I was surprised to see from a Laurie Oakes column that high profile barrister (and continual Howard government critic) Julian Burnside had said something as stupid as this:
Prominent barrister Julian Burnside will have a lot of people cheering his latest idea. "I suggest we introduce a law that makes it an offence for politicians to lie," he told the Future Conference in Melbourne...
As Laurie says:
A major problem with this is defining just what constitutes a lie.
Burnside, for example, says: "The big turnaround on climate change in the past six months is just the best demonstration that they (the government) have been lying up to now."
Patent nonsense. The government's changed attitude may simply demonstrate that politicians are capable of being persuaded to change their minds by logical argument and an accumulation of evidence.Burnside's slipshod use of the word "lie" is just typical of the Left in the last 10 years, especially when it comes to the question of the justification for the invasion of Iraq.
6 comments:
Steve did not listen to the rest of my argument.
I suggested that the law could be drafted by analogy with section 52 of the Trade Practices Act which prohibits businesses from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Courts have great experience in deciding what conduct contravenes that section.
Steve's argument is that it is too hard to decide what a "lie" is. What a pathetic last-ditch defence. It is the sort of thing you would expect from a supporter of a dishonest government: "We do not know what lies are so do not ban lying".
No wonder political debate in this country is so pathetic.
---Julian Burnside
Julian, you were your own worst advocate for the proposal when you used the example of global warming as something the government has "lied" about.
Your suggestion would also appear to be a grab for a extra judicial (or quasi judicial) layer of control of government. No side of politics is going to agree to this, and nor should they.
Lefty lawyers are having a hard enough time convincing people that the extra litigation arising from, say, a bill of rights would be worth it; I don't see any hope at all that your proposal is likely to be taken as anything other than a flight of fantasy.
At best, naïve, sophomoric, gormless.
Shall we also have a law that makes it illegal for the electorate to believe anything that a lawyer or a politician says?
Oh, that’s right, we don’t actually need one.
BTW I - since when did anyone rely on politicians for understanding the world?
BTW II - no politician has lied about climate change. Lying and not enacting any useful policies are entirely separate beasts.
While we're at it:
- can we have a law to ban false advertising in job advertisments?
- can we have a law to ban false book and film reviews?
These are important things.
Unlike our frothing pollies.
Ooooh, ooooh!
I know:
Let's make it illegal for people to believe lies!
No point in only tackling one side of the problem.
Now all we need is an arbiter of "truth".
I posted about Julian as well, he received an award for free speech, I suggested that he give it back. He says his point is tha politicians are persuaded to lie on behalf of lobbyists, seems a little far fetched to me. I have asked what happens when barristers put a clients case even though they personally believe or suspect it to be untrue. Isn't that lying?
Post a Comment