Peter A Clarke

Massachusetts health officials have decided to publicize the patient death rates for individual heart surgeons, the first time the state will release information on the quality of care provided by individual doctors –not just by hospitals and physicians’ groups .  About time. 

Remember, remember the fifth of the November

Gunpowder, treason and plot.

I see no reason why gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot.

On midnight tonight 401 years ago the soldiers of the King of England caught Guy Fawkes about to set an eight hour fuse in a cellar under Westminster Abbey.  The Catholic plotters, wild eyed recusants, wanted to blow up King James 1, the parliament and virtually the entire elite of Protestant England on the morning Parliament was due to open.  The plotters were incompetent and comic. 

Those conspirators that weren’t killed in the immediate aftermath of the plot were tortured to extract confessions, tried for treason, found guilty and dragged on sleds to Old Palace Yard where they were hanged, drawn and quartered.  Their heads were stuck on pikes around the Tower. 

James 1 of England was a hideous and duplicitous king.  He ratted out the Catholics of England and played every end into the middle.  His departure, via an explosion (or any other way) shouldn’t have worried anyone interested in good government.  The act of destroying a government was an act of terrorism so can never be forgiven.  What really is amazing out of this is how James dined out on this event for the rest of his forgettable reign and used it to torment the Catholics of England.  It was spinning writ large. 

Aisinh 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.”

Yesterday 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.

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. 

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

 Download the VMO case 

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. 

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.

3 Schedule(s)

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.

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. 

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.

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.