The Magna Carta fallacy

A man named Mr Glew claimed the City of Greater Geraldton could not lawfully make constituents pay rates, because local governments were not written in Australia’s constitution.

Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey said the council’s actions were legal. “The State of WA has the power to enact legislation that sets up a system of local government, which includes the City of Greater Geraldton and other places,” she said.

Mr Glew said the city could not seize his land because he claimed it under Magna Carta. “It is not getting sold because I have it held under clause 61 of Magna Carta,” he said. “They cannot touch it, they fenced it — I threw the gates away, they put concrete blocks there — I threw them away, I blocked it. “I own it and I paid for it.”

Magna Carta was originally issued by King John of England in 1215 as a solution to a political crisis. Since then it has been one of the foundations of constitutional and parliamentary government for Britain and Commonwealth countries.

Professor Twomey said Magna Carta was an important historic statute but had little relevance in today’s society. “You have got to understand that under British law, their constitution is the system of parliamentary sovereignty and that means parliament itself can always change its own laws,” she said. “There is very little left of Magna Carta in the United Kingdom because many later laws have overridden and changed it from time to time.

“The same issue arises in Australia — Magna Carta became part of Australian law as a received British law … it would have been a much cut-down version of Magna Carta. “Only the little dribs and drabs that were left, and even those dribs and drabs they are not entrenched as part of our law they are just part of ordinary statute that can be changed by later statute.”

Douglas Murray on the destruction of the past

“This is the process by which everything from the past can be picked over, picked apart, and eventually destroyed. It can find no way of building. It can only find a way of endlessly pulling apart. So a novel by Jane Austen is taken apart until a delicate work of fiction is turned instead into nothing more than another piece of guilty residue from a discredited civilization. What has been achieved in this? Nothing but a process of destruction.” 
― Douglas Murray, The War on the West

Douglas Murray on popular culture

“To immerse oneself in popular culture for any length of time is to wallow in an almost unbearable shallowness. Was the sum of European endeavour and achievement really meant to culminate in this?” 
― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

Douglas Murray on ISIS

‘Rather than being a ‘perversion’ of Islam, it is truer to say that the version of Islam espoused by ISIS, while undoubtedly the worst possible interpretation of Islam, and for Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere obviously the most destructive version of Islam, is nevertheless a plausible interpretation of Islam.’

Douglas Murray

Douglas Murray on Michel Foucault

“From Michel Foucault these thinkers absorbed their idea of society not as an infinitely complex system of trust and traditions that have evolved over time, but always in the unforgiving light cast when everything is viewed solely through the prism of ‘power’. Viewing all human interactions in this light distorts, rather than clarifies, presenting a dishonest interpretation of our lives. Of course power exists as a force in the world, but so do charity, forgiveness and love. If you were to ask most people what matters in their lives very few would say ‘power’. Not because they haven’t absorbed their Foucault, but because it is perverse to see everything in life through such a monomaniacal lens.” 
― Douglas Murray, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity

Douglas Murray on truth

Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British author and political commentator. He founded the Centre for Social Cohesion in 2007, which became part of the Henry Jackson Society, where he was associate director from 2011 to 2018. He is currently an associate editor of the conservative-leaning British political and cultural magazine The Spectator.

“what has been worked away at in recent years has been a project in which verifiable truth is cast out. In its place comes that great Oprah-ism: “my truth.” The idea that I have “my truth” and you have yours makes the very idea of objective truth redundant. It says that a thing becomes so because I feel it to be so or say that it is so. At its most extreme, it is a reversion to a form of magical thinking. Precisely the thinking that the Enlightenment thinkers chased out. And perhaps that is why the Enlightenment thinkers have become such a focus for assault. Because the system they set up is antithetical to the system that is being constructed today: a system entirely opposed to the idea of rationalism and objective truth; a system dedicated to sweeping away everyone from the past as well as the present who does not bow down to the great god of the present: “me.”
― Douglas Murray, The War on the West

“You can’t stop progress”

by ChatGPT-4

The claim “You can’t stop progress” is often used in discussions about technological, social, or scientific advancements. However, this statement can be problematic for several reasons:

1. Assumption of Inevitability: It implies that progress is an inevitable force that cannot be controlled or guided. This overlooks the fact that human choices and actions significantly influence the direction and nature of progress. It’s not an autonomous force but a result of deliberate decisions made by individuals, companies, governments, and societies.
2. Neglect of Negative Consequences: This statement often disregards the potential negative impacts of progress. Not all technological or social changes are beneficial, and some can lead to harmful consequences for the environment, society, and individual well-being. For instance, the environmental impacts of industrialization or the social impacts of automation on job markets are important considerations.
3. Oversimplification of Complex Issues: The concept of progress is not always clear-cut. What constitutes progress in one context or for one group might not be seen as such by others. For example, urban development might be seen as progress by some but could lead to the loss of cultural heritage or natural landscapes for others.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: The claim overlooks moral and ethical considerations. Progress in areas like genetics or artificial intelligence raises significant ethical questions that should not be ignored in the rush to advance.
5. Resistance and Change: History shows that progress can indeed be stopped or redirected through social movements, legislation, or shifts in public opinion. Resistance to certain types of progress, like nuclear weapons or environmentally damaging practices, has led to significant policy changes and shifts in societal values.

In summary, the claim “You can’t stop progress” is an oversimplification that fails to consider the complexity of progress, its potential negative consequences, the importance of ethical considerations, and the power of human agency in shaping the course of progress.

Nelson Mandela on identity politics

Naming and shaming

by Tim Harding and ChatGPT-4

When I worked as a regulatory consultant, I was often asked to consider the option of “naming and shaming“ as an alternative to regulation. Every time, I successfully argued that this would be unjust, but I think that ChatGPT-4 now presents the case better than I did.

“Naming and shaming” refers to the act of publicly calling out individuals or entities for perceived wrongs or failures. While some view it as an effective strategy to hold people or organizations accountable, many believe it is unjust for the following reasons:

1. Violation of Due Process: In many democratic societies, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Naming and shaming might bypass due process and could result in misjudgments based on incomplete or inaccurate information. People might be wrongly accused or shamed based on unfounded rumors or biased perceptions.

2. Amplification of Mistakes: People make mistakes. When an error is magnified and publicized, it can disproportionately impact someone’s life. This is especially the case in our current digital age, where information can spread rapidly and persist indefinitely online.

3. Cyberbullying and Harassment: Naming and shaming can often lead to cyberbullying, as it encourages a mob mentality. This can result in the targeted individual receiving disproportionate backlash, including hate messages, threats, and more.

4. Lack of Context: Many times, situations are complex, and there might be reasons or circumstances unknown to the public. Naming and shaming can provide a one-sided view of an incident, leading to misunderstandings.

5. Prevents Rehabilitation: Rather than encouraging individuals to learn from their mistakes and make amends, naming and shaming can alienate and stigmatize them, making rehabilitation more challenging.

6. Affects Mental Health: The stress and humiliation from being publicly shamed can have severe mental health consequences, including depression, anxiety, and even suicidal thoughts or actions.

7. Potential for Misuse: Naming and shaming can be weaponized for personal vendettas or to target particular groups or individuals, even if they haven’t done anything wrong.

8. Unintended Consequences: Naming and shaming might impact not just the targeted individual but also their families, friends, or associates who had nothing to do with the perceived wrongdoing.

9. Mistakes are Permanent in the Digital Age: Once something is posted online, it’s almost impossible to completely erase. Even if a person is later found to be innocent or if they genuinely change and rehabilitate, the digital trail of their past shaming can haunt them indefinitely.

10. Erosion of Empathy: Societies thrive when there’s mutual respect and understanding. A culture of naming and shaming can erode empathy and reduce the willingness to understand or forgive others.

That said, some argue that in specific contexts, public accountability can be a tool for justice, especially when institutional systems fail to hold wrongdoers accountable. However, it’s essential to approach such actions with caution, ensuring they are based on facts and that the response is proportionate to the wrongdoing.

‘That’s just semantics’

By Tim Harding

When people say ‘That’s just semantics’, they are dismissing differences in the meanings of words or phrases, implying that such differences are unimportant.

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. This broad field addresses how words, phrases, sentences, and texts are used to convey meaning, both literal and implied. Semantics is involved in interpreting the meaning of words (lexical semantics), sentences (sentential or phrasal semantics), and larger units of discourse.

In linguistics, semantics is typically considered one of the core areas of study, along with syntax (the study of sentence structure) and phonology (the study of sound systems). However, semantics is not confined to linguistics alone; it has implications for philosophy, psychology, anthropology, computer science, and artificial intelligence, among other disciplines.

Sometimes the differences in meanings of words can be quite important. For example, when I was working on new fisheries legislation, I recall being lobbied by commercial fishing interests to include a provision in the draft Bill stating that commercial fishing licences are property. A fisheries manager with little legal knowledge said that this was ‘just semantics’. On the other hand, the commercial fishers obviously thought that such a provision was important. Why? Because this would substantially increase the value of their licences for sale or buyback. They would make windfall profits, estimated at up to $320,000 per licence. Instead, the ensuing Act referred to these licences as access licences rather than property, thus maintaining the status quo in licence values. Just semantics?