Originally Posted by
psycho joe
Im arguing for democracy. If you'll recall the federal government was democratically voted into government. They should be allowed to govern. They went to the election with the plebiscite and they have a mandate. Alan Joyce, didn't win an election, he has no mandate. His views represent his own and in a plebiscite his vote equals one.
That's democracy.
On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.
I fail to see how supporting social issues is undemocratic. I agree, ultimately, the issue of marriage equality is for the Parliament. Although it is for the Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage, that does not mean that individuals should not be able to express a view on the subject. in fact, although Australia does not have a bill of rights within its Constitution, the High Court has found that the Constitution has an implied right to political expression. So, your view that Joyce should not express a political view as he is not elected to government is completely misguided.
Moreover, even if there is a plebiscite, Members of Parliament and Senators will not be bound by the result. So, if an MP states that they were elected on their anti-gay marriage stance and their electorate is against the proposal, yet the plebiscite shows a majority in favour of SSM, how should they vote? Democracy is an easy term to throw around, but it is not a simple concept. Is a democracy a system that listens to the majority in all circumstances, or is a democracy a system that respects the rights of all, including minorities?
Regardless, lobbying and publicly presenting a political opinion is central to democracy and protected by our Constitution.