Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

What debate?

The SMH has carved up a radio interview with the Prime Minister into a slew of separate stories, one of which (on a Republic) has some rather disturbing interpretations:

'I think the mark of a confident, competent government is that it does allow debate, providing the debate does not become destructive and providing the debate is not based on personalities [...] I think it's good for a government to have debate on issues. I think the public wants that.'

Isn't it the mark of a democracy that a government is compelled to allow debate? Not to forget the libelous and destructive personality-based 'debate' that Howard ran against Keating when Opposition Leader. The qualification that he 'thinks it's good' to have discussion (rather than acknowledging dialogue is at the core of democracy) implies either considerable arrogance or the willingness to prevent debate.

Indeed, Man of Steel is effectively offering the population the opportunity to say they do not want discussion, in saying he 'thinks' they 'want that'. The fact that these statements are laden with qualification is the mark of a politician who seems perpetually unable to make an accountable statement to the electorate, and who could be perceived as hiding his actual point of view behind 'palatable' sound bites.

In fact former PM Fraser (and others) are currently accusing the government of 'stifling debate' on anti-terror measures. The government's recent behaviour in the Senate (gagging debate) only amplifies that concern.

To relegate debate to an optional feature of government is a clear indication of anti-democratic motivations at work.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 12:27 pm ::