Let us define them
Lawyers are masters of language, with the result that disputing the meanings of words can occupy days of court time with deliberations that drastically alter the character of a suit and secure unexpected judgements.
Definitions are key to all understanding—they are a lot more than mere word play. This is shown in the pig-headed presentation of the Maori language to people who don’t understand it, causing confusion and resentment.
We would do well to assist our own audience to understand democracy, crucial as it is to an orderly society, without criticism. The sudden intervention of the word “co-governance”, which doesn’t appear in our principal dictionary and has no common understanding and (reprehensibly) isn’t defined by the blimmin’ Government, is a significant error that also causes confusion.
Anyone commenting on co-governance without knowing its meaning employs foggy thinking. Find it in an authoritative dictionary and ponder its meaning before arguing about it.
Discussion of the principles of democracy as the foundation of our law occurred well before the Magna Carta in 1215, so, probably about a thousand years ago. That sets a powerful precedent and it’s a stout argument against any trickery used to remove our democratic privileges. Like saying “democracy is overrated.” Or “it’s time democracy was superseded.” Huh?
A shared definition protects us all from foggy thinking.
I reject your phrase “our democratic privileges..” at it should read – our Democratic Rights which are inalienable regardless of political whims.
Sure, and I understand where you’re coming from, Lance. But it turns out that what we call inalienable is all too easily alienated. We’re up in arms now because we realised that proposed legislation brazenly alienates what is called our Democratic Rights by reducing the electoral balance that we thought was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights—legislation that we with many others are rejecting. What is called inalienable was stolen in the last US presidential election. May I suggest that the notion of privilege resounds more effectively and more humbly than the brazen cry of right?
By all means call it inalienable, and I will too, but not so much for its essential truth so much as its source in the Almighty, with its promise of endless awakening.