Democracy – The PEOPLE Are Masters, Not Supplicants Kneeling Before Elites!

Lord Chief Justice: public should decide if Islamic veil should be allowed in court

=

=

What a misleading headline!

Decide, in a democratic system, means a free and fair vote via the ballot box.

But there will be NO such chance for the British people to decide on the bag-head issue  (nice to note that even Kenneth Clarke, a notorious liberal, has categorised the burqa as  a ‘kind of bag.’)

• 

• Members of the public are to get a say on whether the Islamic veil should be allowed in court. The most senior judge in England and Wales said he recognised the wearing of the niqab – the Muslim garment which leaves only  woman’s eyes visible – was “divisive.”

Divisive? Not really – only primitives wear them, and while too many primitives have been allowed to settle in the UK, the overwhelming majority of British women still prefer to look like women and not black sacks of spuds.

But, yes, some left-libs, inevitably fulfilling their requisite role as the enemy within, do assert that backward bints should be free to flaunt their shariah second=class status.

So a tiny bit ‘divisive,’ yes, and therefore majority rule principles demand a vote. Yes? The LCJ in the headline said the public should decide, yes?

 No way!

He announced a public consultation will open on the subject soon.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, said results of the consultation will feed into the creation of new court guidelines, known as a practice direction, setting out the circumstances in which the niqab can be worn by defendants and witnesses. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10427276/Lord-Chief-Justice-public-should-decide-if-Islamic-veil-should-be-allowed-in-court.html

Oh, here we go again.

In a free vote it’s a fair bet that benighted bag-heads would be told to step forward into the 21st century. No ifs, no buts, just get the stupid thing off yer head, lady!

So there will be no free vote for the people to ‘have a say,’ just another ‘consultation,’ let the people speak out, then quietly pat them on the head and tell them their betters will take all necessary decisions.

• 

• Brits had exactly that on so-called ‘gay’ so-called ‘marriage,’ a ‘consultation,’ and the will of the people was over-ridden. Again, if there had been the slightest concern for British democracy, never mind British values, there’d have been a referendum.

Not hard to arrange – even across the water in Eire, the citizens will have their say. And say it in a binding manner in a referendum, so the politicians cannot weasel out of implementing the popular will.

=

=

Unlike in Scotland, England, Wales or Ulster, unlike in France or Canada, for that matter, the politicians in Dublin are graciously acknowledging  the right of the people to vote on an issue that goes to the very heart of what their country is all about.

Mind you, that’s largely because the constitution is forcing them to do so. Otherwise, it’s likely they’d spit in the face of democratic principles, as Cameron did and as Salmond is doing.

Conservatives, not just here at RRA but everywhere, will be hoping for a landslide rejection of the absurd proposal to elevate deviant menages to legal parity with normal family life. Only one other European nation has had a democratic ballot on the ‘gay rights’ nonsense, Slovenia, and much to the politicians’ chagrin, the people kicked it off the park.

But elsewhere?

======================

• 
• ======================

• As Australians peer into the abyss, we hear voices raised from the left-libs to the effect that the electorate is not to be trusted.
• Here’s one, from a Jesuit priest, no less!

Some strong advocates of traditional marriage, including the Australian Christian Lobby, have been suggesting that the matter should be resolved by referendum. That is a bad idea. In Australia, we expect our members of parliament to make the statutory law and our judges to shape the common law and interpret the Constitution. We the people vote by referendum only to change the Constitution.

Occasionally there is a case to be made for a plebiscite when we are trying to determine a particular question to put to the people by referendum to change the Constitution. This is what we did when we wanted to determine whether we were ready to vote for a particular form of republic.

=

=

Groups like the Australian Christian Lobby should be careful what they wish for. If a referendum on same sex marriage, why not a referendum on (say) the death penalty? If the opinion polls are right, there is no doubt the way that one would go. Or a referendum on excluding boat people from Australia? Or a referendum on euthanasia? There are good reasons for avoiding the populist politics of lawmaking by direct popular vote of the people. http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=38430#.UnRpdVNP-ho

Good reasons? And he doesn’t cite any of them? All he can adduce is knee-jerk nattering about ‘populism,’ which itself just means responding to and reflecting what the people want done.

In fact, his implication, by that remark on the death penalty, is that he fears democratic consultation ONLY because the people might, probably would, disagree with his own prejudices.

Politicians and courts are there as day-to- day care-takers of running the country. They have no moral ascendancy over the sovereign nation. In particular, when an issue cuts across party lines, and the politicians are elected on a party basis, they have NO mandate to impose their personal hang-ups about queers or crims.

As to boat bludgers, Abbott seems to be doing a fair job, though the necessary massive expulsions are a long way off. But as noted previously, if Australians were entitled to vote on their national anthem, surely their national identity deserves similar democratic attention.

We’re told that hordes of alien ingrates are entitled to q-jump because of some imbecilic UN Convention, which is NOT part of the Australian Constitution but by judicial fiat is treated as such. A referendum on ts repudiation is entirely reasonable and indeed morally essential.

That Jesuit conveniently got it wrong when he said ‘plebiscites’ are called to advise on constitutional matters – they can be, but they can be held on any issue – the anthem vote was one example of an advisory referendum – so were the military service votes in the Great War.

So why not another on the UN Convention that binds Australia’s hands in its struggle to resist the current invasion?

———–

Meanwhile, back to the burqa in Britain.

=

=

We Conservatives, not just here on RRA, but across the world, are the true custodians of democracy today.  Referenda aren’t cheap, but they’re a small price to pay for keeping legislators leashed.

And to save money, why not hold a multi-issue vote?

Easy,the Swiss do it, many American states do it, why not everyone else?

Not just the burqa, but a free choice for citizens to DECIDE on all manner of matters.

Like all those things that spook that condescending Jesuit so badly!