The West has "solved" the problem
of the instability inherent in the democratic political system by implementing
a program of massive distributed brainwashing in Left-Liberal values
through the education system and the media (the Media
University Complex). At one level, this brainwashing is heavily
dependent on euphemisms and renaming processes -- "homosexual"
becomes "gay" (which used to mean "happy"), the
word "fail" is removed from the secondary education system,
proposed government indoctrination of the population with a particular
view of the Treaty of Waitangi is called "education", etc,
etc...
Since Feminists have taken control of almost all policy areas which
they feel are important, they have been able to make the principle that
women can -- and should -- be in the paid workforce a central ideological
tenet of the modern Western state. This principle overrides the right
to life of unfortunates who are too young to have the vote -- unborn
children, specifically. Women, of course, form a majority of the electorate,
and so they rule by Majoritarianism. This has facilitated a "liberalisation"
(another euphemism !) of the abortion laws in countries such as New
Zealand. Now, even Feminists admit that the criterion that a woman's
mental health needs to be at risk before an abortion will be permitted
is transparent hypocrisy. It is in fact abortion on demand. Demand by
the mother -- no one asks the child, or even the father, to sign the
form !
In this context, it is not surprising that that towering giant of Public
Law theory, Albert Venn Dicey, should be such an embarrassment to the
modern mainstream. The reason he is such an embarrassment is that he
used one particular example of a hypothetical law, in order to emphasise
the sovereignty of Parliament, as he saw it. He chose an example of
a hypothetical Act of Parliament which he though would be extremely
unthinkable to all of his readers. This hypothetical law was one that
would order the murder of all blue-eyed babies (A V Dicey: Introduction
to the Study of the Law of the Constitution) (see, for
example, page 5 at the webpage: http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/1993/pdfs/19931013.pdf
). He wrote:
"If a legislature decided that all blue-eyed babies should be
murdered, the preservation of blue-eyed babies would be illegal; but
legislators must go mad before they could pass
such a law, and subjects be idiotic before they could submit to it."
I have long felt that modern Western legislators are (mostly) mad,
and that most of their subjects are idiotic. The reason they are, respectively,
mad and idiotic is the brainwashing mentioned above -- in which brainwashing
process they are both perpetrators and victims. It is impossible for
legislators and the public to make sane and sensible decisions in a
culture which approaches every problem with a dictionary, and a will
to define the problem out of existence !
Inevitably, many students, teachers and practitioners of Public Law
will have noticed that it is incongruity for a society which permits
abortion on demand to continue to use Dicey's "extreme" example,
because our madness and stupidity have caused it to appear much less
extreme, nowadays. Dicey's example may even appear to be a comparatively
sane and sensible law, in the context of abortion on demand.
Indeed, both J. Rozenberg (Trial of Strength: The Battle between
Ministers and Judges over Who Makes the Laws (1997)) and P. A.
Joseph (Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand
(2001)) avoid the term "blue-eyed babies" -- and it cannot
possibly be because they hadn't heard of it ! Joseph uses the term "oppressive
causes", and Rozenberg uses the term "all men with red hair"
when discussing the issue that Dicey famously raised.
Bad faith goes along hand-in-hand with euphemism in modern Western
culture. We may be free in body (at least, adult women are), but our
brains are shackled by brainwashing and bad faith.
