good things (accidentally) done, rather than the bad and Malcolm Duncan succinctly if nastily summed it up with his cynical comment on the need to ask, after all this time, why life is "sacred". In the current circumstances this maybe after all, is how far back we really need to go.
As Troy said, this is the era of the careerist. Politicians are now ceremonial eunuchs, as ineffectual as the remnants of the once-powerful feudal nobility were in the court of Louis XIV. The real loci and sources of enabling power have long-since diffused, dispersed or shifted, through the processes of globalisation and the like, enacted as a process through organisations like GATT and WTO and reinforced through the general dissemination of neo-liberal ideology, which has succeeded in setting a cognitive paradigm that most people unconsciously operate under without questioning the given wisdom. "Individualism" and "Freedom" deteriorate to the sort of f-you Jack thing we've just had exemplified in the Jovicic case, or pitiful debates over which 4-wheel drive brand is better than the next. Meanwhile, a Hobbesian pessimism and scepticism pervade and blinker perceptions of the future could be, in turn further obviating responses to the present.
The feminists offered an interesting insight when they therefore began insisting that "politics is the personal", back in the eighties. If we are "stuck" with a system, we can change tactics from overt resistance to covert subversion and at least still gain the vicarious satisfaction of offending our oppressors, when we can't rid of them.
Trouble is, since that time it has all become so subjective and personalised that ideas of objectivity concerning reality and possibility have become forgotten notions as people have fallen into the trap of arguing on the basis of whim and "taste" deteriorating to prejudice, which is the beginnings of the politics of defeat where people exclusively quarrel over its spoils, having lost sight of bigger prizes and the main game, as with Labor at the moment.
Hence the genius of the people who started up WD, which is an example of an apt response to a changing paradigm, since it identifies that "the problem" is much more complex than we first thought and has us back at the drawing board where we both deserve and need to be, to question basic assumptions and work out what to do next rather than just heading off again, half-cocked to another defeat.
Competent Politicians
You make a very interesting observation, Troy, that the current methods used by the major parties are not geared to selecting competent politicians.
What do you see as the important qualities of a member of parliament, a government minister, and of a shadow minister?
As you perhaps allude to in your last paragraph, we could probably do away completely with politicians. Modern technology is at a point where direct voting by individuals on legislation is economical.
Another option is a suggestion made by Russell Ackoff to have a mandatory "None of the above" ballot option, and if this gets a majority of votes, then the election is re-held, and those who initially stood and lost pay the costs of holding it.
Time to act is Now!
I became a founding member of the Australian Democrats after attending Don Chipp’s Town Hall speech in Perth in 1977. I was frustrated with the two party system then and remain so today. I have voted for the ALP, the Democrats and the Greens over the last thirty years. I agree that the Democrats made a huge mistake in supporting the GST.
Now I feel the need for a change is more urgent than ever. On tonight’s news we hear that the CO2 levels have reached 380 parts per million higher than they have been for the last million years. The level is increasing faster than predicted and no one knows at what level it will stabilise. Bird numbers are dropping as the sea surface temperatures rise. The survival of the planet is at stake.
Also tonight it is reported that Australia’s involvement in Iraq is to move into a more dangerous phase. As the British troops begin to withdraw, our politicians seem hell bent on following the US into even greater catastrophes in the Middle East.
As the government gloats over budget surpluses, we see our elderly being abused in under funded facilities; we see our hospitals falling apart for lack of spending, infrastructure is under funded so our industries are unable to meet demand.
If you believe that neither the Liberals nor the ALP are ready to face up to these challenges, what can we do? Sit back and watch the Democrats (perhaps our last chance) fall from the political scene, or join in numbers never before seen. Using the constitution that is already in place to develop truly progressive policies. Elect leaders with drive, wisdom and vision to change Australia’s direction before it is too late!
If we want to change the government at the next election the time to act is now.
Off track
Hey all,
Just following a few of the red herrings briefly. On the issue of needing change several of us from WD are beginning to get ideas together for what change we see is needed to our political/voting systems.
Again, I invite anyone with an interest to join in rather than just sit on the sidelines and make obvious statements. We all do that of course but, for once, some are willing to try and achieve something. What it is relies on the group as a whole and you can join in too. Contact me via Hamish or just post here and I'll follow up.
There is no rush as I expect it will take some time to get rolling and the world won't end tonight, hopefully.
On the herrings,
Phil, you stated that politicians have to make more than 10 decisions. The few at the top do but the rest have only one. That being, Do I want to keep my seat? If so I just follow the leader, no decisions required.
For Malcolm and Troy,
I have enjoyed your discussion on whether JWH is a murderer. I have asked this question before but had no response from anyone here.
The question is: Can JWH or any Premier be charged with murder or manslaughter as a consequence of not banning the sale of tobacco? To me they are fully aware of the perils of smoking and announce such regularly. They all know the scientific evidence, the emotional evidence and yet they still allow legal sale of it. Surely that falls within the manslaughter topic?
In other words they knowingly allow sale of a product that will certainly kill many users. It is not negligent or ignorant; rather it is knowingly assisting in those deaths. Intent must be there as they are aware of the future deaths. What say you?
For John P, Democrats are bad guys from my perspective. They allowed JWH to push GST through while the majority of Australians did not want it. Why? It seems to me Meg and the other guy simply wanted to be in the spotlight and who knows what other little incentives they may have been offered?
As Robyn has inferred, vote Democrat? No way. They are irrelevant since that GST decision and deserve the fate awaiting their remaining members. Permanent holidays with the exception of Natasha who I think should be an independent.
Directions
I am certainly interested in any discussions towards fixing the system.
As regards the Democrats, their constitution makes it clear that members - even parliamentary members - are free to disagree with policy set by members and even to vote against it. I think that is a good thing rather than a bad thing. There is some difficulty of course with having policy set at that level because it becomes impracticable to establish a policy on new issues in a timely fashion.
As I have said, the Democrats and I are so close on policy that if I could be persuaded of its viability I would be there in no time flat. However, even at its peak the Democrats never really sought to be anything other than a minor party holding the balance of power in the Senate (Janine Haines' tilt at a House of Reps seat notwithstanding). It would require something quite radical to be going on to change what looks like the inevitable in 2007, and I am not seeing anything of that kind - is there even a plan to arrest the decline? Something beyond "business as usual"?
I would like to see something targeted at the grip of the major parties on the House of Representatives and designed to ensure that the Westminster System actually functions there, ensuring continuous accountability.
To my mind, the first role of a political party should be to vet potential candidates not just for policy, but for job-skills - ensuring that candidates have the ability to do the job well once elected. This is something that does not happen - at most the parties vet for electability (which has very little to do with on-the-job performance) and having the right "friends". Evaluating relevant job-skills is something the average punter simply cannot do, and is an area where the parties ought to be assisting. I believe elections should be about two things: deciding on policy, and conducting the most harrowing job screening process in existence. As it is they tend to be cheerleader contests.
* - "Impracticable" means "incapable of being put into practice", in effect so difficult or unlikely to succeed as to not be worth the effort. I mention this because few non-lawyers understand the word, and even lawyers (who should know better) often do not understand it.
Hi Troy
Hey Troy, you say you are interested in discussions on fixing the system. Contact me at enuffenuff@fastmail.fm . We are doing this off site to avoid the certain boring of others and the certain critics who wouldn't wait until a finished product before attacking etc. And to save Hamish some editing time!
We have only just started and we are just trying to be clear about what we are doing before we each produce reams of papers and ideas etc. So it's a good time to jump in. Where it ends up I don't know. I hope we can produce a paper that can be circulated in the media etc just to get people thinking. I don't expect more than that but who knows? If you don't dream you don't achieve, right?
Just as one example of what we may be able to think about is the future use of the internet and other technology to enable the population.
Someone else below mentioned citizen referendums which I have heard of but it doesn't sound too practical under current systems. If everyone had easy access to the net then, hey, they may actually press some buttons instead of doing nothing while they wait for that elusive someone "who should do something about that”.
That elusive someone is you, and me and anyone else with some time and a brain. Having excluded party members with that we are have chance of producing something.
Hope to hear from you and any other interested parties, oops, should have said people.
Directions
Troy Rollo, yes, I am afraid the end of the Democrats will happen at the next election. I was elated when Chipp first started things and voted for them twice but they have become irrelevant except for Natasha. I can well imagine Natasha joining the Labor Party after the next election, but that would be a great mistake as they would chop her off at the knees as they have done with most women who have shown an above average amount of grey matter.
Democrat policy setting
John Pratt: "The best way to maintain democracy and control the power seeking groups is having the membership vote on leadership and policy."
John, were you a member of the Democrats when they voted for the GST? I've often wondered what the process was that led to that decision. Did the membership vote for a GST?
Don't reinvent the wheel.
Troy, you're right, the hijacking of political parties by power-seeking groups is a risk all political parties face. That is exactly what happens with the factions fighting for power in the ALP.
The best way to maintain democracy and control the power seeking groups is having the membership vote on leadership and policy. This is, as you know, how the Australian Democrats constitution is set up. We have the infrastructure in place, the policies are in place. Why would we want to reinvent the wheel? If we want to change government in two years time what choice do we have?
A couple of clarifications
I did not mean to imply that the Prime Minister would be charged with murder. He will not for the reasons (among others) indicated by Roger Fedyk. That part of the discussion was merely there to illustrate a point – that even members of a party must be completely free to oppose the party in situations that are sufficiently serious, without adverse consequences. This was given as a clear example of a case where civic duty might rightly impose an overriding civic duty to do so.
My final paragraph does not claim that the job can be done without parties, rather that any party must be structured so as to prevent the undesirable outcome.
The Australian Democrats, unfortunately (most unfortunately, since they seem a good match for my own positions on most things) seem set to be wiped out entirely at the federal level next year. Their constitution incorporates some measures that might be relevant to a party designed to prevent the building of a career political class, and does not suffer some of the serious faults of the major party constitutions, but there would still be some way to go in securing the against hijacking by a power-seeking group in my view.
The Crimes Act and Common Law
Malcolm: with respect to the effect of s18 and the elements, I would refer you to Mraz v R (1955) 93 CLR 493. Note particularly the third paragraph of the judgement of Fullagar J, If you want additional opinions on the matter you can look at: Parker v R (1963) 111 CLR 610, 19th paragraph of the judgement of Windeyer; Gammage v R (1969) 122 CLR 444, paragraph 2 of the judgement of Windeyer J, Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205, paragraph 18 of the judgement of Barwick CJ; Viro v R (1978) 141 CLR 88, paragraph 34 of the judgement of Murphy J (I will ignore the habit of some to disregard Murphy J's judgements); Johns v R (1980) 143 CLR 108, paragraph 30 of the joint judgement of Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ; Thompson v R (1989) 169 CLR 1 (entire judgement - case is on point); R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37 at [1]-[24], especially at [24], per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ, Callinan J concurring at [139], Heydon J concurring at [148], Kirby J also appearing to agree to the extent here relevant.
I trust that is sufficient to dispose of the claim that common law is the source of the elements establishing the offence. Defences are a different matter, but are established not by negativing elements of the common law offence, but by establishing all elements of a common law defence. I would, as an aside, caution against relying on secondary sources for rules of law (except where I am the secondary source, of course :-) ).
While your offer to launch a private prosecution is interesting, it is not possible in NSW due to the requirements of current indictment procedures, which are incapable of being satisfied by a private citizen, and murder, alas, is not triable summarily, otherwise the jury would not be an issue.
s 18 and Murder
First, Troy Rollo, I do not regard Webdiary as a debating forum for lawyers to engage in esoteric points of no interest to general readers. I was simply trying to point out in a comprehensible fashion the origins of the offence and some of its difficulties (and common misconceptions about them).
However, to set the record straight, Thompson is in point and supports my argument. Whether one uses the old formula of "within the Queen's peace" or regards it as a jurisdictional question, there is no question that either at common law or under s 18 there is no crime of murder of which Howard could be guilty in NSW re Iraq.
The idea of negativing or establishing defences is not what I was adverting to. For there to be a conviction for a crime, the Crown must prove all the elements: if one of the elements is missing (even jurisdiction) there is no crime on the part of the accused. No question of a defence even arises in those circumstances. Won one on a directed verdict only the week before last. Cabinet will go berserk when it finds out I got a costs order worth about $120K.
As to ss 8 and 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, while the prosecution of the offence at trial is a matter for the Attorney or the DPP, the laying of an information is not (and it happens). Whether the authorities go on to prosecute is another matter.
Thompson
Note paragraph 13 of the judgement of Mason CJ and Dawson J:
Incidentally, this also accords with the international law rules as to jurisdiction. In this case the relevant act is the giving of the order.
Relevant act my arse
Sending troops to war (however objectionable in this circumstance) or ordering them into a battle zone is neither an order to kill (that authority is essentially operational and depends on the situation) nor an act giving rise to liability as an accomplice.
The consequences of your argument would be that a battlefield commander would be complicit in the rape and murder of a civilian for example (an occurrence which is unfortunately familiar in most conflicts). It is just ridiculous. It would be like sheeting home vicarious criminal liability to an employer who allows his employee to check gas meters where the employee takes the opportunity to rape and kill the occupant of the dwelling.
Was Chifley a murderer because he brought our troops back to fight in New Guinea?
Now, could we get back to political parties please?
And The Horse You Rode In On
Malcolm, do you ever get out of 'lawyer mode'? Rape and killing of innocent civilians is only someone else's responsibility in some lawyer's mind. A defence for the indefensible which is why we get such lawyerly gobblegook as "collateral damage" when some human being's life is snuffed out. That it was always thus is not relevant either. Some one is responsible but from your point of view it's "let's pretend it's not us because we are the good guys".
I thank James Carville for the inspiration for the title. He wrote a book about a lawyer, as well.
"Rape and killing of innocent civilians ..." ?!?
"Rape and killing of innocent civilians ..."
Where on earth did you get that one from, Roger Fedyk?!?
Is It Only Me, Hey?
Stuart M, I guess I made that one up. Not a single civilian has been raped or killed during recent wars, including Eyerak.
Where on earth did you get such a question from, the David Irving Debating Handbook?
Profuse apologies if you are actually being cynical.
The Road to Hyperbole
Roger F, I am usually cynical but rarely facetious.
You’re travelling the well-trodden road to hyperbole when you conflate the generic with the specific.
Only a fool would claim that innocent civilians aren’t raped or killed in war. Equally, however, only a fool would use this to argue a specific charge against a specific individual without citing a specific incident, let alone producing evidence.
Been There And It's Over-rated
Stuart M, you sound like a lawyer. Is it something that I said?
I understand your point, sir. No one is responsible. We just kill the fuckers and ho-hum. Is that what you are trying to get across? Your argument seems to me like a pedant's refuge.
If the PM makes a decision that results in the needless and unjustifiable death's of innocents is that it? Say the words and then move on. Is an Iraqi civilian's death of no consequence?
Roger, your comments on
Roger, while I certainly sympathise with your position, your comments on rape, in particular, are a little out there since nobody imagines that this is an authorised way of performing the assigned task, so that the mens rea (mental elements) would not be there in the PM, and also the actus reus (physical elements) would be absent. The closest you could come is conspiracy and then the mens rea is still lacking. Killing is different since the actus reus can be more remote and killing is a core part of the authorised methods when you send troops to war - it is implausible to say "I ordered them to invade but when doing that I didn't mean for them to kill anybody" (especially when those troops include SAS).
Stuart is correct in describing some of your points as hyperbole - my advice to people engaged in political debate is always to avoid hyperbole because it means that any valid argument alongside the hyperbole will be tarred with the same brush. The more extreme a claim, the more you need it to be an accurate reflection of the truth.
Stuart, obviously a specific incident would need to be identified to lay charges, however for the present purposes and bearing in mind the core theme I trust you can take it that I am satisfied that there are specific incidents on record.
Ergo Sum
Troy, the problem as I see it is not how someone like Howard can be convicted of a crime. Rather it is how do we make our fellow citizens take on a modicum more moral responsibility. Howard did not take us to war on his own. We let him take us to war. Unlike, Vietnam, there were no mass protests. There were 100,000 of us back then "marching up and down till we were bloody foot-sore" (to paraphrase Henry Bolte).
To draw another analogy, you are attempting to take off the head of the snake when the whole corpus is involved.
There are too many wide-reaching issues from "it's all about oil" (which it is) to the emerging global arm-wrestle between China and the US on to the toady relationship between the US and Australia and further on to how and with what resources will a pipsqueek white refuge in Asia survive in this century and beyond.
Yours is a narrow focus issue and I have been having a little sport with it. I wish you well but we need your brains and energy for bigger battles than removing this moral midget in Canberra. He will go soon enough and we will forget about him.
Phil K, while I sense your unease and empathise with it, I personally am not convinced that we are in a battle for survival. My point of view is that someone (actually a lot of someones) in the employ of powerful American business interests have been paid to put on a global Chicken Little act. "The sky is falling" and while we are looking up, the very mundane and dirty business of robbing Iraq blind goes on it's merry way. I do not believe for one minute that the US wants a stable Iraq. A stable Iraq would want US troops out and control over their own resources. The US has now spent trillions of dollars in Mesopotamia and it will not leave until every last shekel has been paid back with usurious interest. The global war on terror is a smokescreen of gigantic proportions to keep the peons and others off balance.
The US could drop Homeland Security tomorrow and Australia could roll back all its draconian laws at the same time and merely maintain our normal level of vigilance and we would be no worse off and under no greater a threat from anybody. A few questions for those who are interested, just what would the "terrorists" do in Australia? How would they bring the necessary materials here and where would they hide unnoticed? When your scared of shadows the answer tends to be everywhere. But that is the response of children. Who benefits by making us scared of unknown enemies? Would putting Howard on trial for murder make one skerrick of difference?
Yes, War is 'Bad' ...
Hi Troy. Your reply to Roger saved me the trouble. Notwithstanding Malcolm’s convincing argument(s) to the effect that no Australian court would have the necessary jurisdiction, even if you did cite specific examples of "killing" you have overlooked a further point that would condemn your case to failure.
I have no doubt that there are specific incidents of "killing" on record. What I doubt, however, is that you could produce evidence that such killings contravened the laws of armed conflict. This being the case, it would be a defence that as the killings were lawful and therefore did not in themselves constitute murder, that a person who ordered such killings to occur (if indeed you could prove this causal link) also did not commit the crime of murder.
To bring this back to the context of your overall piece, I fear that what you are attempting is to win a subjective argument using an objective process. This, along with the various other ‘objective’ anti-war mantras such as "it’s all about oil", "it’s all about the military industrial complex" or "it’s all about US empire" might appeal to a Che Guevara t-shirt wearing 16 year old wagging school to attend a protest, but it detracts from the substantive issues you have discussed such as the abject failure of party politics.
Yes, war is 'bad'. But the complex reality of the war in Iraq, and more importantly the question of what we should be doing about it right now, warrants more than sloganeering. If you really want to advance the democratic discourse in this country the you have to move beyond the sort of simplistic slogans that have become the hallmark of party politics.
But in an illegal war
The specific "laws of war" being addressed in this passage were those prohibiting aggressive war, not those prohibiting particular methods of conducting a war. This principle has been upheld by the House of Lords. It is a matter of no controversy that international law regards as murder any killing by the aggressor in the course of conducting an illegal war.
Forget the Cavalry
Roger Fedyk, I do not know what you mean by "lawyer mode". I am a lawyer, I think like a lawyer. The law and morality have nothing to do with one another nor should they. I do not see the Yorick Despatches as a principally legal treatise and if you cut me I do try to bleed you.
I may think invading a sovereign country is morally reprehensible in certain circumstances but either it is a legal act or not. I have much more difficult moral dilemmas when that country is Nazi Germany or disobeying a rule (law) which I do not think morally defensible. For example, if a relative of mine were dying of an incurable and extremely painful disease, would I risk my livelihood by obtaining heroin for him to ease the pain? Probably.
The legal and moral issues are entirely separate although each may have an effect on the other. You may be squeamish about people dying and there are unpleasant and even more unpleasant ways for it to happen but it comes to us all. The idea that life is somehow sacred or should be perpetually continued is mawkish rubbish.
There are no "good guys". Geopolitics does not operate on the level of the individual. What then would you do with those you regard as responsible? My guess is that you would want to put them on trial. You might want a few lawyers around then.
Let me take it a little further. One of the arguments is that the Iraqi people, whether they voted for Saddam or not, deserve some culpability for what is now happening because they failed to depose him. I doubt, Roger Fedyk, that you voted for Howard (or any of his candidates) and I certainly didn't (except for the senators I know personally) but, by parity of reasoning, aren't you in the same boat (if you will forgive the grim humour). Perhaps we should just re-name you Dietrich Bonhoffer. If you need a lawyer when they come for you, I know the odd good operator.
Once more to attempt to return to the thrust of the thread, one of the difficulties faced by the present political culture is precisely that it blurs the distinctions between morality and the law. One cannot legislate morality: if one could there would have been no homosexual acts between males before 1985 in NSW and there would be no murder.
Because the factional system becomes self-serving in all parties, governance tends to take place by opinion poll. Hence, Howard forces through gun control not because it is morally good, or even because there is some legal utility in controlling weapons but because it is seen to be popular as measured by an opinion poll.
The moral dimension of politics is far better measured by people saying what the majority does not want to hear rather than pandering to perceived prejudice or, worse, political correctness.
Let me give you an example: in my experience there is a sub-group of middle-easterners (predominantly nominal Muslims) whose attitude to women is unacceptable in contemporary Australia (or in any civilised culture). Their culture should be expunged. There are three ways of doing that: educate them out of it, incarcerate them (or remove them from society in some other non-terminal way) or kill them. I do not advocate the last but I have seen little evidence of the first working.
That is not a reason to denigrate Muslims generally or to eliminate their culture; rather it is acknowledging a problem and wanting to do something about it.
The likelihood of any Party actually having the guts to do something effective about it is, in present circumstances, zilch simply because all draw factional support from various ethnic minorities. I remain in favour of more independents.
Pass Me The Horseshit Shovel
Malcolm, I think you misunderstand my intentions. I don't want a scholarly/lawerly debate on factionalism or the worth of political parties. But for the record I voted Green in the last election and Democrat before that.
This society needs a good kick up the arse because we are failing at the visceral level. We are losing our edge and some sense of decency and we are being led around like fattened bullocks waiting to go on the hook all the while pretending that we are at the centre of some political a...hole's attention.
I don't look fondly back at a better time, because there never was one. However I do remember that when I was a kid, if I mucked there was always some swinging adult hand or boot to keep me in check. And if I went home to complain to my father, he would give me a kick up the backside for being a cheeky sod just for good measure.
As much as I understand the intent and practice of law let me say that I think most of it is bullshit and we would be better served by a system that did not pretend it was something good when society needs something else.
You say that the law does not legislate morality. Oh yeah! What was all that crap with the Marriage Act amendment? What are all those toady political hypocrites (of both major parties) doing worshipping at Mammon's Shrine aka Hillsong? Don't they go next day to pass laws? What is Abbot on about? By the way do he and Costello still do "Who's on first"?
When the robber barons forced the Magna Carta on to John they were not starting a tradition for the benefit of smelly peasants.
You are correct that if you go into a court you better bring your own lawyer because the other mob will have a shark or two to rip you apart. Being a lawyer is a noble profession for those who bring morality (a fair go) to the table. The rest of it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Finally back to the topic at hand, I am on record as advocating the banning of all political parties because the Australian Constitution does not speak about representation by political party but by elected representatives. I'm no lawyer but that says "independent" to me. Got an opinion?
Fertilising the Roses
Roger Fedyk, I did not say that politicians do not try to legislate morality. My point, and I thought I made it tolerably clear, was that the attempt to do so blurs the distinction which ought properly to exist between morality and the law.
I've actually been thinking that it's about time I posted an article on what the law is for those of you who don't understand. [Hamish: yes please Malcolm]
Let's take the marriage question. "Marriage" traditionally means the union of a man and a woman (usually with the view to procreation). The legal definition (loosely) is such an union sanctioned by some set of rules including rules about dissolution. The legal concept of marriage is enshrined in the Commonwealth Constitution and means what it meant in 1900.
If homosexuals want to make commitments to one another involving living together monogamously (or even with a view to raising children) for my part, that is a matter for them provided any children are adequately cared for. It has nothing to do with marriage nor should such a desire lead to the abandonment of a perfectly comprehensible historical principle. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet but it is still a bloody rose.
I have been married and SWMBO and I have been shackled together without the benefit of the institution for 15 years. In a practical sense, as far as property goes, it makes no difference. If we had children, it would make no difference. What's the magic in "marriage"?
Now, using your argument as best I understand it, you think that Abbott (perhaps not the best equipped to talk about fidelity - he can't even work out how many children he has) and others are using opposition to the permanent union of same sex couples under the soubriquet of "marriage" as a means of pushing a moral line. So they might be. Just as there is no biblical authority I can see for ordaining women (solution - get rid of religion). So what? Marriage, under the Constitution means what it meant in 1900 ie. the union of one man and one woman but I don't give a rat's for the morality. Abbott et al are entitled to push their moral line: we all are - I don't think politicians should tell lies - but that does not mean it can be legislated.
In short, you confuse, it seems willfully, two separate concepts.
As to "got an opinion", it has been expressed ad nauseam. When did you last stand for parliament?
My "Shock, Horror" Confession
Malcom B, I can't stand for parliament because I have been a bankrupt. Even though, now discharged for many years, I am a pariah. I wonder who made that law up?
I don't think I am confusing anything. I know what the purpose of the law is and I know that in the main it bears no relationship to how society conducts itself. There are tens of thousands of laws and except for "don't murder, rape or steal", most citizens go about their business with nary a thought about the mountain of laws.
Laws are not important to ordinary people who earn a wage and raise kids in suburbia. Laws are important only to those with vested interests to protect. Laws are always promulgated to give somebody an advantage except for those stupid nitpicking ones which are the reason for bureaucracy's existence. I'll give you an example. Along, long time ago (no it's not a fairy story) I was a Victorian public servant for two years. I was assigned to the Local Government Department, Building Regulations Committe. My main job was to get the committee's lunch each Friday so in between this important weekly task I actually started to read the 600 odd pages of Building Regulations. At the time, it was THE LAW to build your house at least 4 feet back from a side fence. I asked one of the committee members "why 4 feet?" and the answer was "to protect fools from themselves". I took that answer on board. It was, of course, a lawyerly answer.
You see, I'm pretty much enamoured by the Will Rogers way of looking at life. I've had it with lawyers and their fellow travellers, right up to the keister. The law confuses the beejesus out of plain ordinary folk which means that it is an exclusive club for those who love those word games.
Anyway, there seems to be a preponderance of lawyers in political life everywhere around the world. What does that tell you? Perhaps, that plumbers et al have better and more important things to do in life. Are there any plumbers in the Australian Federal Parliament? Anyone?
On the Marriage Act Amendment, I wrote a 13 page submission to the Senate Committee hearing, which never took place because of act of bastardy by Nicola Rixon (you can't trust Labor, either). Along with 12,000 other submissions, our musing were consigned to the furnaces.
Actually, my submission was quite lawyerly, even scholarly. I actually took the trouble to read what the Constitution says about marriage, as well as a synopsis of the Marriage Act. Needless to say, we could have a very robust debate on that whole debacle and the shameless, hypocritical religiosity of Ruddock and others.