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",
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
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.