Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 36444546
Results 676 to 687 of 687
  1. #676
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Naughty GF: you were the one who bloviated about "Reformed types" on capital punishment (although my view isn't necessarily influenced by particularly Reformed writings on the topic), and against the "religious right" (my political views owe little to the usual "religious right" leaders and lots to people like Thomas Sowell, as should be obvious from this site, as well as his mentor Milton Friedman), and accused me of despising your "Anabaptist" ideas which I didn't know you had.
    I don't recall attributing the "Religious Right" title to you.

    I dispute the suggestion that you have relied heavily upon Reformed theologians in the death penalty discussion.

    With respect to my Anabaptist ideas, I said you had little respect for the ideas which I identified as being Anabaptist, but that didn't mean that I thought that you could specifically identify these ideas as being Anabaptist.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  2. #677
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    I don't recall attributing the "Religious Right" title to you.
    You might be right there; it was just a general distaste for them mentioned in one reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    I dispute the suggestion that you have relied heavily upon Reformed theologians in the death penalty discussion.
    I cite Bible verses; many Reformed theologians will cite secondary standards like the Westminster Confession, or Calvin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Certainly Carr has provided the most cogent criticisms of such a Bill of Rights and his comments deserve to be carefully considered.
    Agreed. As you are no doubt aware, he has written in much more detail about it, such as The Rights Trap: How a Bill of Rights Could Undermine Freedom. Carr points out problems such as freezing of the priorites of the time:

    Our view of the importance and priority of rights changes over time. A constitutionally entrenched bill of rights freezes those priorities at a particular point in time. If a bill of rights had been included in the Commonwealth Constitution in 1901 it would most likely have enshrined the "White Australia policy". The "right to bear arms" is a "right" under the United States Constitution that many see as the root of the tragic shootings which afflict that country. It is not enough to say that these rights can be changed by a constitutional referendum. We all know that referenda are rarely held and are rarely successful.

    Even when a bill of rights is not constitutionally entrenched, and can therefore be changed by legislation, the political reality is that a bill of rights is given "quasi-constitutional status" and is almost impossible to amend.

    And he points out that such bills have increased litigation, but this will overload the courts and make it harder for ordinary people to be heard:

    While the Courts are swamped with thousands of Bill of Rights cases, where will the ordinary person go for justice? The Courts will be made even more inaccessible and the cost of running the court system will increase. The main beneficiaries of a bill of rights are the lawyers who profit from the legal fees that it generates and the criminals who manage to escape imprisonment on the grounds of a technicality. The main losers are the taxpayers, and society in general through the reduction of community values to mere courtroom weapons.

    Carr has also written popular-level pieces where he makes my anti-lawyer banter (towards certain types) seem mild, Lawyers are already drunk with power. He points out one problem, already exhibited in Victoria's Two Dannies persecution:

    Churches are becoming aware their immunity from anti-discrimination laws — a justified immunity — will end with a charter or a bill of rights. Church leaders can democratically lobby parliaments and cabinets, but not non-elected, tenured judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    It's right that judicial appointments are not devoid of political considerations, but judges are not subject to the same type of pressures from the mob that politicians are.
    But who says they are any fairer, or immune from other types of pressure? Indeed, Sowell documents that some judges seem to crave approval from left elitists for allegedly "not bowing to the mob".

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Weren't you complaining about the tyranny of the majority before?
    Yes, in the sense that all unchecked power has the potential for tyranny. It's even worse than Acton's famous phrase—the possibility of unchecked power attracts the most power-hungry. This applies also to a judicial oligarchy without sufficient checks.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 28-10-2009 at 02:05 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #678
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370

    Book against the Bill of Rights

    A book that sets out the case against an Australian Bill of Rights will be launched on Wednesday night by former Victorian Governor and Supreme Court Judge Sir James Gobbo. The launch follows the release of Frank Brennan’s National Human Rights Consultation report recommending an Australian Bill of Rights.

    The book, a collection of essays: Don’t leave Us with the Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights edited by Julian Leeser and Ryan Haddrick published by the Menzies Research Centre.

    Contributors include Sir Ninian Stephen, Dr Sue Gordon, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, John Howard, Dr Gary Johns, former High Court Judge Ian Callinan AC, QC, Dr David Bennett AC, QC, Major-General AJ Molan, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Senator George Brandis, Bronwyn Bishop, Cardinal George Pell, Rabbi John Levi, Western Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter, Justice Kenneth Handley, Brigadier Jim Wallace, Professor Helen Irving, Professor James Allan and Dr John Hirst.

    Sir James joins a number of serving and retired judges have entered this debate to warn of the consequences of a bill of rights including former High Court Judges Sir Ninian Stephen and Ian Callinan, Queensland Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, NSW Judges Ken Kandley and Keith Mason, former Tasmanian Chief Justice William Cox and former Federal Court Judge Peter Heerey. The rare participation of senior judges in this debate underscores the significant danger a bill of rights presents to the justice system.

    WHEN: 11 November 2009 AT 6.00PM
    WHERE: Royal Australasian College of Surgeons 250-290 Spring St, East Melbourne
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #679
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,232
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    johnny's going down?

    he's been DOWN and OUT for over a year

    mods close this thread please?
    He might be down, but he's also had the last laugh. Now you can close the thread
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  5. #680
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    John Howard: People too scared to speak about issues
    Paul Kelly, Weekend Australian, 27 February 2016


    John Howard has sounded an alarm about the culture war in Australia — warning that people are being “cowed” against stating their views on issues and that a dangerous anti-religious push has emerged — and branded as “pernicious” the Victorian government’s hostility to religious connections in schools.

    Mr Howard said there was a “get Pell” mentality in “some sections of the media”, referring to Cardinal George Pell, who is about to answer questions before the child sex abuse royal commission and has been the subject of allegations of sex abuse by material coming from Victoria Police.

    In relation to gay marriage, Mr Howard said: “There is nothing homophobic about supporting traditional marriage. Everybody did in the parliament in 2004. May I remind you that in 2004, when I inserted the definition in the Marriage Act, the Labor Party supported it. You ought to be able to have sensible discussion on these sorts of things. And you should be able to express a view on these things. But there is a sense in which people are so frightened of being accused of being discriminatory or intolerant that they don’t speak the commonsense view.”

    Mr Howard said the standards of civil society in Australia were being undermined by a growing intolerance towards people who did not subscribe to a range of progressive views.

    “I think the problem is that too few people are prepared to call it for what it is,” he said. “I think people are cowed because they think, ‘I can’t say that because I might lose votes or I might offend somebody’.”

    He said there was a new form of “minority fundamentalism” emerging, typified by the use of the anti-discrimination law in Tasmania to silence the Catholic Church from stating its position on marriage. Having read the document issued by the Catholic bishops, Mr Howard said: “How anyone can read that as offensive to people who favour same-sex marriage or gay or lesbian people is beyond me.”

    Mr Howard expressed disappointment that the Abbott government had abandoned its proposed free speech changes to section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act after winning an election mandate on the issue. He said it was probably only with the Andrew Bolt case that people realised the application of this provision “was as spiteful as it turned out to be”.

    Branding the climate of repression as “pernicious”, Mr Howard said there was “almost a fear” among people to articulate the views he was expressing because of concern they would “offend our multicultural ethos” or be “branded as intolerant”.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #681
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    He said there was a new form of “minority fundamentalism” emerging, typified by the use of the anti-discrimination law in Tasmania to silence the Catholic Church from stating its position on marriage. Having read the document issued by the Catholic bishops, Mr Howard said: “How anyone can read that as offensive to people who favour same-sex marriage or gay or lesbian people is beyond me.”
    It doesn't say very much for Howard's perceptiveness that he can say this. Among other things, the document argues that it is "gravely unjust" to children for same-sex couples to want to marry and that their desire to marry is "messing" with children. It shouldn't be at all hard to see how this could be offensive.

    As a heterosexual supporter of same-sex marriage, though, the only thing that offends me about Don't Mess With Marriage is to find that I am apparently of the same species as people stupid enough to write such a loopy load of tortured rubbish.

  7. #682
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Apparently this is not so obviously stupid, since the GayKK in Tasmania instead of trying to refute it they want to sic the absurd Tassie law onto them.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #683
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Apparently this is not so obviously stupid, since the GayKK[sic] in Tasmania instead of trying to refute it they want to sic the absurd Tassie law onto them.
    Something can be stupid and offensive. And it's also possible to refute something and set the law onto it.

    Case is in conciliation at the moment, where it might well fizzle out.

  9. #684
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    ...


    John Howard has sounded an alarm about the culture war in Australia — warning that people are being “cowed” against stating their views...
    A convincing majority of Australians (76% the polls tell us) support same sex marriage. It is regrettable that many of the remainder are cowed into the minority view by the stridency of their tub-thumping peers.
    Last edited by Ian Murray; 02-03-2016 at 04:20 PM. Reason: Morgan Gallup result corrected from 68% (2011) to 76% (2015)

  10. #685
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    John Howard: People too scared to speak about issues
    Paul Kelly, Weekend Australian, 27 February 2016

    Mr Howard expressed disappointment that the Abbott government had abandoned its proposed free speech changes to section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act after winning an election mandate on the issue. He said it was probably only with the Andrew Bolt case that people realised the application of this provision “was as spiteful as it turned out to be”.
    Howard seems to have forgotten that he was PM for 10 years, and also had control of the Senate for 3 years - he had plenty of opportunity to change 18C, but apparently only became concerned when it was used against a prominent conservative.

  11. #686
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Howard seems to have forgotten that he was PM for 10 years, and also had control of the Senate for 3 years - he had plenty of opportunity to change 18C, but apparently only became concerned when it was used against a prominent conservative.
    Agree that he should have done something earlier. And he should have privatized the GayBC.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #687
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Something can be stupid and offensive. And it's also possible to refute something and set the law onto it.
    The American First Amendment is much better. Even stupid, offensive, and for that matter outright hate speech is constitutionally protected, as constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh explained (in the video below, about 4 minutes in). That's because the Founders believed that the best answer to bad speech is good speech, not government prohibiting speech:



    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Case is in conciliation at the moment, where it might well fizzle out.
    Hope so, but it should never even had got that far.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 04-03-2016 at 03:11 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •