Sensible decision in the religious discrimination debate

October 20, 2006

Ms AzmisAisinh Azmi (pictured right), a teacher in the UK, has lost her claim of religious discrimination against her employer, the Headfield Church of England Junior School at Dewsbury, West Yorks. The Tribunal dismissed her claim of religious discrimination and harrasment but found for her on a claim of victimising her.

The school said pupils found it difficult to understand her during class. The amazing thing is that it had to moniter the situation to see whether that was the case. Try talking through mauslin and see for yourself. Of course there is a problem. What student doesn’t want to see his or her teacher.

What is amazing about this case is the hard line approach of the Labor minister who demanded she be sacked saying she was Headfield Church of England Junior School.”

French vote on Armenian genocide another blow for Free Speech

October 13, 2006

French frogYesterday French Senate has passed a law making it illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide. The events described as the Genocide revolved around the Turkish army’s actions against the Armenian population from 1915 onwards. I personally think the series of events from that time on during the First World War was genocide but not in the sense of the Nazis in the next war.

As usual with these feel good resolutions making a viewpoint illegal, however noxious, does nothing to stop the views existing and being expressed. From time to time the State does wear down the proponents of hate speech. David Irving, after years of litigation and prosecution, seems to have finally waved the white flag. But will that mean the holocaust deniers will give up. Of course not. It comes down to the hard yards of engaging in the debate wherever and whenever it appears.

In Australia there remains supporters of the “when in doubt” repress free speech with the nonsense of Phillip Ruddock’s ban on books and Pru Goward’s call for sexual vilification laws.

Centrelink snoopers breach privacy

August 23, 2006

It seems some centrelink staffers have copper instincts when it comes to databases – have a sneak peak and see whose doing what.  Seven hundred and ninety breaches involving, in one way or another, 585 employees over a 2 year period smacks of a cultural problem.  It is an outrageous breach of privacy and Centrelink seems to have done something about it according to today’s Age.  Sacking, demoting, fining and reprimanding workers who access a persons record without authorisation is a good start. But why isn’t it a criminal offence. Surely it is criminal behaviour.  The real problem with privacy protection in Australia is that those in breach, especially at the commonwealth level, rarely find themselves in the legal gun.  The Privacy Commissioner is a toothless tiger and government departments would rather keep any punishment at an administrative level. Information is power and sooner or later someone is going to again be tempted to trip over to a keyboard and tap away.  No smart operator wants to leave open the option for him/her or one of their colleagues doing a stretch for a moment of weakness or opportunism.  It is a terrible weakness in our privacy protections. 

Visiting officers Association case

July 10, 2006

In another brilliant career move the Clarke strikes fear into the hearts of the Visiting officers Association:

 Download the VMO case 

 

AFL, homophobia and privacy

June 29, 2006

Always trust the AFL to grab a significant principle or concept, work it through the boofheadometer and come out with a complete misunderstanding of the issues.  The AFL Players Association gets its knickers in a knot over images of footballes on a gay footy site.  The issue is privacy they say.  What tosh!

Where did the photos come from?  I bet they were either in the public domain or commercially availble.  So the issue is copyright infringement.  The Sydney Morning Herald covers the story and quotes the absolute crap that the Association spits out that it would have done the same thing if it had been a hetero site.  Nonsense.

What really stands out is the total misunderstanding, wilful or otherwise, of what constitutes the “privacy”.  It seems to be the catchall phrase when nothing else easily fits. 

 

 

Old Glory doesn’t need protecting

June 28, 2006

Thank goodness the US Senate has applied some of its legendary smarts and failed to ratify the “flag burning” amendment to the US Constitution.  Though just.  The New York Times reports it fell just one short of the 2/3 majority.  Whew!  A bit too close comrades.  Even so if the vote had gone to the states there is no guarantee that it would have got the required 38 states to ratify the amendment to the constitution. 

There is a passing relevance for Australia because our Bronnie of Bishop fame has taken up the conservative cudgels and wants to ban flag burning and other sorts of naughtiness in her Protection of the Australian National Flag (Desecration of the Flag) Bill 2006.  What a load of tosh it is too.  Here it is in all its glory.

 

 

A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act

1995 to prevent the destruction or desecration of

 

the Australian National Flag

 

The Parliament of Australia enacts:

1 Short title

 

This Act may be cited as the Protection of the Australian National

 

Flag (Desecration of the Flag) Act 2006

 

2 Commencement

 

This Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal  Assent.

 

2 Protection of the Australian National Flag (Desecration of the Flag) Bill 2006

 

3 Schedule(s)

2

ach Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or

repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule  concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect  according to its terms.

Protection of the Australian National Flag (Desecration of the Flag) Bill 2006 3

 

 

Schedule 1—Amendment of the Criminal Code  Act 1995

 

1. After section 132.9

 

Insert:

 

Desecration of the Australian National Flag

 

132.10 (1)A person who desecrates the Australian National Flag by wilfully  destroying or otherwise mutilating the Australian National Flag in circumstances where a reasonable person would infer that the destruction or mutilation is intended publicly to express contempt or disrespect for the Flag or  the Australian Nation shall be guilty of an offence.

 

Penalty: 100 penalty units or six months imprisonment

 

(2) In subsection (1) the Australian National Flag is as provided in the  Flags Act 1953.

A truly dopey piece of legislation that deserves to languish in the bowels of the Australian Parliamentary building. 

 

 

Barrister’s out of the nest – MacIntosh and his big mouth

April 10, 2006

Andrew “Porky” MacIntosh, member for Kew and previous emminent counsel of the Victorian Bar has been a fairly lacklustre shadow attorney general.  That is a pity because if anyone of the Victorian Government ministers needed a real tagger it was Hulls, our current loudmouth turpintine Attorney General. 

So what’s the drama that inspires me to write a thing or two about our otherwise lackadaisical member of the legislative assembly.  It’s down to Moe and Andy’s big mouth.  It all started on 5 April during an otherwise non descript debate in the Assembly. 

Mr McIntosh interjected. …..

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Delahunty) — Order! The member for Narracan and the member for Kew will direct their comments through the Chair.

Mr MAXFIELD — I do not know if Hansard got that interjection, but I take absolute offence at that comment. The people in Moe are some of the most decent, hardworking people you will ever see in your entire life. That attitude to Moe is typical of the Liberal Party, which slashed workers entitlements and conditions, privatised public utilities and treated the people of the Latrobe Valley with absolute contempt.

Mr McIntosh — You, you!

Mr MAXFIELD — The comments made in this chamber today highlight how out of touch they are with decent people in this state.

Mr McIntosh — You, you!

Mr MAXFIELD — It is a sad day when the Liberal Party takes action against the workers in the way it has. We have also seen workers being sacked. A worker in my electorate was sacked last week because, he was told, his arms were too short. That is typical of what the Liberal Party in this country has come to. The Liberals are allowing open slather in their endeavours to look after the wealthy and big business, without having any regard for the needs of working people in our community. What is wrong with a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? I have always believed in that.

The allegation made was that MacIntosh had yelled across the chambers that Moe stands for “moccas on everyone.”  Not the first time that has been said and in part deserved.  Moe has a reputation for boagin wear that gives Broadmeadows and Melton a run for their money.  But for a politician to be so damn dumb is amazing.  Of course Maxfield grabbed the ball and ran with it and kicked a goal/scored a try and just plain kicked political butt.  By the next day MacIntosh was in damage control, not that the Liberal Party would come even close to winning a seat incorporating Moe, and put in a persona explanation:

  •  Mr McINTOSH (Kew) — Yesterday during the grievance debate I interjected while the member for Narracan was making a contribution. In order to correct the record, I called the member for Narracan ‘The moccasin from Moe’. I repeated this interjection on one or two further occasions during the member’s contribution. My interjection was not, nor was it intended to be, a reflection on the city of Moe, the people of Moe or indeed the electorate of Narracan. My interjection was solely a reflection on the honourable member.

Yeah right, that did the trick.  In the great tradition of flogging a dead horse Maxfield, the member for Narracan called for MacIntosh to be disciplined.  Now things just got plain stupid. 

It would be nice if MacIntosh actually came to grips with an Attorney General that is all about style and doesn’t have much in the way of substance going for him.  Then again if he has not real opposition he can do pretty much as he pleases.

Stupid things that should never be said

March 25, 2006

Hopefully this is a case of really bad reporting.  The Age reports a Supreme Court justice, Young, as saying:

“unwelcome” displays of flesh can be unsettling — especially when the offenders are well built.

There has been virtually no problem with male solicitors, who invariably wear jacket, tie and long trousers.

“However, it is clear that some female solicitors have no idea of appropriate court dress. The worst offenders are usually well-built women who expose at least the upper halves of their breasts, and as they lean forward to make a point to a judge sitting at a high level they present a most unwelcome display of bare flesh.

“A judge does not want to embarrass a woman who simply does not know how to behave properly in court … but it would be handy if the senior partners in law firms took precautions to see that members of their team were appropriately dressed for court.”

COME ON! This report is taken from an article in the Australian Law Journal.  There is no way a journo would have been poring through that exciting periodical and settling upon this article.  There was a tip off and in goes the fourth estate.  And why not. It is a commment that sounds archaic and partenalistic. 

Any decent counsel or solicitor would know that making yourself an issue with a judge is a guaranteed way of copping a thumping.  The Bar rules require wearing appropriate attire.  Why have a judge waffle on.  It gives those with agendas an easy mark.

 

What happens when a judge doesn’t measure up

The Australian and the Age are running a story about Federal Magistrate who has stood aside for, on the face of it, a fairly damning case of plagiarism. They are virtually salivating over it. A sign of the times.

Judges meeting a sticky end happen occasionally but when compared to the number who serve for years and retire without incident is a  miniscule minority.  There will always be cases of personal foibles such New South Wales Supreme Court Judge Jeff Shaw’s collecting a car when tired as a newt, or failing to file a tax return and being prosecuted for it, as happened to Victorian County Court Judge Kent in 2001.  The consequences are almost always more severe than are visited on John Q Public.  Sometimes they are quite draconian outcomes.  They almost invariably walk the plank before being pushed by the Parliament.  There are those very rare cases of judicial officers living in the grey areas, as happened with Justice Yeldham and his high risk, as far as representing the human face of the judicial process, lifestyle and the the New South Wales Chief Stipendary Magistrate Murray Farquahar who ended up a convicted felon .  That is less understandable or forgivable.  Yeldham suicided when subpoenaed to appear at the Wood Royal Commission. Farquahar served time and then The Queensland judge Anthony Vasta was removed in 1989 in the wash up from the Fitzgeral Royal Commission in Queensland.  There was more than a touch of political payback there by the incoming Labor Government . 

Non performing judges and other judicial officers are exceptinally rare occurences. We are served well by our judges.  But given the place they occupy on the public landscape when they fall over, when they fall over the sound reverberates.  The front pages of the newspapers go into overdrive and put judges front and centre in the political debate.  Often it is overkill but sometimes it highlights some of the problems practitioners feel.  Delay is front and centre for litigants and lawyers.  One of the worst example for me, as a practitioner, was that of Vince Bruce, a New South Wales Supreme Court judge, took 2 years to write a judgement in the Copper IUD class action.  That delay was apparently symptomatic of the manner in which he handled cases.  He cited illness and had an utterly cringe-worthy interview on 60 minutes to save his job.  There are plenty enough delays in litigation, with its associated costs, to give plenty of grist for the Australian’s mill (read complete ideological obsession) about the process without this sort of nonsense. Delays are the curse of our system and there is plenty of room for improvement. 

Today’s report in the Age Federal Magistrate Rimmer standing down because of serious delay and, a new one for me, plagiarism is serious.  Unfortunately there is no guarantee when appointing a person to judicial office to know how the appointment will turn out.  Almost invariably judges live up to expectations, often exceeding them.  Making sense of what Parliaments claim to be legislation sometimes takes the wisdom of the ages.  Conservative commentators like Janet Albrechtson whinge about judicial activism but there is no alternative. 

The bigger problem, from my end of the bar table, is when judges become bored, tired or just plain grumpy.  That can lead to a slippage in quality.  It also gives plenty of work for Court of Appeal.   The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision this month in VCP Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v J McCubbin & Sons Pty Ltd & Ors highlights the frustration of dealing with sub standard decision making.  It is not often you get Appeals judges letting loose as they did here.  It didn’t involve swearing but it wasn’t far off it, in legal speak at least.  Sounds like they had good cause to be annoyed.  Not the County Court’s finest hour.

So what to do.  The Law Report did one of its usual talkfest in 2001 in the wake of Judge Kent’s resignation with the usual suspects including that media commentator/tart George Williams (who occasionally makes sense – when he moves away from base polemics masquerading as legal analysis) waxing lyrical about judicial commissions and Victorian Attorney General Hulls talking about establishing a transparent process of investigating complaints.  Nothing much happened.  Justice Kirby waxed lyrical about it in his lecture about the issues, the balancing act and the options in his paper titled  Judicial accountability.  Removing a judge is about as hard as it gets.  And so it should.  It traditionally involved bringing him or her to the bar of the Parliament. Now judicial commissions are all the rage.  It should always be very difficult to remove a judge.  Given the legislatures desire to ride rough shod over civil liberties thathave developed over hundreds of years having a fearless and independent judiciary is vital.  Just look at the wimpishness of the Commonwealth AAT in authorising wiretaps by the bushel load to see the difference in attitude between independent judicial officers and those holding fixed term appointments. 

Then again there should be some form of resolving a problem beyond two options, quarantining the judge and hoping a retirement is in the offing or removing him or her. Its hardly ever an issue of honesty or criminality.  The real problem is how the courts handle judges who are dissatisfied, bored or not managing the huge workload.  In the public service, where sacking is still next to impossible, people who don’t perform are given “special projects”.  The worker is given next to nothing to do and hopefully he or she will get frustrated and walk.  It almost always works.  People generally want to do something useful.  Boredom is a killer.  Tight budgets and full lists make that option less appealing for Chief Judges and Justices when dealing with their bretheren.  Why not give an unhappy judge an out, either a long sabbatical or some means of returning to another life, even if temporarily, if they so chose. Recharging the batteries and a bit of think time can only help.  There is some limited study leave and sabbaticals but hardly deals with the issue.

Given the ridiculous obsession of the Australian in hunting down any foible in the legal system it would be good if a range of options were available.

A matter of watch this space methinks.

 

 

Contrast in shoe horning flacks out of safe seats

GeorgiouPetro Georgiou has had a remarkably undistinguished Parliamentary career, even by the slothful standards of backbenchers in a dominant goverment.  Georgiou’s achievements are not nearly as great as has been heralded.  The treatment of asylum seekers was becoming a hot button issue and the “doctors’s wives” were donning war paint well before Petro the pouter became a darling of the black clad ABC commentariat.  His hellenic cousin, Sophie Panopoulos has been spruiking up hill and down dale in conservative quarters, sometimes saying sensible things in committee and setting herself up for a junior ministerial gig in a last term Liberal Government.

The tilt by Frydenburg gives an insight into how the Liberal “factions” do their thing.  None of this organised branch stacking.  That’s a NSW thing for the Liberals.  In Victoria it is a fight around personalities.  This fight is a proxy fight between patricians.  Its fair enough to see malcontent Fraser backing his old staffer; he needs to address his relevance depravation syndrome as he ponders the point of it all in 101 Collins Street.

Frydenburg looks good on paper (though spies from his campus days say he was “all hat no cattle” to use the Texan terminology) and Georgiou is shite in reality.  But in the battle between the blue bloods Frydenburg is history.  It will be fascinating to watch the line up of patricians tooing a froing.  Another 3 years of medicore representation.