| | When I read that article, I thought, "This is unambiguously good. Not even the anti-war brigade could rain on this parade." But somehow Fraser you managed to pick holes in it!
1. It doesn't show a rational backbone, just one particular policy that we agree with.
2. His argument is that if someone wants Sharia law, they should go to another country. This bears too much resemblance to the argument that if we don't like uncontrolled parliamentary democracy then we should leave the country.
My impression of Australian politics is that the remark is motivated by parochial nationalism rather than rationality.
It isn't "just" one particular policy. It is one particular policy that deals with the most important issue facing the world today. And the principle of the particular policy is utterly rational.
In your point (2), you seem to be suggesting that we should reject a particular method applied to a just cause because that method might one day be applied to an unjust cause. Sounds like a package deal to me. I take it to mean that you don't agree with the method in the first place, in which case your point (2) contradicts point (1). Not meaning to point score or anything, but you should just say so if you don't agree with the policy / principle / method / whatever.
Then your last point makes a generalisation against Australian politics rather than dealing with the specific remark that was made. I thought generalisations would be exactly the kind of thing you of all people would be opposed to...? ;-)
Tim
|
|
