Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||Politics, 2001; 21(2):101-113||en|
|dc.description||The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com||en|
|dc.description.abstract||This article responds to recent cases of parliamentary speech which reflect the ascendancy of a totalising ‘mainstream’ approach to public discourse and a political leadership that may, at times, be overly attentive to the majority-rule dimension of democracy. These developments spark a more general discussion of the phenomenology of privileged parliamentary speech, the role of speech freedoms in liberal democratic orders and the duties of parliamentary representatives within them. I make two general conclusions. First, the ways in which we normally argue and think about free speech will not generally apply to the speech of parliamentarians because their speech rights cannot be universalised. Secondly, even if parliamentary speech could be treated as standard speech there would be no legitimate defence (from a liberal democratic point of view) for a strictly populist approach to its use since this could undermine the deliberative function of parliament and lead to the violation of other important liberal democratic principles.||en|
|dc.publisher||Blackwell Publishing Ltd.||en|
|dc.title||Australian democracy and priveleged parliamentary speech||en|
|dc.identifier.orcid||Hill, L. [0000-0002-9098-7800]||en|
|Appears in Collections:||Politics publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.