“Right-Wing” Christian Australia’s War on Liberal Democracy

I don’t like the tag “Right-Wing” because things are almost always more complicated that a one dimensional political continuum can describe, but I’m hoping you can gather where I am coming from.

George Pell once somewhat rhetorically asked if liberal (aka secular*) democracy was the only form of democracy, arguing for “normative democracy” where in the case of societal norms, the populace didn’t have a means of choosing. Some freedoms were given, whereas others were or should not afforded. Abortion was an example of a restriction; norms magically forbid this ergo people shouldn’t choose.

A liberal democracy can only forbid practices on demonstrable negative utilitarian grounds and mandate practices upon demonstrable positive utilitarian grounds where negative utilitarian considerations aren’t violated. If it is harmful, then the state can (without prejudice) intervene. A vote of 100% of a liberal democracy is never enough to force someone into a religion. A vote of 100% of a liberal democracy per se is not enough to force person X to hand over their assets (or a portion thereof).

Further, there are certain things that on negative utilitarian grounds the state itself is forbidden; the “freedom paradox” type problems. With few temporary exceptions (such as during temporary and justified martial law) can not have, nor attain, nor grant the freedom to arbitrarily rob freedom. A vote of 100% of a liberal democracy is never enough to ban the process of voting, outlaw a political ideology or suspend freedom of association.

Normative democracy doesn’t work like this. A norm is determined, then the populace can not breach the norm. This raises the question “who decides the norm?” Clearly, it isn’t the Australian populace in Pell’s model otherwise abortion wouldn’t rate a mention. No, Pell’s norms, his immutable moral absolutes, come from the church.

The church picks a few topics, forbids and the populace obeys. Of course, on a whole heap of things, the populace gets a freedom of choice. Want to scratch yourself on the nose? The church won’t stop you. At least, credibly, that’s what they say now.

The thing is, this “kind of democracy” has been in the works for a while now. We know it by other names. If the authority that determines norms decides that the norm isn’t Jewish, well you don’t get a say on whether or not you are allowed to have Jews in your attic. What furniture you have up there, well that’s not a normative issue, so the state doesn’t care.

If you want to play cards with your friends on the beach with a sip of rum, that’s fine, but just don’t talk about El Presidente while you do it. At least not in anything other than a flattering manner. The glory of the glorious leader is a norm. The glorious leader said so.

Despite the fact that these regimes afford you the freedoms of keeping what furniture you want in the attic, despite that they let you play cards on the beach, we don’t call them democracies, not normative or otherwise. Calling them “normative democracies” is redundant. We already call them things like “totalitarian dictatorship”, “banana republic” or “fascist state”.

George Pell calls “normative democracy”, “normative democracy” most probably because he doesn’t see the redundancy, but also probably because having “democracy” in the title instead of “fascist theocracy”, “religious dictatorship” or “Taliban”, it likely goes a lot further in assuring people he has their best interests at heart. He doesn’t.

At best, applying Hanlon’s Razor, George Pell (amongst others) as a community leader is simply incompetent (as far as civics is concerned). He doesn’t have the know-how to realise that he’s misleading people when he claims his “normative democracy” is democratic rather than totalitarian.

So it is with the mendacious and Orwellian named Family First Party.

Hat-tip to the Editor for this one.

So there is a small, loud minority DICTATING the political agenda and society in general! Holy Crap! Conspiracy!

Yep. There’s the boogey-man. Politicians have used the boogey-man as a tactic for years. Ask a Jew who survived WWII Germany. They could tell you all about it.

So Family First has ambiguously identified THE ENEMY. Remember that.

Then we have “blah-blah-blah-popularist-me-tooism-and-tax-policy-from-an-overly-fertile-fiscal-imagination”. Anyone remember the 2% simple tax? Par for the course in this election I’m afraid. FF is clearly trying its hand at popularism which while showing poor leadership and a dubious understanding of the public purse, isn’t of itself anti-democratic. But it’s important to remember; popularism.

Then we have doublethink. Internet porn filter at an ISP level? Aside from the lack of technological feasibility, the strain this would place on our already backwards IT infrastructure and the lack of parental involvement in their children’s browsing, why the double standard? Why do Family First always talk about porn but not about violence on the internet? Children will be far more affected by witnessing Bud Dwyer top himself (the entry has a link to a video of the suicide – I recommend that nobody, not children, not anyone, watch it) than by seeing someone ride the baloney pony.

Heck. What about vulgar behavior, not just in text but in media? Media files that filters don’t catch (just like they won’t catch Bud Dwyer videos)? What about the rather rude outbursts by Alan Jones? Not that I care personally for my own sensibilities, Alan can swear in front of me to his heart’s content, but I can envisage some people not wanting their kids seeing or hearing Jones fire off expletive after expletive (warning: contains the f-word as spoken by Alan Jones).

So I’m wondering why Family First is hooking up with Alan Jones over the Internet. They see fit to upload him to YouTube. One would think them a little more careful with who they hook up with online. Keeping kids safe from rude stuff and all that. But hey, that’s doublethink for you.

Call me cynical, but I think the “Cronulla demographic”, the perpetuation of myths about Muslims at swim centers, Jones’ campaign to prevent a mosque being built in Baulkham Hills, “Muslim” (they were lapsed) rape gangs and “middle-eastern grubs” in their lairs rate as positives worthy enough to Family First for them to overlook some Alan Jones potty mouth. Heck, if Hillsong’s reproduction of the Daily Telegraph is anything to go by, the AoG types don’t see enough Mussie bashing in the press.

Hey Jemma, can Family First proposed ISP level filter target crap that promotes inter-faith, inter-group hatred like Bible Man? Heck, in the game Bible Man kills people just for disagreeing with him (on the Bible in schools, abortion, you get the drift…)

No. Jemma’s objection to materials found on the internet is normative, not utilitarian. The norms come from her church of course. There’s that “normative democracy” again.

In any case, one has to wonder if Jemma sees Bob Brown as “Whacky Protestor!” Anti-life policies? I hope Jemma doesn’t exfoliate. She may remove some living skin.

Seriously, if you want an educated and honest opinion on stem-cell research, don’t go to Family First. Firstly, they aren’t up on the science and secondly, if someone offered meaningful results to Jemma that she could understand, the fingers would go in the ears. It’s not because of the potential efficaciousness of stem-cell research that motivates Family First’s opposition.

Want science. Seek a scientist. Jemma’s pretense that the potential successes of stem-cell research are steering her is flat out dishonest. But that’s nothing compared to what comes next…

“They [The Greens] intend to legalise drug use…” No they don’t. They never have. Jemma’s line has been parotted by Family First over more than one election and they have been brought up on it on more than one occasion. It is flat out unreasonable to expect Jemma not to know; I can’t credit her with that magnitude of incompetence.

The more credible account is that she is telling people what she knows isn’t true. That’s black propaganda.

Then there is the protection of the institution of marriage? What’s it under threat from? How will two gay people getting married damage anyone else’s marriage? It won’t. I’ll tell you what can damage a marriage, and a family; The Exclusive Brethren.

That’s why Kevin Rudd refused to meet with them. That begs the question; what is Family First doing about the practices of likes of The Exclusive Brethren? Oh what? You are taking campaign donations from them? Funny that. On the same matter, do is John Howard. Didn’t he claim that he was defending the institution of marriage and family values as per the Judaeo-Christian norm at one point?

Family First my backside. What an Orwellian deception. You can’t hook up with an anti-family organisation and then honestly claim to be pro-family. Hypocrisy. Newspeak.

Of course, as with Orwellian doubletalk, when Family First says one thing, it means another. It just wants you to be comforted by the term. Ministry of Peace is a lot nicer than War Office and Minisitry of Truth is much nicer than concentration camp. Just like Family First Party is a lot nicer than Theocracy Values Party.

It’s pretty disturbing then when Jemma says “Family Values equals Australian Values”. Apparently, if you don’t share the values of the Family First Party (which is more about obedience to a version of an unsubstantiated God who speaks through them than it is about actual families), then you aren’t a true Australian.

This kind of statement of Jemma’s innateness of Australian values has been known as something else (other than nationalism and jingoism). Ideological purity.

So according to Jemma, we have an ENEMY who is a powerful minority. If this isn’t enough to motivate, she engages in popularism on behalf of the party. She, like the party she is from engages in doublethink and newspeak; dishonest means of lessening dissent or disagreement as described in Orwell’s dystopian 1984. We have a normative basis for the state to intervene (normative democracy aka totalitarian), not a utilitarian basis, the norms determined by conservative (and often anti-science) sects of Australian Christendom.

Jemma spouts black propaganda, blatant untruths about political rivals. Perhaps most disturbingly, Jemma positively exudes a desire for ideological purity.

“The Enemy”. Popularism. Doublethink. Newspeak. Normative Democracy. Black propaganda and ideological purity. The only thing missing from the list is the use of political violence, but I guess FF are turning a blind eye to the likes of Bible Man to see to that.

Family First is not a political party with Australia’s best interests at heart, even if they have fooled themselves that they do. Theological blackshirts with a smile and apparent non-threatening air.

It’s disturbing that they aren’t the only ones.

~ Bruce

* Pell maintains that “liberal” is just PC for secular, which is rubbish. Secularism is just a sub-set of liberalism which also protects people against the observance of ideology (e.g. closed shops are a breach of liberal democracy which has diddly to do with religion.)