We at WCV's beleives that Jeff Kennett, the State Government and the VWA should be held responsible for their Political
It is one of the ironies of modern democracy that the most vociferous
supporters of personal liberty and political rights are those who seek to
establish political systems which by their nature cannot tolerate these
freedoms. These are people who cynically take advantage of the liberties
provided by democratic rule in order to destabilise and eventually
destroy such rule. An autocratic society is maintained by official coercion
backed by the force of arms. On the other hand a liberal society cannot
be protected by its laws and its police force alone.
In order to subsist a liberal order needs a popular commitment to its values.
A system of criminal justice which is concerned with procedural fairness,
certainty of guilt before punishment, and humane treatment of suspects
and offenders is not designed to combat large scale or organised law-breaking.
A society which gives paramount consideration to civil liberties is relatively
stultified in its capacity to prevent excesses and to maintain order. The
strength of such a society is therefore not its coercive power but the
responsibility of its members.
Where responsibility is lacking one of two things will happen. The society
will gradually lose control or the state will be encouraged into curbing
liberties and returning to despotism. It is therefore not incorrect to say
that the degree of freedom which obtains in a society will be proportionate
to the responsibility, tolerance and restraint shown by its members. One
of the problems faced by liberal societies is that they are highly vulnerable
to subversion from within. Persons who are unwilling or unable to promote
change by popular acceptance resort to the exploitation of the weaknesses
in such societies.
In Australia for example, a minority of peace activists endeavour to subvert
the national security interests by trespassing and physically obstructing
defence installations and arrangements. Development works are obstructed
in the name of protecting the environment. Industrial disputes are won by
economic disruptions, the creation of disorder and even violence. In most such
instances, the activists in fact resort to deliberate, organised and large scale
law-breaking in order to achieve political ends. In an autocratic state, such
tactics are impossible for they invite swift and brutal repression.
In a democracy concerned with due process, it is difficult if not impossible to
restrain such measures by regular procedures. The result is often the
intimidation of the society as a whole into submission to minority views.
supporters of personal liberty and political rights are those who seek to
establish political systems which by their nature cannot tolerate these
freedoms. These are people who cynically take advantage of the liberties
provided by democratic rule in order to destabilise and eventually
destroy such rule. An autocratic society is maintained by official coercion
backed by the force of arms. On the other hand a liberal society cannot
be protected by its laws and its police force alone.
In order to subsist a liberal order needs a popular commitment to its values.
A system of criminal justice which is concerned with procedural fairness,
certainty of guilt before punishment, and humane treatment of suspects
and offenders is not designed to combat large scale or organised law-breaking.
A society which gives paramount consideration to civil liberties is relatively
stultified in its capacity to prevent excesses and to maintain order. The
strength of such a society is therefore not its coercive power but the
responsibility of its members.
Where responsibility is lacking one of two things will happen. The society
will gradually lose control or the state will be encouraged into curbing
liberties and returning to despotism. It is therefore not incorrect to say
that the degree of freedom which obtains in a society will be proportionate
to the responsibility, tolerance and restraint shown by its members. One
of the problems faced by liberal societies is that they are highly vulnerable
to subversion from within. Persons who are unwilling or unable to promote
change by popular acceptance resort to the exploitation of the weaknesses
in such societies.
In Australia for example, a minority of peace activists endeavour to subvert
the national security interests by trespassing and physically obstructing
defence installations and arrangements. Development works are obstructed
in the name of protecting the environment. Industrial disputes are won by
economic disruptions, the creation of disorder and even violence. In most such
instances, the activists in fact resort to deliberate, organised and large scale
law-breaking in order to achieve political ends. In an autocratic state, such
tactics are impossible for they invite swift and brutal repression.
In a democracy concerned with due process, it is difficult if not impossible to
restrain such measures by regular procedures. The result is often the
intimidation of the society as a whole into submission to minority views.
No comments:
Post a Comment