There are now concerns (The Australian, 15/10/08) that the plan will turn the sizeable budgetary surplus into a deficit. It has been reported (The Australian, 22/10/08) that the government is backing down from its initial promise to guarantee all bank deposits to avoid market distortions.

How do you rate the financial plan? What would you do?

Let us suppose that we do exactly what the proponents of gay marriage want us to do: remove the condition that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now two men can get married; so can two women. But why not three men? Why not two women and one man? On what basis can we tell these people they are excluded from the benefit of marriage? You might protest that marriage cannot involve more than two persons. But we have just changed the definition of marriage. How can we say changing the definition again is out of the question? Three men can love and care for each other deeply. They are consenting adults in a free society. Polygamy is very common in some cultures; polyandry is less common but isn’t it time to end the prejudice? Perhaps you can assist me, but I don’t know what we can say to such people if we remove the condition that marriage is between a man and a woman. Every proponent of gay marriage is thus, unwittingly, an apologist for polygamy. To believe that marriage is anything is to believe marriage is nothing.

Gay marriage advocates argue that defining marriage as marriage has always been defined discriminates against gays. Discrimination occurs when a person is deprived of a benefit to which the person is entitled. It’s not enough to show a group cannot access a certain benefit: it must be shown that the group is entitled to that benefit in the first place. It’s not discriminatory that only Aborigines have the benefit of native title legislation and Asians don’t because there is no reason why Asians would be entitled to it in the first place. Arguing that gays are discriminated against because they cannot get married presupposes that gays are entitled to get married – which is the whole debate! Advocates of gay marriage thus conveniently assume the very thing they need to prove. Contending that gays are discriminated against because they cannot have the benefit of an institution that was clearly conceived for heterosexuals, like native title was for indigenous people, is, absent other justifications, a non-sequitur.

This is not a situation where an institution had always been available to everyone and suddenly the government excluded homosexuals. That would be prima facie discrimination. This is an institution that was conceived and has always been intended to recognise a particular type of union. Now some people want to hijack the institution and change the rules. There is no strength in the proposition that asserting that marriage is what it has always been is ipso facto discriminatory. The onus of proof lies on the proponents of gay marriage to find reasons why the institution should undergo a metamorphosis. Discrimination cannot be one of these reasons.

When we consider the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, it is instructive to note that it has existed since time immemorial across virtually all cultures. We don’t need an anthropologist to know that but hey, why not. Peter Wood, professor of anthropology at Boston University (National Review Online, 26/4/05):

“[S]ome 150 years of systematic inquiry by anthropologists leaves little doubt that heterosexual marriage is found in nearly every human society and almost always as a pivotal institution. Homosexual marriage outside contemporary Western societies is exceedingly rare and never the basis of ‘viable social order.’”

How is it that so many human societies, many of which had little to no contact with each other for hundreds of years, came up with or preserved the same institution? It’s as if we tell dozens of groups to separately design a central social institution and they all come back with roughly the same answer. It seems traditional marriage is a pretty good idea. It is a common denominator of humanity, if you like. It transcends boundaries of distance, race and development. Can we say the same about gay marriage? Even a society like Ancient Greece, which embraced homosexuality and pederasty, did not allow men to marry men or women women. Homosexual relationships were accepted but they weren’t accepted as marriage. Frankly, a better case could be made for polygamy, a common form of marriage, than gay marriage – and that says a great deal.

Marriage is not unique only in the evolution of the human race; its centrality and incomparability can be readily observed in our own lives. Marriage has a societal role that gay marriage can never hope to emulate, no matter how ardently the partners love each other. Marriage means much more than feelings. Not every loving relationship between heterosexuals is a marriage. Traditional marriage fulfills the all-important social function of binding the sexes together for the responsible procreation and upbringing of human beings. It is a much better defender of social stability and children than promiscuity or the noncommittal cohabitation of the modern age. The family is the most basic and important unit of human civilisation – as those of us fortunate enough to have been raised in a family can attest – and marriage is the basis of sound families. It is the basis of ‘viable social order’. It is when marriage and family break down that we fully grasp their importance and unparalleled social function. To argue that two guys who love each other perform this unique social function so indispensable to human civilisation is to misunderstand the role that marriage plays in society and even cheapen it. Gay marriage, apart from being an oxymoron, is a counterfeit. It may look like the original but it actually lowers its value.

Homosexual relationships have their place in a free society. I am only asking you to accept that not every relationship is a marriage. That, as we have seen, is a slippery slope. If marriage is anything, it is nothing.

I say this because Australia owes its very birth as a nation to the patronage of the British Crown and the hard work of its loyal agents, after whom our major cities are named. It is no coincidence our founding documents begin, “George the Third, by the grace of God, King of Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith”. The British connection is not some incidental detail in Australian history. It’s Australia’s foundation, the source of its values, political system and jurisprudence, language, culture and people. The founding words of the Preamble to the Constitution – “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown” – are a testament to that legacy, not an embarrassing slip of the tongue to be rubbed out and forgotten, belittled by future generations.

Republicanism stands for repudiating the very foundations on which this country has been built in favour of, well, they can’t really tell us because they haven’t agreed on a model and the last one they gave us was a dud. At the present time, it’s a contest between an awe-inspiring 1100-year-old institution without which this country wouldn’t exist and “oh, we’ll figure something out”.

You will observe that other countries do not naturally forget their foundations and dump their heritage at some point. Progressive countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are all constitutional monarchies. This is not because they are stuck in the middle ages. They value their heritage and consider it would be a pity to unnecessarily put an end to it. The Thais, the Japanese, even the Maoris, have kept their traditional monarchies. Why? It’s their tradition and they don’t want to lose it.

When monarchies are abolished, typically a violent phenomenon, it is usually as a consequence of oppression or outside interference. Thus the unpopular King of France was guillotined and the revered Kaiser of Germany was forced to abdicate by the Entente powers at the end of WW1. The hapless Tsar of Russia abdicated only to be shot against a wall with his entire family. Nepal is a more recent example of abolition induced by oppression. Proud nations with stable and reliable government do not turn against their past and uproot their own foundations. Our Queen is no tyrant nor is she being forced to abdicate by a foreign power. Her Majesty is a symbol of our provenance and heritage, like our flag. Would you throw away the flag because it includes the Union Jack? Most people wouldn’t because, well, because it’s our flag. This is the flag that flew over the trenches of Gallipolli and the fortifications of Tobruk; this is the flag we have hoisted with pride for over a hundred years and there is no way we’re going to ditch it. So what if the Union Jack is part of it? In fact, it’s there for a very good reason. It’s there because that’s where the country came from.

You wouldn’t ditch the flag because of the British connection but you would ditch an institution that both predates the flag and can boast a greater practical contribution to Australia? The monarchy is like the Union Jack in the flag: it’s there for a good reason and it’s not a reason to dump it.

Many republicans justify the abandonment of our heritage with the complaint that our Constitution gives extensive powers to an octogenarian who lives in England. Surely, a mature, confident nation must run its own affairs. I have good news for you. The truth is that under our Constitution the powers of the head of state are exercisable by an Australian, namely the Governor-General. The Queen cannot exercise these powers even when she is in Australia, nor can she overrule the exercise of executive power by the Governor-General. When the Queen was urged, during the constitutional crisis of 1975, to reverse the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, the reply from Buckingham Palace was that the Queen lacked the constitutional capacity to countermand the Governor-General: “the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General… The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General.”

Even the Queen’s right to appoint or dismiss the Governor-General is hollow because it is done on the advice of the Prime Minister. In effect, it is the PM who appoints or dismisses the Governor-General. And so, the Constitution in its present form bestows all executive power on an Australian whose decisions are not reviewable by a person who is not Australian. The republican argument about independence founders on the Constitution it attacks.

The upshot is that our constitutional monarchy is a brilliant compromise between tradition and modernity, heritage and independence, past and present. We can have all the prestige of monarchy and complete political freedom at the same time. We can honour our history without letting the past curtail our present independence. Not in vain did Justice Kirby of the High Court describe Australia as a “crowned republic”. It is the best of both worlds. Let’s keep that way.

Yet, debate on this issue has been scarce. Why have we – or more accurately our governments – decided that it is always wrong to execute criminals, regardless of the crime or the strength of the evidence? Indeed, what is so taboo about executing people like Ali Amrozi or Josef Fritzl? Why do people who protect them believe they are more civilised than people who demand justice for their victims?

The reason I support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder is that I don’t think the life of the murderer is more valuable than the life of the victim. If the victim has been deprived of the opportunity to live – often brutally – why should the murderer be automatically entitled to a lighter consequence? It may sound unsophisticated, but I am yet to hear a convincing counterargument. John Lewthwaite killed five-year-old Nicole Hanns in 1974. In 1999 he was released and given an opportunity to start a new life. Is Nicole’s life only worth 25 years of Lewthwaite’s life? Will Nicole get to start afresh? Whence comes this privilege, this gift of life (that Lewthwaite denied another and not for any crime)? How is this brand new life to be justified to Nicole’s family? It’s more like adding insult to injury.

In fact, even if Lewthwaite hadn’t been released, he’d still get the better of Nicole because he would live for a long time. As for those who say that life in prison is worse than death, I am not persuaded. If they really believe prisoners would rather be executed, why do they oppose the death penalty on humane grounds? Why not support the compassionate state that euthanises life prisoners dying to die? Why do people on death row clog the system with desperate, last-minute appeals? They do so because life is apparently such a good thing that even people in prison want to hold on to it for as long as possible.

Abolitionists say that the death penalty should be abolished because it’s inhumane and uncivilised. I have always found this argument to be circular. Why is it inhumane or uncivilised? Isn’t that what abolitionists need to prove? One can’t avoid it by including the conclusion in the premise. Besides, a lot of people don’t find the death penalty inhumane or uncivilised so it is far from a foregone conclusion that need not be substantiated.

One abolitionist argument which does have merit is that the death penalty is irreversible. There is almost a risk, however small, that an innocent person might be executed. While I readily concede that this is an inconvenient likelihood for my cause, it is important to compare this likelihood with the inconvenient likelihoods arising from the abolition of the death penalty.

Firstly, I can cite at least 12 research papers to the effect that each execution, by way of deterrence, saves the lives of between fifteen to eighteen innocent people. In fact, I can cite much higher figures but I choose to be conservative in my assertion. To my knowledge, it has never been suggested, let alone established, that there are fifteen to eighteen wrongful executions for each warranted execution. Hence, the innocents among us have less to fear from the death penalty than the abolition thereof.

Secondly, even if you don’t grant the deterrent effect, there is another inconvenient likelihood that is impossible not to grant. As we have seen with Lewthwaite, murderers are often released. There is no certainty that people who have murdered before will not re-offend. This is not a theoretical argument. Danny R. Rouse of Kansas was convicted of child murder in 1979, served 26 years, was released in 2006 and in the same year murdered a sixteen-year-old (a killing to which he confessed). While abolitionists struggle to conclusively prove that innocent people have been executed in the modern age and speak of likelihoods, here we have a real innocent person who would have been alive now had Rouse gotten his just deserts. Stephanie F. Wagner is a conclusive victim of abolitionism. Unfortunately, she is not the only one. Consider this from Telegraph.co.uk (21/1/07):

“Nearly 30 convicted killers released from jail over the past 10 years have gone on to kill again, according to Home Office figures released yesterday.”

This is all the more tragic because it could have so easily and sensibly been prevented.

Sadly, even leaving murderers to languish in prison doesn’t solve the problem of recidivism. Timothy Hancock of Ohio, having been sentenced to life in 1990, murdered his cellmate in 2000.

What is the re-offending rate of executed murderers?

While the irreversibility argument has merit, it is outweighed by its implications. The best way to protect the innocent is to execute those who murder the innocent. The death penalty is thus warranted morally as well as pragmatically. The death penalty saves lives.

*I am greatly indebted to Professor John Lott’s book Freedomnomics

AUSTRALIA’S citizenship test has been given a fail by the former diplomat charged with reviewing it.

Richard Woolcott says the test discriminates against people who don’t speak English as their first language and is flawed because you can get 19 of 20 questions correct and still not pass.

Firstly, we need to understand that any test discriminates. It discriminates between candidates who have the requisite skills and candidates who don’t. That is the purpose of a test. A test that anyone can pass is not really a test – it’s a rubber stamp. Do we want a test for citizens or a rubber stamp?

The next issue is whether the ability to speak English is a relevant skill for a new citizen. I believe that a grasp of the spoken language – the primary means of communication without which integration is virtually impossible – is a relevant skill for people who want to live in Australia. All new citizens are required to take the Pledge of Commitment. Don’t they have to understand it? Can they “uphold and obey” our laws if they can’t understand our laws? Perhaps our laws also discriminate against people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

The test is not designed to throw unexpected questions at confused migrants. All applicants have to know to pass the test is contained in a booklet that can be downloaded or posted. The test can’t surprise anyone. Unlike most dealings with the government, the test is free. According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which administers the test, the pass rate is 83.3%, which is quite reasonable. A test anyone can pass is not really a test. In the event a person fails, he or she can sit the test again, and again, until they pass. It’s like the driving test: not everyone passes on their first or second attempt but everyone passes eventually. There is nothing unreasonable about this. If anything, it’s too easy. Consider this sample test question, supplied by the Department:

Which one of these values is important in modern Australia:
1. Everyone has the same religion
2. Everyone has equality of opportunity
3. Everyone belongs to the same political party

I’m happy to refuse citizenship to people who can’t get that one right. Some questions are admittedly more challenging. For example, ‘What is a bill?’ The answer is on page 39 of the booklet: “a proposed law that has not yet passed through Parliament”. This test is not some draconian measure. I wish my university exams were more like the citizenship test.

Woolcott’s critique that applicants may get 95% and still fail because three questions are mandatory doesn’t take into account the essentiality of some issues. For example, an immigrant who circles (1) or (3) above is not ready to be an Australian citizen, end of story. The three mandatory questions are those that relate specifically to the rights and duties of citizens. If an applicant doesn’t know the rights and duties that come with citizenship, he or she is not ready to be a citizen.

Woolcott also criticised the booklet:

There’s no doubt the booklet on which the test is based is way, way above basic English and discriminates very much in favour of people who have been educated in English as a first language.

I read the booklet. It is written in plain English. It is certainly not written in academic jargon. The following passage from page 39 is a representative example:

The House of Representatives has 150 Members who each represents about 80,000 voters living in one particular area (an electorate). As Victoria and New South Wales have the largest populations, most of the members of the House of Representatives come from there. This is balanced by the Senate, where all states, no matter what their population, have the same number of senators.

People whose English is poor may not understand all of it. But then again English is a relevant skill and a necessity for immigrants. The booklet is written in the kind of English that any person engaged with the community would need to understand. Why shouldn’t the citizenship test require this kind of English?

And by the way, the booklet is available in 29 languages other than English.

Woolcott was paraphrased in the above piece as saying:

Refugees fleeing conflict areas in particular shouldn’t have to face the “additional hurdle” of a test in English.

Let us be clear on this point. The test is not a condition for the granting of asylum. It’s not as if refugees who fail the test are handed back to their persecutors. It simply means that refugees who have been given asylum and now want to become citizens do need to speak English and know some basic things about the country of which they seek to become citizens. That is not too much to ask. It is understandable that refugees, who tend to come from third-world countries with little formal education, would find the test more difficult than, say, an Englishman. The fact that refugees have a lower pass rate than New Zealanders shows the test is working: the test is really about ability, not political-correctness. Aren’t we testing whether people are ready to become citizens?

Do university faculties dumb down their exams to ensure refugee students don’t have a pass rate lower than local students? If they did, it would cease to be a test.

Lowering the bar so that everyone can pass is a joke. Do we want the bar for Australian citizenship to be a joke?

Are we not in danger, as Chris Uhlmann of the ABC warned, of incurring all the costs of action plus all the costs of inaction? If an ETS has virtually no environmental effect, is it not just a revenue grab and a lot of pointless pain?

If an ETS is introduced, should petrol be excluded given the soaring price of oil? Should seriously affected business be compensated? Should low-income-earners be compensated?

Does the divine gift of free will release God from all liability concerning human-induced suffering such as the Holocaust? Milton famously said in Paradise Lost that God made Man “Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.” If so, how can non-human-induced suffering such as the Boxing Day Tsunami be explained?

“China and Russia today blocked a US draft resolution in the UN Security Council that would have slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe over his disputed re-election.

The Chinese and Russian envoys joined their colleagues from South Africa, Libya and Vietnam in opposing the draft which would have imposed an assets freeze and a travel ban on Mugabe and 13 of his cronies, as well as an arms embargo. Indonesia abstained.”

Given the recent failure by the UN to condemn Rubert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, can the institution still profess moral authority?

In Islam, any depiction (let alone a derisive depiction) of Mohammad is blasphemous. The publication of the cartoons triggered a wave of violence across the Arab world in the course which Danish and other European buildings were attacked and set ablaze.

In Canada,  The Western Standard printed the cartoons and its publisher, Ezra Levant, was called before the Alberta Human Rights Commission following a complaint lodged by Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Click here to watch his scathing opening statement. The complaint by Soharwardy was later withdrawn but I understand that another complaint, by Edmonton Muslim Council, still stands.

Do you believe what Levant did was right? Should he be punished for it? Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech?