Democracy Over-ruled

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

We live in a democracy. You know, "a form of government in which all the people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives" (Wikipedia, 2 Nov 11). For the people, by the people, of the people... all that sort of nonsense.

Paul Murray lives somewhere else.

Of those polled, 73 per cent saw marine protection as very important, 75 per cent felt there was not enough marine protection in WA and almost 50 per cent called for protection to cover at least 30 per cent of the marine environment.

(a report quoted in, WA fisheries at mercy of US greenie charity, by Paul Murray, The West, 2 Nov 11)

Murray ignores the weakness of, "Of those polled"... He fails to ask, Who was polled? How many people were polled? How many responded? These are obvious weaknesses -- Murray is not interested.

Nor is he interested enough to wonder, how close to 50% is "almost 50%"?

Murray dismisses the entire report. Largely, it seems, on the grounds that it is sponsored by an American charity. Oh dearie me, American! How terrible!

Having dropped that enormous clanger, Murray goes on to attack the emotive tricks which are used by "these groups".

Let's just step back a bit.

Our "democracy" allows 51% of the voting population to over-ride the wishes of the other 49%. That's the Australian implementation of democracy. So... What do 51% of our voting population want?

According to a poll sponsored by an American charity, "75 per cent felt there was not enough marine protection in WA". For Murray's benefit I will point out that 75% is more than 51%. By our democratic rules -- the 75% should have their wishes implemented.

Now if the poll were done amongst committed greenies, with loaded questions... Fine, ignore the results. But -- in a democracy -- if it were a valid poll then the wishes of the majority should be implemented. There should be more marine protection in WA.

Democratic decisions are made by people. In Australia, the majority should set the rules. The majority may be emotional. They may be biased. They may be wrong... but they are the majority. And the majority should set the rules.

The majority of people not the majority of money.

What else is wrong?

Murray has dismissed the report because it was sponsored by Pew Environmental Group, an American charity. He states that, "Pew and its greenie mates have got away with blue murder for too long." And the greenies use emotive statements?!

Then he quotes -- without question -- seven points provided by Recfishwest executive director Frank Prokop. Without question!

"Australia will have more sanctuaries than the rest of the world combined." "More" as in more area? more in number? Will we have more very small sanctuaries? "More" as a percentage of our surrounding oceans? Or just "more" as an emotive statement...

"Pew's claim that the South West bioregion had up to 80 per cent unique species (a blatant piece of green marketing) was wrong." Is Murray not interested in evidence that this is "wrong"? Or is he happy to simply accept that blatant piece of Recfishwest marketing as being gospel truth...

"It's time some politicians grew a spine and started questioning their spin..."

And it's time some opinion writers grew a spine and stopped publishing unsubstantiated bias.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems. Agamedes Consulting: Support for your thought. email nick leth at gmail dot com