The document we have sure ain't broken, so why change it? | The Australian

The document we have sure ain't broken, so why change it? | The Australian



 THERE are two ways of understanding disagreement on important public
issues. One way is to assume your own view is the result of some sort of
pipeline to God, indisputably good in other words, and so all those who
disagree with you are either dumb, malevolent or in need of some
re-education. The other way is simply to recognise that a lot of smart,
nice, well-informed people simply disagree on all sorts of important
issues ranging from euthanasia to how to deal with those trying (dare
one say illegally?) to come to this country by boat, over to labour
relations, on to whether to amend our Constitution, and more.

In the past two decades our top judges have taken to
interpreting our written Constitution in a way that is very hard to
defend. Twenty years ago, the High Court discovered, or read in, or flat
out made up (according to taste), an implied freedom of political
communication.

I count myself as one of the biggest free speech adherents in the
country, and in substantive terms, I like this outcome. But as a matter
of honestly interpreting the words of our Constitution, these cases
strike me as so implausible as to be laughable.




And in a democracy where all of us count equally with an equal vote to
choose people to make social policy, that is a very bad thing.

Or more recently, in a couple of voting rights cases, our High Court in
my view issued two of the most interpretively implausible decisions I
have read since coming to this country. In both instances they
over-ruled the elected parliament and struck down statutes passed by the
elected representatives of the people.

And they did so with virtually no textual warrant from our Constitution.
They treated the words as some sort of jumping off point for seeing the
Constitution as a “living tree” that can be pruned and altered over
time, but of course only by them, seven unelected ex-lawyers.

Of course not everyone sees these cases the way I do. But notice that
once you go down this road, it becomes something of an unknown how a
change to our Constitution today will be treated by a future High Court
in 15 or 20 years.

And I fear that this mooted change to our Constitution to insert some
sort of recognition clause might be used by latter day judges to do all
sorts of things unimaginable, or pooh-poohed, today.

If you doubt that, ask yourself how many people back at the start of the
1900s thought that the phrase “directly chosen by the people” could be
used by judges to dictate when the electoral rolls could close or that
some of those in prison could vote when parliament said they could not.
The answer is that none of them back then thought this. They thought
they were leaving these issues to the parliament. So when people today
assure you that the words they propose to insert will transfer no power
to our unelected judges, there are some sensible grounds for being
sceptical, at least until we see what explicit words emerge as the
proposed amendment.

The Burnside plan: a Tasmanstan to our south | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

The Burnside plan: a Tasmanstan to our south | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

The war on the anglo-saxons, and genuine whites in general, is now public. On the record. Time for the deniers to apologise and FUCK OFF.

We are in a struggle that is existential and murderous.

Rudd 50,000

The interception of the latest boat carrying 67 passengers means that over 50,000 people have now arrived illegally by boat since Mr Rudd dismantled our border protection policies.

This milestone is a terrible indictment of Kevin Rudd’s failed policy.

It has cost over 1,000 lives.

50,032 people on 798 boats have arrived since Mr Rudd changed John Howard’s policies that stopped the boats.

Over 1,900 people have now arrived since Mr Rudd launched his so called ‘PNG solution’.

It has also resulted in over $11 billion in Budget blowouts – money that should have been spent on hospitals, schools and roads.

It has damaged Australia’s international reputation and weakened our borders.

The Coalition has a clear, consistent plan to stop the boats.

Mr Rudd is just all talk and has neither the will nor the competence to secure our borders.

The Coalition has a detailed plan for stronger borders which will:

• Re-establish rigorous and expanded offshore processing for illegal arrivals;
• Give orders to the Navy and Customs Service to turn back boats where safe to do so;
• Re-introduce Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) for asylum seekers found to be genuine refugees, and return them home when it is safe;
• Deny those asylum seekers - who deliberately discard identification documentation - the benefit of the doubt when determining their refugee status;
• Work with our neighbours to stop people smugglers and deter their customers from coming into the region; and
• Guarantee places for offshore humanitarian visa applicants by denying permanent visas to illegal boat arrivals.

If elected, the Coalition will also initiate Operation Sovereign Borders, to be led by a senior military commander. Read more here

At this election there is a choice: between the Coalition’s proven plan that will stop the boats, or a continuation of Labor’s record of failure and misery.

Regards,


Scott Morrison

The continuing problem with putting irish presbyterians into positions in civilised society...

BBC News - Hertfordshire Police officer 'raped woman after arrest'

A police officer has denied raping a woman he had arrested the day before.

PC Adesoji Afolabi, 30, from Luton, arrested the 22-year-old woman on suspicion of criminal damage last July.

Chelmsford Crown Court heard Mr Afolabi and the woman exchanged text messages before he went to her father's Harlow home and raped her.

The jury heard Mr Afolabi had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (of course. No personal responsibility, obviously) and was told by his superiors to practise building a "rapport with people".