Local Governments -- future referendum notes
If you don't know much about it already, here's a few very good reasons why you should vote *NO* to Constitutional Recognition of Local Governments. If you think that the response to Q.3 of the 1988 Federal Referendum should have been a CRYSTAL CLEAR SIGNAL to federal and state government corporations that 67% of the electorate voted NO because they DID NOT WANT ... "for the states to provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of Local Government", ...then vote NO. If you strongly RESENT that Local Governments were introduced by the States and endorsed by Canberra in direct contravention of the will of the Australian People, as expressed in the 1988 Referendum, ...then vote NO. If you UNDERSTAND that Local Governments are all CORPORATIONS each with a BOARD OF DIRECTORS and SHAREHOLDERS and that the Local Government's Board Of Directors must always operate in the BEST INTEREST of the SHAREHOLDERS AND YOU KNOW that you are NOT ONE OF THOSE SHAREHOLDERS.... ...then vote NO. If you UNDERSTAND that for a Local Government Board of Directors to ACT in the BEST INTEREST of the COMMUNITY would often result in a CONFLICT OF INTEREST for which the SHAREHOLDERS could SUE the DIRECTORS for breach of duty ...then vote NO.
On 05/03/2013, at 0:34, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
If you don't know much about it already, here's a few very good reasons why you should vote *NO* to Constitutional Recognition of Local Governments.
If you think that the response to Q.3 of the 1988 Federal Referendum should have been a CRYSTAL CLEAR SIGNAL to federal and state government corporations that 67% of the electorate voted NO because they
DID NOT WANT ...
"for the states to provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of Local Government",
...then vote NO.
If you strongly RESENT that Local Governments were introduced by the States and endorsed by Canberra in direct contravention of the will of the Australian People, as expressed in the 1988 Referendum,
...then vote NO.
If you UNDERSTAND that Local Governments are all CORPORATIONS each with a BOARD OF DIRECTORS and SHAREHOLDERS and that the Local Government's Board Of Directors must always operate in the BEST INTEREST of the SHAREHOLDERS
AND
YOU KNOW that you are NOT ONE OF THOSE SHAREHOLDERS.... ...then vote NO.
If you UNDERSTAND that for a Local Government Board of Directors to ACT in the BEST INTEREST of the COMMUNITY would often result in a CONFLICT OF INTEREST for which the SHAREHOLDERS could SUE the DIRECTORS for breach of duty ...then vote NO.
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
I read your email as very strange spam as you provide no context. So that everyone else can catch up I found this on google. http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/eleventh-hour-for-action-to-change-fede... It's about a recommendation for a referendum to restore direct funding to local councils after a high court change to the federal government spending laws. Now, where did I put my teacup... Edward
On 5/03/2013 8:05 AM, Edward Savage wrote:
I read your email as very strange spam as you provide no context. So that everyone else can catch up I found this on google.
Context comes from prior threads, this is a very, very serious issue which should not be taken lightly.
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/eleventh-hour-for-action-to-change-fede...
It's about a recommendation for a referendum to restore direct funding to local councils after a high court change to the federal government spending laws.
No, what you found is just one msm (main stream media) pushed idea, ie, what they want to push to the public.... there is so much more to consider. Please re-read my post more carefully and relate back to the facts of the prior referendum and other posts on this subject on this list. Kind Regards AndrewM
On 05/03/2013, at 8:18, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 5/03/2013 8:05 AM, Edward Savage wrote:
I read your email as very strange spam as you provide no context. So that everyone else can catch up I found this on google.
Context comes from prior threads, this is a very, very serious issue which should not be taken lightly.
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/eleventh-hour-for-action-to-change-fede...
It's about a recommendation for a referendum to restore direct funding to local councils after a high court change to the federal government spending laws.
No, what you found is just one msm (main stream media) pushed idea, ie, what they want to push to the public.... there is so much more to consider.
Please re-read my post more carefully and relate back to the facts of the prior referendum and other posts on this subject on this list.
Kind Regards AndrewM
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
If you want others to become interested in your cause you'll need to do better than a rant and a footnote telling the reader to go and do the leg work. I suggest at least linking to fmb (fringe media and blogs, I just made that up!) that extol why this is such a serious issue. From what I've seen so far (your rant and the first google result) it's not an immediate cause for concern and when it finally does come up the public will give it proper scrutiny. Here's why I think that: * Australians vote this sort of thing down by default unless good justification is given, * A vote won't be happening before or during the next election as the current government has made efforts to delay it, * As there is another important referendum issue in the pipe line, recognition of the Aboriginal people in the constitution, this change will likely take a back seat until that is formalized. So I suggest linking to some relevant media resources so those readers that are interested can bring themselves up to speed. Edward
If you think that the response to Q.3 of the 1988 Federal Referendum should have been a CRYSTAL CLEAR SIGNAL to federal and state government corporations that 67% of the electorate voted NO because they
To be fair, that was the same referendum that the Australian population voted against extended the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. I mean really? People *don't* want fair terms and recompense of compulsory acquisition of their property? People *don't* to worship, or not worship, in accord to their own desires? When it comes to referenda, Australians seem to be, well, not very smart. They've voted yes in 8 referenda out of 44 since 1906; as Menzies accurately quipped: "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules." Personally, I've long been an advocate for the abolition of state governments. Now there's an institution well passed it's use-by date. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 5/03/2013 9:23 AM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
When it comes to referenda, Australians seem to be, well, not very smart. They've voted yes in 8 referenda out of 44 since 1906; as Menzies accurately quipped: "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."
Times have changed Lev, 25 years ago, more people had greater education of matters related to our constitution. Media has grown far stronger and more influential as well as focusing on "issues" that many see as agendas.
Personally, I've long been an advocate for the abolition of state governments. Now there's an institution well passed it's use-by date.
The current situation with state governments is causing so much grief in Victoria, NSW, Queensland and NT with what they are doing. In some respects, state vs federal adds some checks and balances, but they still fight over things, rather than getting good things done. Certainly our Victorian constitution is invalid today as has been previously detailed -- that needs to be fixed ASAP, before we think about abolishing state governments. Local government must go first, there is no place for them, they should NOT exist and definitely not in their current form as corporations. Cheers A.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 5/03/2013 9:23 AM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
When it comes to referenda, Australians seem to be, well, not very smart. They've voted yes in 8 referenda out of 44 since 1906; as Menzies accurately quipped: "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."
Times have changed Lev, 25 years ago, more people had greater education of matters related to our constitution. Media has grown far stronger and more influential as well as focusing on "issues" that many see as agendas.
Personally, I've long been an advocate for the abolition of state governments. Now there's an institution well passed it's use-by date.
The current situation with state governments is causing so much grief in Victoria, NSW, Queensland and NT with what they are doing.
In some respects, state vs federal adds some checks and balances, but they still fight over things, rather than getting good things done.
Certainly our Victorian constitution is invalid today as has been previously detailed -- that needs to be fixed ASAP, before we think about abolishing state governments. Local government must go first, there is no place for them, they should NOT exist and definitely not in their current form as corporations.
Cheers A.
Andrew, Can you please explain how Victoria's constitution is invalid. The federation was created BY the states and the FEDERAL constitution requires a majority of votes in a majority of states, for a referendum to be passed. The Victorian constitution only needs a vote of state parliament to be changed, if I recall my year 12 legal studies correctly. Again, if I understand it correctly, it's the states which give the federation its powers, not the other way around, so the federation does not dictate how the states can change their constitution. Lev, While I agree that I'd like to see the states abolished, from the point of view of having too much government, it's less likely to happen than abolishing the federation. As I said above, the states give the federation its powers and states like Qld and WA are less than likely to allow the federation to take away their powers. Michael
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Hi Michael,
While I agree that I'd like to see the states abolished, from the point of view of having too much government, it's less likely to happen than abolishing the federation. As I said above, the states give the federation its powers and states like Qld and WA are less than likely to allow the federation to take away their powers.
That is the most likely direction, although having several state bureaucracies makes matters difficult. People familiar with, for example, the competing state electoral commissions arguing over who has the most accurate electorate rolls, or uniform rail gauge, or even implementation of the Gonski report. A weird option in the Australian constitution allows states to cede land to the commonwealth. In theory a state could abolish itself ... :) -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Michael Scott wrote:
The federation was created BY the states and the FEDERAL constitution requires a majority of votes in a majority of states, for a referendum to be passed. ... While I agree that I'd like to see the states abolished, from the point of view of having too much government, it's less likely to happen than abolishing the federation. As I said above, the states give the federation its powers and states like Qld and WA are less than likely to allow the federation to take away their powers.
So it's just a small matter of bootstrapping. We've got the kernel in memory now, so we (the majority of the people in the majority of the states) can just pass a referendum to clear the memory of the state processes. kill -9 wheee! -- Tim Connors
On 5/03/2013 10:33 AM, Michael Scott wrote:
Can you please explain how Victoria's constitution is invalid.
http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva...
The federation was created BY the states and the FEDERAL constitution requires a majority of votes in a majority of states, for a referendum to be passed.
There are state powers and there are federal powers.... federal overrides state where there is any ambiguity according to the Australian Constitution.
The Victorian constitution only needs a vote of state parliament to be changed, if I recall my year 12 legal studies correctly. Again, if I understand it correctly, it's the states which give the federation its powers, not the other way around, so the federation does not dictate how the states can change their constitution.
A vote by the Victorian parliament themselves... to give them power that they are not entitled to; that is not legal and doesn't fit with our Australian Constitution. Kind Regards A.
On 5/03/2013 10:33 AM, Michael Scott wrote:
Can you please explain how Victoria's constitution is invalid.
http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva...
I think you might want to have a look at State of Victoria v Shaw [2007] VSC 1148 where some 15,000 words is spent discussing several issues, including the claim that the Victorian Constitution is invalid. cf., http://lawyerslawyer.net/2007/10/18/melbourne-barrister-john-walsh-of-branna... Still, if someone really wants to again challenge the legal validity of the 1975 Victorian constitution (and, if successful, result in us returning to the 1855 colonial constitution), good luck to them. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 5/03/2013 12:21 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
http://lawyerslawyer.net/2007/10/18/melbourne-barrister-john-walsh-of-branna...
Sadly, that blog post is just an attack on a simple person whom obviously had some trouble properly representing the case. What to expect from a Lawyer's website post.... :( There are many failures to bring justice in the legal system, regardless of true facts of the matter. I certainly wouldn't be in any position to argue the case in court myself and getting lawyers or barristers to do so defeats the purpose because they ARE part of the problem that we have today; but perhaps one day it will be argued successfully according the facts of the Australian Constitution It completely astounded me when I heard an interview with Justice Kirby; he stated that the court had to decide on the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "letter" of the law ... I see that as patently wrong. It is NOT the place of the judicial system to make laws, it is only the place to properly fairly enforce laws as they are written with proper interpretation of the facts (letter) and not the spirit of the law. If the law is wrong, it needs to go back through the parliamentary system for review and revision as necessary. Justice Kirby clearly overstepped his powers in my opinion by not sticking to the letter of the law in his judgement(s) on at least one occasion that he spoke about. A.
It is the nature of the legal system to interpret law, not merely the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. That is why we have different levels of law, from lower courts and tribunals to higher courts. Higher courts DO make law, by their interpretation of what is MEANT by the laws they are enforcing. Justice Kirby, as a High Court justice, was in a position to interpret what he believed was the INTENTION of the law. the preamble of the constitution is much spoken about and is a good example of the meaning of the constitution. the preamble is not law in itself, but is meant to give an idea of what is intended in the constitution. The same is the case in other law. It is then up to the judge to interpret both the letter of the law and what is intended by it. An interpretation of the law can be appealed to a higher court, ultimately the High Court. Previous cases in higher courts are used to interpret what is meant by a particular law. Justice Kirby's decisions, alongside those of his colleagues on the bench, are used as precedents in deciding later cases. Precedents from higher courts are more persuasive than lower courts. That is MAKING law. To claim that courts don't make law is naive and that ONLY the parliament makes law is simply incorrect and a misunderstanding of the Australian legal system. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 5/03/2013 12:21 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
http://lawyerslawyer.net/2007/10/18/melbourne-barrister-john-walsh-of-branna...
Sadly, that blog post is just an attack on a simple person whom obviously had some trouble properly representing the case.
What to expect from a Lawyer's website post.... :(
There are many failures to bring justice in the legal system, regardless of true facts of the matter. I certainly wouldn't be in any position to argue the case in court myself and getting lawyers or barristers to do so defeats the purpose because they ARE part of the problem that we have today; but perhaps one day it will be argued successfully according the facts of the Australian Constitution
It completely astounded me when I heard an interview with Justice Kirby; he stated that the court had to decide on the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "letter" of the law ... I see that as patently wrong. It is NOT the place of the judicial system to make laws, it is only the place to properly fairly enforce laws as they are written with proper interpretation of the facts (letter) and not the spirit of the law. If the law is wrong, it needs to go back through the parliamentary system for review and revision as necessary. Justice Kirby clearly overstepped his powers in my opinion by not sticking to the letter of the law in his judgement(s) on at least one occasion that he spoke about.
A.
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Thu, March 7, 2013 8:41 am, Michael Scott wrote:
It is the nature of the legal system to interpret law, not merely the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. That is why we have different levels of law, from lower courts and tribunals to higher courts.
I disagree, sure the judge will make a judgement and that judgement can become a precedent which can be used and/or abused as the case may be. If there is no higher cout in Australia to go to, there are international courts. The letter of the law counts absolutely, the spirit of the law (ala via an interpretation) is why we have so many appeals in the courts; that is, we have some appeals to over turn incorrect judgements that don't follow the letter of the law. When the law is mis-written and the defendant gets off with the loophole or other reason for the mis-written law, then it is up the the parliamentray system to correct the law so that it cannot be mis-interpretted again. Cheers A.
When the law is mis-written and the defendant gets off with the loophole or other reason for the mis-written law, then it is up the the parliamentray system to correct the law so that it cannot be mis-interpretted again.
Mis-interpreted? So interpretation of words does play a role! Interpreting according to the "spirit of the law" (literally, there is no such thing), involves judges making decisions according to contextual and current interpretation, according to their interpretation of what the legislatives intended with the law. It is actually unavoidable in any meaning-based language (e.g., excluding computer "languages") not to engage in interpretation. Consider for example the synoptic gospel quote from Matthew: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I have heard that some Biblical "letter of the law" types start talking about turning a camel into extremely fine mincemeat and passing it a needle to justify the heavenly salvation of the rich. Others talk about making a giant needle whose eye is sufficiently large to pass a camel through. Both are examples of following "the letter of the law" rather than "the spirit". Hope this helps, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
When the law is mis-written and the defendant gets off with the loophole or other reason for the mis-written law, then it is up the the parliamentray system to correct the law so that it cannot be mis-interpretted again. Mis-interpreted? So interpretation of words does play a role!
Interpreting according to the "spirit of the law" (literally, there is no such thing), involves judges making decisions according to contextual and current interpretation, according to their interpretation of what the legislatives intended with the law.
It is actually unavoidable in any meaning-based language (e.g., excluding computer "languages") not to engage in interpretation.
But here's the rub; if I intend one thing by a word I have spoken or written, but someone else ether 'receives' no meaning, a different meaning or a multitude of meanings; then communication is not taking place. Take the word 'interpretation', since it is relevant, one person might intend 'disambiguation.' whilst another might intend substitution of : 'the real meaning' , the original (etymological) meaning or just their own idiosyncratic meaning. Whilst one might think this area would form a fundamental part of linguistics, my reading of popular books on the subject finds a frustrating lack of content. Of course the theory of reconstruction of sentence meaning; ie.sentence semantics is well developed but questions like: "What kind of thing (ontologically) is a word ?" " What kind of thing is the definition of a word ? " What kind of thing and what is the purpose of the dictionary definition of a word ?; seem to fall in a never-never land between ontology and language. The situation is not helped by a seeming tendency of linguistics to: 1/ want to treat language as a natural phenomena, where questions of purpose are not applicable, rather than as a social artifact where they are and 2/ to want to treat words as a purely objectively observable phenomena, when it seems apparent that as symbols this may be so; but the referents of those symbols seem to be categories of subjective experience. regards Rohan McLeod
But here's the rub; if I intend one thing by a word I have spoken or written, but someone else ether 'receives' no meaning, a different meaning or a multitude of meanings; then communication is not taking place. Take the word 'interpretation', since it is relevant, one person might intend 'disambiguation.' whilst another might intend substitution of : 'the real meaning' , the original (etymological) meaning or just their own idiosyncratic meaning. Whilst one might think this area would form a fundamental part of linguistics, my reading of popular books on the subject finds a frustrating lack of content.
Most books on linguistics tend to concentrate on logical semantics of sentence structure. The area that you're looking at is the pragmatics of meaning generation, which seeks to answer the question "how is communication even possible?" Much of this has historically fallen into philosophy rather than linguistics, primarily in "ordinary language philosophy" and hermeneutics. Some examples that I found useful: John Austin, "How to Do Things With Words", 1962. Paul Grice, "Studies in the Way of Words", 1989 W. Hollway, "Subjectivity and Method in Psychology", 1989 John Searle, "Speech Acts", 1969. Hope this helps, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
...........snipmy reading of popular books on the subject finds a frustrating lack of content. Most books on linguistics tend to concentrate on logical semantics of sentence structure. Yes ; I thought that was what I said The area that you're looking at is the pragmatics of meaning generation, I am not to fussed by the name; I coined the word 'ontolexics' from Gk. onto: 'essence' and lexics:' words of the language'; for this area .........snip
Much of this has historically fallen into philosophy Presumably ontology ? rather than linguistics, primarily in "ordinary language philosophy" and hermeneutics. What do you intend by "hermeneutics." ?
Some examples that I found useful:
John Austin, "How to Do Things With Words", 1962. Paul Grice, "Studies in the Way of Words", 1989 W. Hollway, "Subjectivity and Method in Psychology", 1989 John Searle, "Speech Acts", 1969.
Hope this helps, Well if you could summarise the answers to : ""What kind of thing (ontologically) is a word ?" " What kind of thing is the definition of a word ? " What kind of thing and what is the purpose of the dictionary definition of a word ?;" that you found in these publications; I might be more inclined to check them out. These are not naive questions; I have my own theories and standpoints in this area; which I believe constitute an objectively falsifiable basis for selection of dictionary definitions.
regards Rohan McLeod
Yes ; I thought that was what I said
You mentioned the lack of pragmatics of meaning, but not inclusion of the semantics of sentence structure. Which of course, is about meaning, but on a grammatical and word-logical level. Not quite the same as what you're after.
Much of this has historically fallen into philosophy Presumably ontology ?
Epistemology.
What do you intend by "hermeneutics." ?
I don't "intend" anything by it. What I *mean* by it is exactly the same as what has been meant by previous discussions we've had on the subject; the use of scholarly analysis to determine the historical context of an expression and thus provide an educated guess of the author's intent that incorporates their social situation and their individual traits.
These are not naive questions; I have my own theories and standpoints in this area; which I believe constitute an objectively falsifiable basis for selection of dictionary definitions.
If you do that, I imagine you'll be able to script a genuine artificial intelligence fairly quickly. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
These are not naive questions; I have my own theories and standpoints in this area; which I believe constitute an objectively falsifiable basis for selection of dictionary definitions. If you do that, I imagine you'll be able to script a genuine artificial intelligence fairly quickly.
Well this email conversation is a fairly good example of the frequency with which the 'meant' meaning or (my word) 'intended' meaning don't communicate. Put concisely my theory is simply the definition of a dictionary definition, in the reply to Michael Scott " *dictionary definition of a word *[tentative] To the end that a word is a social artifact', in particular a tool; one of whose purposes is to convey meaning between members of it's social sub-group, the purpose of a dictionary definition is to provide that description of the subjective category, which is the referent of the word; most preferred by members of it's social sub-group; subject to the conditions that it is: concise (using as few words as possible), precise (being as unambiguous as possible), exhaustive ( including all intended usages and excluding all others) and reductive ( using only words simpler than that being defined)" I am unclear why you think this has something to do with artificial intelligence ! regards Rohan McLeod 9
Rohan, If I understand what you are trying to say, then that's why draftsmen go to great lengths to word legislation in exactly the way it is intended to be meant. That's why loopholes happen and that's why, when judges tend to get the meaning not quite right, amendments are made or legislation is changed to attempt to get it right. It's why higher courts interpret and set precedents as to the meaning of legislation. Or, I've completely misunderstood your point :/. Michael On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
When the law is mis-written and the defendant gets off with the loophole or other reason for the mis-written law, then it is up the the parliamentray system to correct the law so that it cannot be mis-interpretted again. Mis-interpreted? So interpretation of words does play a role!
Interpreting according to the "spirit of the law" (literally, there is no such thing), involves judges making decisions according to contextual and current interpretation, according to their interpretation of what the legislatives intended with the law.
It is actually unavoidable in any meaning-based language (e.g., excluding computer "languages") not to engage in interpretation.
But here's the rub; if I intend one thing by a word I have spoken or written, but someone else ether 'receives' no meaning, a different meaning or a multitude of meanings; then communication is not taking place. Take the word 'interpretation', since it is relevant, one person might intend 'disambiguation.' whilst another might intend substitution of : 'the real meaning' , the original (etymological) meaning or just their own idiosyncratic meaning. Whilst one might think this area would form a fundamental part of linguistics, my reading of popular books on the subject finds a frustrating lack of content. Of course the theory of reconstruction of sentence meaning; ie.sentence semantics is well developed but questions like: "What kind of thing (ontologically) is a word ?" " What kind of thing is the definition of a word ? " What kind of thing and what is the purpose of the dictionary definition of a word ?; seem to fall in a never-never land between ontology and language. The situation is not helped by a seeming tendency of linguistics to: 1/ want to treat language as a natural phenomena, where questions of purpose are not applicable, rather than as a social artifact where they are and 2/ to want to treat words as a purely objectively observable phenomena, when it seems apparent that as symbols this may be so; but the referents of those symbols seem to be categories of subjective experience.
regards Rohan McLeod
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Michael Scott wrote:
Rohan,
If I understand what you are trying to say, then that's why draftsmen go to great lengths to word legislation in exactly the way it is intended to be meant. That's why loopholes happen and that's why, when judges tend to get the meaning not quite right, amendments are made or legislation is changed to attempt to get it right. It's why higher courts interpret and set precedents as to the meaning of legislation.
Or, I've completely misunderstood your point :/.
Yes; but the fault is mine . My response was a digression into the nature of language following Lev's comment. Specifically the nature of words, the nature of their definitions and whether some non-arbitrary method exists for selecting definitions for dictionaries. The later unlike legal definitions can not rely on some accepted authority. Well one could decide that the 'Oxford Concise' for example, is the only acceptable authority; but my theory would be : " *dictionary definition of a word *[tentative] To the end that a word is a social artefact', in particular a tool; one of whose purposes is to convey meaning between members of it's social sub-group, the purpose of a dictionary definition is to provide that description of the subjective category, which is the referent of the word; most preferred by members of it's social sub-group; subject to the conditions that it is: concise (using as few words as possible), precise (being as unambiguous as possible), exhaustive ( including all intended usages and excluding all others) and reductive ( using only words simpler than that being defined) apologies Rohan McLeod
On 8/03/2013 7:26 AM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
When the law is mis-written and the defendant gets off with the loophole or other reason for the mis-written law, then it is up the the parliamentray system to correct the law so that it cannot be mis-interpretted again.
Mis-interpreted? So interpretation of words does play a role!
Actually "mis-interpretted" should be mis-used or incorrectly used. Laws need to be written in such a way that they cannot be considered ambiguous and therefore no interpretation is required, nor is an alternate interpretation possible. The judgement can then be clear -- has the law been broken or not (by the letter of the law)? There are legal dictionaries that give "legal definitions" of terms used in writing law -- understanding the actual legal definitions helps ensure that the law is clear when it otherwise might not be so. Cheers A.
Laws need to be written in such a way that they cannot be considered ambiguous and therefore no interpretation is required, nor is an alternate interpretation possible. The judgement can then be clear -- has the law been broken or not (by the letter of the law)?
Whilst language is intersubjective that will remain impossible. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 8/03/2013 3:02 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
Laws need to be written in such a way that they cannot be considered ambiguous and therefore no interpretation is required, nor is an alternate interpretation possible. The judgement can then be clear -- has the law been broken or not (by the letter of the law)?
Whilst language is intersubjective that will remain impossible.
Not impossible, but it would be an art and it needs to be practiced well by the legislators. It can also be part of the reason why laws go back and forth under review in order to get it right; as best can be determined at that time by those doing the review. A.
Whilst language is intersubjective that will remain impossible.
Not impossible, but it would be an art and it needs to be practiced well by the legislators.
No, it is impossible. A "perfect language" where there is no ambiguity in words been subjects simply cannot exist. How will you account, for example, for subjective differences in metaphor and metonym? -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://lawyerslawyer.net/2007/10/18/melbourne-barrister-john-walsh-of-branna...
Sadly, that blog post is just an attack on a simple person whom obviously had some trouble properly representing the case.
Far from it. Apart from providing the entire judgement of the case in question (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2007/148.rtf) the author defends the right of a "simple person" to make such a case (no matter how bug-crazy) admires their gall in charging the PM with treason, no less - and of course Justice Hansen providing a comprehensive repudiation of the claims.
It completely astounded me when I heard an interview with Justice Kirby; he stated that the court had to decide on the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "letter" of the law ... I see that as patently wrong.
As others have pointed out it, Justice Kirby's remarks on the matter are entirely correct and have been been part of the western legal tradition in both the Roman and English traditions. Regards, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Thu, March 7, 2013 9:10 am, Lev Lafayette wrote:
Far from it. Apart from providing the entire judgement of the case in question (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2007/148.rtf) the author defends the right of a "simple person" to make such a case (no matter how bug-crazy) admires their gall in charging the PM with treason, no less - and of course Justice Hansen providing a comprehensive repudiation of the claims.
I read it as "let's screw this one for fun" myself. I'll try to read the judgement itself one day, but I haven't gotten that far yet. Thanks for sharing. Cheers A.
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:07:36AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva...
do you have any idea how ridiculous you are when you a) berate people for linking to wikipedia and science blogs and other fact-based sites whilst b) linking to absurd religous sites like religiousword.com and loony larouchian right-wing conspiracy theory sites like clrg.info (which, in turn, links to even more absurd right-wing nutbaggery like truthology.org.au - which, despite the .au domain, is obsessed with the american IRS and american-focused right-wing conspiracy theories) The sites you link to are not credible, and the nonsensical political, legal, and economic "theories" they push (e.g. a return to the so-called gold standard will solve the world's economic woes; tax is both illegal and voluntary; the pope is the antichrist and owns the entire world because the vatican owns britain or some such nonsense; General Ripper style beliefs about fluoridation and precious bodily fluids; and so on) are, to use a technical term, fucked in the head. I suspect that the opposition of these loony sites to local government is *entirely* because councils have the ability to levy rates for land ownership - which they do in order to maintain local roads, parks, etc and provide services such as health care centres, community houses, garbage collection, child-care facilities and many others. and one of the core articles of faith of loony right wing conspiracy nutters is that it is always appropriate to be whining about how unfair tax is and how they don't want to pay it, and that with some pseudo-legalistic mumbo-jumbo they can just hand-wave away the obligation to pay taxes. This faith, is of course, nothing other than a self-reinforcing circle-jerk masturbatory fantasy and can most appropriately be called The Soggy Biscuit of Tax Law Speculation. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Craig Sanders wrote:
the pope is the antichrist and owns the entire world because the vatican owns britain or some such nonsense
Apropos: | Did a not-obviously-insane member of the government — a corporate | troubleshooter and Conservative life peer — REALLY just stand up in | the House of Lords and announce that a shadowy Foundation (that | might or might not represent the Vatican) was offering the British | government an investment of umpty-billion pounds in order to reboot | the economy — free, gratis, with no strings attached? http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/11/conspiracy-theories.html You know, if you believe some guy that writes fiction for a living :-) Sadly, ICBF wading through British parliamentary privilege logs myself to find out what happened next. PS: to head off knee-jerk reactions to the domain name, | This site is called antipope due to a typing error long ago in the | pre-history of the web. If you want to read about it, here's the | history. This is not an anti-Catholic hate site.) | http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/antipope.html
On 6/03/2013 12:45 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:07:36AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva...
do you have any idea how ridiculous you are when you
No, wikipedia is fine, but it IS NOT without fault, just like any other website. ie, it's not the be all and end all to all arguments, that simple. Cheers A.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:07:36AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is- invalid/
do you have any idea how ridiculous you are when you
No, wikipedia is fine, but it IS NOT without fault, just like any other website. ie, it's not the be all and end all to all arguments, that simple.
When one person cites Wikipedia and the other has so little regard for truth, accuracy, and the time of other people that they say "yes, this is just a quick google, I'm not going to verify it's correctness or otherwise, please don't ask me to" then it is the end of the argument. It's not just that you are fairly consistently wrong, but that you don't care about it. An email discussion is not a Ph.D thesis. It doesn't require the highest standards of references. But you need to show some respect for the other people in the discussion by making a minimal effort to determine that the links you cite are accurate and sensible. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
The current situation with state governments is causing so much grief in Victoria, NSW, Queensland and NT with what they are doing.
In some respects, state vs federal adds some checks and balances, but they still fight over things, rather than getting good things done.
Certainly our Victorian constitution is invalid today as has been previously detailed -- that needs to be fixed ASAP, before we think about abolishing state governments. Local government must go first, there is no place for them, they should NOT exist and definitely not in their current form as corporations.
Really? There are some appallingly bad and corrupt local councils (Wollongong, Melbourne City), but local councils otherwise usually get positive things done. Not something you can say of state governments. Heck, local councils should be more local. There were the Kennett era amalgamations that removed local decision making power. How on earth would you propose a small country town in the middle of an electorate covering 5 other larger towns lobby to get their main road resealed without a local government? -- Tim Connors
Re. "the Victorian constitution is..... invalid": http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/about/the-parliamentary-system/the-constitu... Changing the Constitution The Constitution is changed by the Parliament agreeing to a bill that makes amendments to the *Constitution Act 1975*. Some parts of the Constitution can only be changed if certain requirements are met. Those special requirements and the sections to which they apply are listed in the Constitution; these are known as entrenched provisions. Not all sections are affected. Three possible requirements exist: 1. A bill passed by Parliament must also be agreed to by a majority of electors voting at a referendum; or 2. 3/5 of members of Parliament in both the Assembly and the Council must agree to the third reading of the bill (a special majority); or 3. An absolute majority (half plus one) of members of Parliament in both the Assembly and the Council must agree to the third reading of a bill. For more information see Legislative Assembly Fact Sheet D3: Altering Victoria's Constitution<http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/publications-a-research/fact-sheets/1019-fact-sheet-d3-altering-victorias-constitution> . On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Tim Connors <tconnors@rather.puzzling.org>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
The current situation with state governments is causing so much grief in Victoria, NSW, Queensland and NT with what they are doing.
In some respects, state vs federal adds some checks and balances, but they still fight over things, rather than getting good things done.
Certainly our Victorian constitution is invalid today as has been previously detailed -- that needs to be fixed ASAP, before we think about abolishing state governments. Local government must go first, there is no place for them, they should NOT exist and definitely not in their current form as corporations.
Really? There are some appallingly bad and corrupt local councils (Wollongong, Melbourne City), but local councils otherwise usually get positive things done. Not something you can say of state governments. Heck, local councils should be more local. There were the Kennett era amalgamations that removed local decision making power. How on earth would you propose a small country town in the middle of an electorate covering 5 other larger towns lobby to get their main road resealed without a local government?
-- Tim Connors _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
participants (9)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Craig Sanders -
Edward Savage -
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Scott -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tim Connors -
Trent W. Buck