This is why I like you: “Incidentally, that’s not shouting; it’s spelling it out.”

I’m sorry, your reasoning is muddled.
Democracy IS the rule of the majority, and if the majority elect Hitler then it IS a democratic decision.
That does not mean that a democracy will always arrive at the correct decision. It is just a decision that encapsulates the will of the majority of voters at that particular moment in time.

[Daphne – That is the narrow meaning of democracy: majority rule. Real democracy is concerned with justice, freedom and the rights of the individual. By definition, electing a fascist to bring in oppression and mass murder of minorities cannot be democratic. “(Socrates) offered us a way out of two powerful delusions: that we should always or never listen to the dictates of public opinion. To follow his example, we will best be rewarded if we strive instead to listen always to the dictates of reason.” – Alain de Botton, The Consolations of Philosophy]

@ Joe Borg

I think I have been making cogent arguments for the past three days. If you haven’t following, it’s not my fault, man!

Since you ask for them (and cannot look them up for yourself), here are some examples from the real world (as opposed to what? comics?):

1. Divorce introduced without referendum: England (Henry VIII) more than hundred years before 1688; Henry VIII beheaded two of his wives… but perhaps that’s just a morbid detail and has nothing to do with the attitude toward divorce…

2. Divorce introduced upon referendum: Ireland and Italy, in the 1970s.

Divorce with no referendum = early modern. Divorce with referendum = exquisitely modern.

Do you need more real world examples?

[Daphne – Go back to one of my earlier posts. ITALY DID NOT HOLD A REFERENDUM BEFORE LEGISLATING FOR DIVORCE. IRELAND ONLY HELD A REFERENDUM BECAUSE IT HAD TO: THE BAN ON DIVORCE WAS ‘ENTRENCHED’ IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE IRISH CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED ONLY BY REFERENDUM VOTE. THE REFERENDUM WAS HELD TO REMOVE THE BAN. NO CONSTITUTIONAL BAN, NO REFERENDUM. HENRY VIII DID NOT ‘INTRODUCE’ DIVORCE. HE CUT HIMSELF OFF FROM THE AUTHORITY OF ROME BUT CONTINUED TO THINK OF HIMSELF AS A CATHOLIC. THE BAN ON DIVORCE WAS AND STILL IS IMPOSED BY ROME. NOT BEING TIED TO THE AUTHORITY OF ROME, HE COULD DIVORCE. BRITAIN HAD DIVORCE MUCH EARLIER THAN HENRY VIII. IT WAS THE BAN ON DIVORCE WHICH WAS ‘NEW’ TO BRITAIN, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. BRITAIN HAD DIVORCE BECAUSE ROME HAD DIVORCE, AND IT FOUND ITSELF WITH A BAN ON DIVORCE FOR THE SAME REASON. ALSO, DIVORCE IN THOSE TIMES HAD RELEVANCE ONLY FOR THOSE WHO MADE STRATEGIC, DYNASTIC OR ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS MARRIAGES. THE VAST MASS OF THE POPULATION DIDN’T EVEN BOTHER WITH A RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE RITE. PURELY BY LIVING TOGETHER THEY WERE CONSIDERED ‘MARRIED’. THEY COULD GO AND COME AS THEY PLEASED, BUT THEY TENDED NOT TO DO SO BECAUSE PEOPLE MARRIED FOR PRAGMATIC REASONS AND CALCULATED THEIR ODDS. Incidentally, that’s not shouting; it’s spelling it out.]

Italy is the answer!

—

Ironically, Daphne, it seems that Europe is marching toward the post-Enlightenment.

PSI gave us a hint of this a couple of Sundays back, without telling us the consequences. I do not believe he does not know them: scholars have been writing about them for decades now…

“All I am saying is that civil rights should be introduced by a referendum.”

You can say what you want, but you have to back it up with some cogent arguments, preferably backed by some real world examples.

Too much of a good thing, Borg. Moderation is better.

I am not saying there should be a referendum for everything! Where did you get this notion from?

All I am saying is that civil rights should be introduced by a referendum.

Daphne, I feel for my people because, apart from being shackled by a belief system that’s visible (and heard) all over the place – meaning expressing any dissent is difficult because of blah, blah…they are also hindered by a serious lack of adequate vocabulary to express their feelings. I can imagine the pent up feelings, the knee-jerk outpourings, the lashing out at the least nothing……..it cannot go on!

Daphne, thanks for your comment. I’ve lived in London, the ‘evil’ city, for near to fifty years. There are Catholics of course, the odd evangelising columnist in the popular press, but other than that, people here seem to live their religious life personally and privately. The Italians are like that too.

In Malta religion is in your face too much. No doubt because of its size. Is it still the case of people being watched, never having privacy or freedom?

[Daphne – Yes, it’s terrible. Everyone knows your business, gossip is vile, endless tut-tutting and inventing of rumours, speculation, invention of ‘facts’ when there are no real ones to suit, spying, reporting of movements. It’s one of the reasons people here are under so much stress, without even really understanding why.]

All these are characteristics of small communities so it is inevitable. With church and state playing cat and mouse almost, with parliamentarians and the electorate often being held over a barrel.

We want Malta to be some kind of perfect model of Roman Catholicism.

I find it interesting that Spain allows gay marriages. And yet God won them the coveted World Cup (I hate football) instead of smiting them. When did the divine hand last reward Malta for its sanctity?

What I meant was: Gonzi wants to delegate this important decision to Joe Public, so then why not let the individual partners decide their own case?

My comment was ludicrously complicated. Let’s stop it here.

California is a good example of a stalled government because of the onerous requirement of approving changes to laws through referenda.