I actually think AOPA has managed this issue very well, at least so far as the relationship with the government and parliament is concerned. The approach they’re using is a much more sophisticated and efficient way to skin the cat.
Perhaps people wouldn’t object so much to strict liability, if they understood what it was. If their posts are anything to go by, LeadSled, C182 Drover and Bill Pike don’t actually understand what strict liability is.
LeadSled seems to think that strict liability means that there is no defence (see his recent post on the NAS thread.).
C182 Drover seems to think that strict liability means that the regulator has no discretion but to recommend prosecution for each and every breach (see his musing on AGACF, at the link above).
Bill Pike seems to think that strict liability means that:
If ATC give an instruction that is not obeyed, such as perhaps even a red light at an airport, not seeing the light is not a defence. Not hearing the overtransmitted radio call is probably an offence.
No wonder they object to it: they don’t understand what it is!