The Wrongs of a Bill of Rights
(from The Wrongs of Pushing a Bill of Rights, by Alan Anderson, 4 Jan 2006)
The ancient Chinese curse seems to have been visited upon Australia: “May you live in interesting times.”
It is interesting to see that the concept of a Bill of Rights, -- to protect the rights of citizens against the actions and laws of government, including the judiciary --, is quickly seen as a threat to the powers and rights of the judiciary.
The threat is obvious; and intentional in a mature western culture.
For a government to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, the People must have rights that supersede an authority of government.
Independent Judiciary
In every system of western government, an independent judiciary is considered invaluable. The most often-cited source is the Magna Carta, which established an independent magistracy to balance against the unseemly influence of the King.
As the influence of Royalty has waned somewhat down through the centuries, the problem of judicial oversight has been resolved in various fashions, such as electing judges or limiting tenure. Neither of which is in place in Australia.
In Australia
Australia seems to be gob-struck with the power of the King when it comes to judicial oversight.
In the current Australian system, no serving government oversees the actions of the judiciary directly.
This can be argued by citing charters, but anyone who seeks to report the illegitimate actions of a judge or magistrate will soon be sent on a wild goose chase through Ombudsmen, only to end up back at the Justice Department – where they will be told that the Justice Department cannot intercede in the actions of a magistrate or judge! (I have a couple of letters in a file that state this fact clearly. One from Rob Hulls’ Victorian Justice Department; another from Philip Ruddock’s office.)
There are, of course, state and federal Judicial Oversight Committees, Judicial Advisory Committees, and a few Judicial Reform Committees made up of judges, lawyers, and magistrates who have made their livelihoods and fortunes in the system. They have a vested interest in avoiding reform.
In more common terms: an “Ole Boys’ Club”.
A plea to a Judicial Oversight Committee will quickly be answered by a letter demanding sufficient proof of any wrong doing. Only a trained lawyer could provide such proof; so the complaint is disdainfully dismissed.
The same is true for a complaint to the Judicial Advisory Committees, but there they will declare their impotency as only an advisory committee.
From the work product of the Victorian Judicial Reform Committee, you can only conclude that this was intended as a resume entry for the committee members – and maybe a little extra salary. The recommendations of the Committee are not binding on anyone.
It’s apparent that the Committee members came to understand the nature of their work. At least one major section of the Committee’s recommendations do not even refer to Australia. The whole section is copied from a report produced in the state of Georgia, USA.
A magistrate may take whatever rights s/he chooses from anyone under Australia jurisdiction at any time, including the right to life and property.
It’s all in the interpretation of the law. And that is the function of a judiciary: to interpret the law.
Judicial Appointments
Judicial appointments have long been seen by political leaders as a means to influence the application of the law long past their popularity or political tenure.
In a system where the citizens’ rights are guaranteed against the misappropriation of judicial power and there is effective oversight, this can be seen as a legitimate exercise in the checks and balances of government.
Activist Court
Without those checks and balances in place, a sufficient number of appointments can prejudice the law until all of the appointees reach the retirement age of 70.
This is an “Activist Court” – a mild sounding term for one of the true evils available in a democratic or republican system --, which is the way dictatorships maintain themselves.
The appointees are chosen for a particular view or interpretation of the law.
If that “interpretation” is really a prejudice against a segment of the society. The Activist Courts in the American South promulgated decisions and precedents that can only be interpreted as perversions of the spirit of the laws, if not often the word of law – indeed, the spirit of the nation.
Nixon and Mitchell == Bracks and Hulls?
John Mitchell was Richard Nixon’s Attorney General. Like Mr Hulls, Mitchell was a political hit man, or “political hack” (in aussie terms).
Nixon had a squeaky clean national reputation. He was a Quaker. His conservative views were well-known, but his political reputation was well-earned.
Mitchell was forced from office as the Watergate scandal unfolded. He had been implicated in hiring and training the Watergate burglars who broke into the Democratic National Committee offices to steal documents and plant bugs.
In the trials that ensued, John Mitchell went to jail for more than two years.
Nixon was forced to resign the Presidency of the United States.
One thing that was very clear by the end of the trials was that John Mitchell never understood what the United States stood for. He was chosen for Attorney General because he would do anything and everything to support Richard Nixon.
As the stories unfold about Mr Hulls, he seems to be an Attorney General of the same ilk His Justice Department seems to be relatively uninterested in the rights and affairs of the people in Victoria. And, like Mitchell, he seems a strange choice for Attorney General.
He, like Nixon towards Mitchell, is highly regarded by Mr Bracks, not so much for his ideals and standards, but for his political loyalty.
Mr Hulls seems to have set on a course to establish an activist court in Victoria, basing his most significant appointments not on experience or ability, but on a resume committed to feminism. In fact, radical feminism, that element of feminism driven by a lust for power and fuelled by generating fear in most women.
As Andrew Bolt noted in the Herald Sun, in “The Judicial Puppeteer”:
(I don't agree with Bolt's characterizaton of "Red Rob". Frankly, I don't think Rob Hulls has any political philosophy other than Steve Bracks.--PD)
As he did in the Gaming Commission, Mr Hulls is trying to gain the approval of the few at the expense of the principles of the nation. (Some of the comments that resulted from that article are .. interesting.) Anything that will gain support for Mr Bracks.
For some reason, Mr Hulls and Mr Bracks seem to think that the Radical Feminists, whose political agenda is driven by the ideals of Victim Feminism, (see Victim Feminism: An Injustice System)can deliver the women’s vote. In reality, that can only be done by perpetuating disinformation campaign which seeks to instil fear in all women.
I sincerely doubt Feminists or feminism speaks for the majority of Australian women. When the women of Australia realize that they don’t want to be Victims and are tired of living in fear, there will be a fearsome reversal.
In Australia
Free from the constraints of rights and oversight, appointees may interpret the law any way they choose, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Despite being a signatory to a number of international civil and human rights charters, and having cast a supporting vote to others, Australia does not see that its citizens need any such checks and balances.
Hence, any law may be passed that curtails human and civil rights, including the right to freedom of movement and association, even the right to live, at any time based on any criteria. If you question that statement, think of the Anti Terrorism Laws.
The UK and US have already mounted successful challenges to the most egregious aspects of such laws, and limited them either by removal or forcing a time limit on them. These challenges have been brought based on civil rights guaranteed to the citizens of those countries. – Rights nowhere guaranteed to the citizens of Australia.
What is clear is in these tumultuous times, like never before, the citizens of Australia need a national Bill of Rights.
The reaction of the judiciary and its apologists illustrate daily and clearly that the Lucky Country needs a Bill of Rights as much as it needs standardization of the Rules of Evidence, and effective oversight of the actions of the judiciary.
The decisions of an activist court such as Mr Hulls is setting up must be subject to adjustments based on the principles of western law. Active, real oversight is a necessity.
In fact, if these activist judges succeed in their attempts to rewrite the word and reverse the spirit of the law, they should be removed summarily.
A friend looked over my shoulder as I was writing this and said, “Where are you getting all this stuff? We never saw anything like that in Australian schools.”
I answered: “Most of it comes from 5th grade civics classes, required in public schools in the US.”
Paul Donley
Professor George Williams, Australia's leading bill of rights advocate and chairman of the Bracks Government's sham inquiry into the topic, has made no secret of the ultimate goal: a binding Australian bill of rights. Simultaneously, we have heard calls from Williams and federal shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon for reform of the judicial appointment process.
The intention of these campaigners is plain: the implementation by judicial fiat of a policy agenda that runs contrary to the beliefs of most Australians, giving left-wing judges power to condemn from the bench, or even overrule, the policy decisions of elected representatives. It is frustration with the perceived conservatism of the Australian electorate that is the true wellspring of the push for express rights.
The ancient Chinese curse seems to have been visited upon Australia: “May you live in interesting times.”
It is interesting to see that the concept of a Bill of Rights, -- to protect the rights of citizens against the actions and laws of government, including the judiciary --, is quickly seen as a threat to the powers and rights of the judiciary.
The threat is obvious; and intentional in a mature western culture.
For a government to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, the People must have rights that supersede an authority of government.
Independent Judiciary
In every system of western government, an independent judiciary is considered invaluable. The most often-cited source is the Magna Carta, which established an independent magistracy to balance against the unseemly influence of the King.
As the influence of Royalty has waned somewhat down through the centuries, the problem of judicial oversight has been resolved in various fashions, such as electing judges or limiting tenure. Neither of which is in place in Australia.
In Australia
Australia seems to be gob-struck with the power of the King when it comes to judicial oversight.
In the current Australian system, no serving government oversees the actions of the judiciary directly.
This can be argued by citing charters, but anyone who seeks to report the illegitimate actions of a judge or magistrate will soon be sent on a wild goose chase through Ombudsmen, only to end up back at the Justice Department – where they will be told that the Justice Department cannot intercede in the actions of a magistrate or judge! (I have a couple of letters in a file that state this fact clearly. One from Rob Hulls’ Victorian Justice Department; another from Philip Ruddock’s office.)
There are, of course, state and federal Judicial Oversight Committees, Judicial Advisory Committees, and a few Judicial Reform Committees made up of judges, lawyers, and magistrates who have made their livelihoods and fortunes in the system. They have a vested interest in avoiding reform.
In more common terms: an “Ole Boys’ Club”.
A plea to a Judicial Oversight Committee will quickly be answered by a letter demanding sufficient proof of any wrong doing. Only a trained lawyer could provide such proof; so the complaint is disdainfully dismissed.
The same is true for a complaint to the Judicial Advisory Committees, but there they will declare their impotency as only an advisory committee.
From the work product of the Victorian Judicial Reform Committee, you can only conclude that this was intended as a resume entry for the committee members – and maybe a little extra salary. The recommendations of the Committee are not binding on anyone.
It’s apparent that the Committee members came to understand the nature of their work. At least one major section of the Committee’s recommendations do not even refer to Australia. The whole section is copied from a report produced in the state of Georgia, USA.
A magistrate may take whatever rights s/he chooses from anyone under Australia jurisdiction at any time, including the right to life and property.
It’s all in the interpretation of the law. And that is the function of a judiciary: to interpret the law.
Judicial Appointments
Judicial appointments have long been seen by political leaders as a means to influence the application of the law long past their popularity or political tenure.
In a system where the citizens’ rights are guaranteed against the misappropriation of judicial power and there is effective oversight, this can be seen as a legitimate exercise in the checks and balances of government.
Activist Court
Without those checks and balances in place, a sufficient number of appointments can prejudice the law until all of the appointees reach the retirement age of 70.
This is an “Activist Court” – a mild sounding term for one of the true evils available in a democratic or republican system --, which is the way dictatorships maintain themselves.
The appointees are chosen for a particular view or interpretation of the law.
If that “interpretation” is really a prejudice against a segment of the society. The Activist Courts in the American South promulgated decisions and precedents that can only be interpreted as perversions of the spirit of the laws, if not often the word of law – indeed, the spirit of the nation.
Nixon and Mitchell == Bracks and Hulls?
John Mitchell was Richard Nixon’s Attorney General. Like Mr Hulls, Mitchell was a political hit man, or “political hack” (in aussie terms).
Nixon had a squeaky clean national reputation. He was a Quaker. His conservative views were well-known, but his political reputation was well-earned.
Mitchell was forced from office as the Watergate scandal unfolded. He had been implicated in hiring and training the Watergate burglars who broke into the Democratic National Committee offices to steal documents and plant bugs.
In the trials that ensued, John Mitchell went to jail for more than two years.
Nixon was forced to resign the Presidency of the United States.
One thing that was very clear by the end of the trials was that John Mitchell never understood what the United States stood for. He was chosen for Attorney General because he would do anything and everything to support Richard Nixon.
As the stories unfold about Mr Hulls, he seems to be an Attorney General of the same ilk His Justice Department seems to be relatively uninterested in the rights and affairs of the people in Victoria. And, like Mitchell, he seems a strange choice for Attorney General.
He, like Nixon towards Mitchell, is highly regarded by Mr Bracks, not so much for his ideals and standards, but for his political loyalty.
Mr Hulls seems to have set on a course to establish an activist court in Victoria, basing his most significant appointments not on experience or ability, but on a resume committed to feminism. In fact, radical feminism, that element of feminism driven by a lust for power and fuelled by generating fear in most women.
As Andrew Bolt noted in the Herald Sun, in “The Judicial Puppeteer”:
Order! I find you all guilty of stupidity. You are hereby sentenced to six months in Red Rob's Re-education College to learn what he really has in store with this week's announcement.
No, he doesn't much want judges to be "in touch" with you or with hang-'em-high victims groups.
He wants them instead to be more in touch with him.
This is, in fact, yet another step in Hulls' campaign to pack our courts with judges who are activists -- and intimidate the ones who aren't.
(I don't agree with Bolt's characterizaton of "Red Rob". Frankly, I don't think Rob Hulls has any political philosophy other than Steve Bracks.--PD)
As he did in the Gaming Commission, Mr Hulls is trying to gain the approval of the few at the expense of the principles of the nation. (Some of the comments that resulted from that article are .. interesting.) Anything that will gain support for Mr Bracks.
For some reason, Mr Hulls and Mr Bracks seem to think that the Radical Feminists, whose political agenda is driven by the ideals of Victim Feminism, (see Victim Feminism: An Injustice System)can deliver the women’s vote. In reality, that can only be done by perpetuating disinformation campaign which seeks to instil fear in all women.
I sincerely doubt Feminists or feminism speaks for the majority of Australian women. When the women of Australia realize that they don’t want to be Victims and are tired of living in fear, there will be a fearsome reversal.
In Australia
Free from the constraints of rights and oversight, appointees may interpret the law any way they choose, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Despite being a signatory to a number of international civil and human rights charters, and having cast a supporting vote to others, Australia does not see that its citizens need any such checks and balances.
Hence, any law may be passed that curtails human and civil rights, including the right to freedom of movement and association, even the right to live, at any time based on any criteria. If you question that statement, think of the Anti Terrorism Laws.
The UK and US have already mounted successful challenges to the most egregious aspects of such laws, and limited them either by removal or forcing a time limit on them. These challenges have been brought based on civil rights guaranteed to the citizens of those countries. – Rights nowhere guaranteed to the citizens of Australia.
What is clear is in these tumultuous times, like never before, the citizens of Australia need a national Bill of Rights.
The reaction of the judiciary and its apologists illustrate daily and clearly that the Lucky Country needs a Bill of Rights as much as it needs standardization of the Rules of Evidence, and effective oversight of the actions of the judiciary.
The decisions of an activist court such as Mr Hulls is setting up must be subject to adjustments based on the principles of western law. Active, real oversight is a necessity.
In fact, if these activist judges succeed in their attempts to rewrite the word and reverse the spirit of the law, they should be removed summarily.
A friend looked over my shoulder as I was writing this and said, “Where are you getting all this stuff? We never saw anything like that in Australian schools.”
I answered: “Most of it comes from 5th grade civics classes, required in public schools in the US.”
Paul Donley
posted by Unknown at
11:18 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home