FFS, can't you add the bloody link to your opening threads?

The judicial invention of freedom: A bridge too far?
http://www.spectator.com.au/2026/04/the-judicial-invention-of-freedom-a-bridge-too-far/

You took the time to type this:

(Source: David Flint, ‘ The judicial invention of freedom: A bridge too far?’, Spectator 18/4/26)

Do you actually believe 'you're way is the best way' because it's not.

I don't want to have to go googling for anything to find out what you're on about in an opening thread.

How To Copy And Paste Url Of Website
http://youtu.be/o1QX4dLm-5c

AC,

Well don't ‘go Googling’ if you don't want to. But, it doesn't seem to bother when do it in your own posts . We've been through that elsewhere.

Unless you are a Spectator subscriber, you can't open the article anyway.

As I said above, I want to point out things to people that they might not have access to, usually by reviewing an article written by someone else. I acknowledge the author as required by good manners and to avoid any possible accusation of plagiarism.

I don't claim to be good at it, but it is what professional reviewers do all the time.

Thanks again ttbn

Hi ttbn,

I'm not a Spectator subscriber, but I can still open and view the article.

Here's the last 3 paragraphs of it...

>>In my view, this is yet another reason to give one’s first preference to One Nation, a position argued here in the last election. It is expected that if the Albanese government is defeated in the next election, a government will emerge which is supported by the Liberals, Nationals, and One Nation. That does not mean they will all necessarily be in the government. One could be outside but refraining from joining a vote of No Confidence or supporting a denial of supply.

If a Coalition government of Liberals and Nationals emerged in that situation, One Nation could in negotiations insist on support for holding a referendum to incorporate CIRs into the constitution.

If that were passed, ‘value judgments’ could, as in Switzerland, be taken away from the High Court and returned to the ballot box. Only then would our infrastructure and our social order be protected from the caprice of a judicial elite.<<

"As I said above, I want to point out things to people that they might not have access to, usually by reviewing an article written by someone else. I acknowledge the author as required by good manners and to avoid any possible accusation of plagiarism."

Whenever anyone starts a thread, the FIRST thing I want to do is go look at the article referenced, to understand better the content and where threat starter is coming from.
Plagiarism? Who cares, it's perfectly fine to quote an article or to share an authors thoughts on a topic anyway.

Why don't you tell us about the pro's and con's of citizen-initiated referendums?
- Why is it good, and how will it all go wrong?

FYI, David Flint is pro-Israel, so the article is not unbiased.
Are these changes meant to benefit Aussies or Jews and the Israel lobby?

I don't support do-gooders approaching people at abortion clinics, that's not right, even if one is motivated to try and save the lives of the unborn and that's the morally right thing to do.
(You can't assume to know a strangers circumstances and it's not necessarily a good thing to fill them with doubt and guilt prior to a 'medical procedure', if one can call it that)

Do I think that people should be allowed to block streets?
- No, not to protest and not to pray, and why?
Because some poor innocent persons family member could be dying in an ambulance being held up in the traffic, meaning 'The end's DO NOT justify the means'.
A person may be defending Palestinian lives, and that's not a bad thing in itself - but you can't do it at the potential expense of harming some other innocent person.