It seems to have a new meaning these days.
Compulsory voting immediately raises turnout and in so doing goes some way to remedying the ills of unequal turnout. It promotes and enhances rather than diminishes the right to vote
I don't see how anyone's rights can be enhanced by the state compelling people to participate in a process they have no desire to participate in. How can it be a right to participate if I have no choice? Sounds more like an obligation to me.
If people don't want to vote, we should ask why that is, and find ways to encourage them to get involved (yes, I know, this will be difficult). It's up to our politicians to promote policies and behaviours that make people want to participate.
Some of our politicians and political parties are so dreadful that it's no wonder so many people don't bother voting.
Pete George seems to spend a goodly portion of every working day commenting on various sites about how terrible/evil/awful/unfair The Standard is. I fear he may have found a new venue for his obsession.
Nation isn’t available yet, so what did Slater say that contradicted that?
The interview is here.
Brilliant news. I'm glad you'll be back on the telly.
How does that usually work? My understanding was that the truth defence was quite hard to beat, that the plaintiff had to actually prove the statements were untrue, which can be quite difficult.
It's actually the other way round. If a defendant wants to claim truth as a defence then the onus is on the defendant to prove that what was said was true, or not materially different from the truth. This isn't always easy to do.
If he does, it's an extremely low bar, rendering the s68 of the Evidence Act almost pointless. It might as well read "You're allowed to defame people on the internet, period".
Although journalists and their publications are not infrequently sued for defamation. Even if the court on appeal decides that Slater is a journalist, he may still end up losing the defamation action.
I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.
Can you give me an example of an acceptable proof?
No, I'm not a defence lawyer, but my understanding of defences is that they have to be proven on a balanced of probabilities. Someone will correct me if this isn't right, as my law school days were many decades ago. Balance of probabilities means more probable than not, meaning if the evidence is inconclusive the defendant probably won't make out the defence.
How would you show that, if no one else will testify?
For example, if the accused goes onto Facebook and boasts about sleeping with a 14 year old, it would be hard for them to then claim they thought the victim was old enough to consent. Or if the victim just didn't look 16 years old, a jury might decide that the accused is just a liar. In those circumstances I don't know that you would need the victim to say "he never asked me how old I was".
So if they get all of the people who were there to say the same story, which involves the girl making claims, producing a fake ID, and then flirting with them and taking her clothes off, what evidence is there against? It becomes a number of words against no words.
In that case the prosecution would probably take steps to rebut the defence, e.g. by showing that the defendant and witnesses were lying. The point though, is that the defendant has to actually prove that steps were taken.