Leave Referendums to Dictators says Chris Trotter. [Hattip: Lucyna]
He then sets out to explain why direct democracy is bad. At a general election, the electorate merely decides who shall decide he says, and given that he argues how stupid people are, he considers once you've fooled them into voting for you, they should accept that any decision, no matter how painful, is for the best. That's why he explained how important is was for Labour to act corruptly to win the last election. All this to justify why the repeal of s59 should not go to referendum (where it would undoubtedly fail based on many poll results).
When Chris Trotter is spinning this desperately, you know he sees this as an important step to supplanting the family with the state.
The will of the people doesn't enter into his slanted argument. To make out dictators love referenda, the purpose of which was obviously to imply that a referendum isn't democratic, is ridiculous in the extreme.
And how condescending: Never mind. Let's accept that Judy's personal political credo holds direct democracy superior to representative democracy.
Well, it's a lot more democratic - you can't get democracy any purer than direct democracy. Chris Trotter just doesn't like it. It's not superior enough.
So he constructs his argument as an either-or proposition. The case for referenda when combined with representative democracy takes an entirely new slant, but naturally, he didn't want to consider that combination.
Chris is so happy with representative democracy because the cards are stacked in his favour on the s59 bill. Careful consideration? Rubbish, the issue is so ideological it's like asking atheists to decide which version of religion is to be mandated on the population.
And to say the fail-safe is that we can vote in a new government in 18 months also knowingly exploits the fact that people need to vote for their representatives to cover a wide range of issues - and he and the other social engineers hell-bent on ensuring the continual breakdown of the family will rationalize any measure to force their will:
* Rush the bill through under urgency
* Declare the referendum a tool of dictators
* Argue that the 7 cases that have successfully used s59 in the last 15 years represents an avalanche of child abuse
* Equate a beating to a smack
* Fail to differentiate between a smack as a disciplinary measure and a beating as a result to uncontrolled anger
* Fail to promise any meaningful action to guarantee children will not be removed from parents in error with the passage of this bill
* Fail to address concerns this law change will be mis-used as a tool of zealous CYF workers, or parents going through a marriage break-up and custody battle.
* Promote the concept that the letter of the law can be ignored because police are too busy or will choose not to prosecute - a profoundly stupid approach to making laws
* Position the bill as the solution to child abuse, rather than acknowledge the role it has with instilling discipline.
Chris Trotter tries to make out it's all about protecting children. Defining reasonable force, and focusing on the problem families would be a much better step. But we've already seen how Chris Trotter views the family - "Dad rampant on Viagra and mum zonked on Valium", incapable of raising kids. How typically communist.
This bill will not stop the violence in the dysfunctional families created by the left's ongoing social engineering. It will be the precursor to expanding the government even further. Expect to see an increase in CYF workers and giving them more power to intervene in ordinary families in efforts to be seen to be doing something to make the statistics better.
He then sets out to explain why direct democracy is bad. At a general election, the electorate merely decides who shall decide he says, and given that he argues how stupid people are, he considers once you've fooled them into voting for you, they should accept that any decision, no matter how painful, is for the best. That's why he explained how important is was for Labour to act corruptly to win the last election. All this to justify why the repeal of s59 should not go to referendum (where it would undoubtedly fail based on many poll results).
When Chris Trotter is spinning this desperately, you know he sees this as an important step to supplanting the family with the state.
The will of the people doesn't enter into his slanted argument. To make out dictators love referenda, the purpose of which was obviously to imply that a referendum isn't democratic, is ridiculous in the extreme.
And how condescending: Never mind. Let's accept that Judy's personal political credo holds direct democracy superior to representative democracy.
Well, it's a lot more democratic - you can't get democracy any purer than direct democracy. Chris Trotter just doesn't like it. It's not superior enough.
So he constructs his argument as an either-or proposition. The case for referenda when combined with representative democracy takes an entirely new slant, but naturally, he didn't want to consider that combination.
Chris is so happy with representative democracy because the cards are stacked in his favour on the s59 bill. Careful consideration? Rubbish, the issue is so ideological it's like asking atheists to decide which version of religion is to be mandated on the population.
And to say the fail-safe is that we can vote in a new government in 18 months also knowingly exploits the fact that people need to vote for their representatives to cover a wide range of issues - and he and the other social engineers hell-bent on ensuring the continual breakdown of the family will rationalize any measure to force their will:
* Rush the bill through under urgency
* Declare the referendum a tool of dictators
* Argue that the 7 cases that have successfully used s59 in the last 15 years represents an avalanche of child abuse
* Equate a beating to a smack
* Fail to differentiate between a smack as a disciplinary measure and a beating as a result to uncontrolled anger
* Fail to promise any meaningful action to guarantee children will not be removed from parents in error with the passage of this bill
* Fail to address concerns this law change will be mis-used as a tool of zealous CYF workers, or parents going through a marriage break-up and custody battle.
* Promote the concept that the letter of the law can be ignored because police are too busy or will choose not to prosecute - a profoundly stupid approach to making laws
* Position the bill as the solution to child abuse, rather than acknowledge the role it has with instilling discipline.
Chris Trotter tries to make out it's all about protecting children. Defining reasonable force, and focusing on the problem families would be a much better step. But we've already seen how Chris Trotter views the family - "Dad rampant on Viagra and mum zonked on Valium", incapable of raising kids. How typically communist.
This bill will not stop the violence in the dysfunctional families created by the left's ongoing social engineering. It will be the precursor to expanding the government even further. Expect to see an increase in CYF workers and giving them more power to intervene in ordinary families in efforts to be seen to be doing something to make the statistics better.
Ah, very good. I knew you'd come through on this.
ReplyDeleteYes but you've overlooked one small but vital factor.
ReplyDeleteTrotter is a raving socialist lunatic.
As such he has no interest in democracy.
Have you noticed how most pretentious lefties dont know the difference between one referendum and some referenda? My Dad used to tell me you could pour a bit of grog into the most pretentious Pommy upper class twit of an officer and after a few his North Coontry or East End beginnings would slip through the slur.
ReplyDeleteExcept I think that "referendums" have been abused by the left for so long, that it has become an "acceptable" form for plural.
ReplyDeleteA bit like thesauruses and thesauri; octopuses and octopi.