I’m still drowning in work down here, and will be doing so for at least another three weeks. The thread on children looks likely to happen probably around the second week of November. Sorry about the delay, but I know you’ll understand that feeding the family takes priority, and as a freelancer I have to accept contracts whenever they appear.
It’s a pity, because I would have liked to say a few things regarding today’s news that Australia has been successful in its bid against Finland and Luxembourg for one of the non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. It’s a rather ironic and somewhat embarrassing victory for the very provincial Gillard, as the bid was the brainchild of her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, and lobbied for strongly and ably by Rudd’s successor as Foreign Minister, Bob Carr. Both deserve this blog’s congratulations for their efforts; my country so often sends its troops into harm’s way as part of UN so-called “peacekeeping” missions, and frequently sees them return home in flag-draped coffins, that it’s entirely appropriate that we have a voice at the table of the body that makes the decision to employ violent solutions to intractable problems.
So in the meantime, I thought I’d give you all a small reading exercise, and get your feedback. David Flint is an Emeritus Professor of Law and one of Australia’s best-known conservative academics. He is also the head of the anti-republican group Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, which successfully advocated for a “no” vote in the Republican referendum in 1999. He has published extensively in the areas of law and the monarchy, and currently runs Crowned Republic, an education program in civics and history for high schools. Having spotted him back in April in the audience of James Delingpole’s Sydney lecture, I bookmarked his website for some future reading. Some people hearing him speak live have difficulty taking him seriously; his almost comically prissy demeanour leaves him open to a fair bit of homophobic vitriol. Yet behind the façade lies an undeniably astute mind.
One essay of his from the latter website is a very thought-provoking piece entitled Ten Principles of Freedom. I invite you all to have a read when you get a chance, and let me know whether you agree with his thesis: that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the sine qua non of the development of the institutions of constitutional liberalism in the Anglosphere.
I do want to address the individual points in this remarkable essay myself, and will be referring back to it in a few months’ time (touch wood) in a thread I have in the pipeline on the advisability of a Bill of Rights which is not directly incorporated into a Constitution (as it is in the United States). But that’s all the time I have to spare at the moment: duty calls.
Over to you.