Recent happenings involving Professor Gillian Triggs with her lies to the Senate has become too much and she must go...She has repeatedly lied to the Senate on more than one occasion and it is bewildering to many as to why she has not been asked to resign.....Her appointment by Julia Gillard (nuff said) terminates mud 2017.
Mike Kenny sums up Gillian Triggs with her bias.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/b553cb6c479a25dbbc956c1b985e91f3
From the cheap seats in our demo*cracy it looks like the people in the members’ enclosure are *operating under different rules. The publicly funded political *insiders are quick to denounce mainstream voters as racist, selfish, ignorant and angry yet they excuse their own dishonesty, promote their own hateful invective and seek to entrench their superiority.
And still they wonder at the rise of Pauline Hanson, Nick Xenophon and the like — populists who assume the mantle of political outsiders so they benefit from the same resentment towards the political class that fuels Donald Trump in the US and the UK Independence Party in Britain.
In three seemingly unrelated issues this week we could see how the political elites from the so-called progressive Left were operating under a different code; one far more forgiving than that *applied to conservative politicians or the rest of us. There was a typically jaundiced ABC Four Corners report on offshore processing; a defiant Australian Human Rights Commission president in Gillian Triggs *excused for repeatedly misleading parliamentary inquiries; and a Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, setting himself up as a legal oracle to the parliament and the nation. In each case the platform is provided by public money and authority. In each case the individuals are seeking to recast the policy of a democratically elected government. And in each case they claim to be serving a higher goal.
This indulgence — which we might describe as “one rule for them and another for the rest of us” — actually has deep philosophical roots in post-Marxist political activism. It is the belief that the standards expected by the mainstream represent a “repressive tolerance”, as it was dubbed by German-American political theorist Herbert Marcuse. To deliver their nirvana, the elites must rise above the “tyranny of the majority”, he argued, and play by their own rules. “Liberating *tolerance, then,” wrote Marcuse, “would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”
In May refugee activist Julian Burnside QC launched Offshore by Madeline Gleeson, a book attacking Australia’s border protection policies. Burnside suggested Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton should be indicted for crimes against humanity. He said it was incontestable that detention centres at Manus Island and Nauru were concentration camps.
In the audience were the *author’s grandfather, former chief justice of the High Court Gerard Brennan, and her father, Commonwealth Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson. Among Gleeson’s duties is arguing migration cases and defending legal challenges against commonwealth law for the government in the High Court.
Given these responsibilities, and notwithstanding the book was his daughter’s, Gleeson might have been wise not to attend a launch that was so wildly and openly antipathetic to the government’s policies, politics and personnel. Yet Canberra insiders say Gleeson has given the book to at least one senior *bureaucrat and possibly other senior judicial figures (the Solicitor-General’s office would not comment).
Gleeson is now in open political/bureaucratic warfare with his boss, Attorney-General George Brandis. Their dispute has played out publicly before a parliamentary committee. We have a complete breakdown of trust between the *Attorney-General and his official legal *adviser, the Solicitor-*General. Yet, of course, Gleeson remains in his role.
At the heart of this dispute is Gleeson’s inflated concept of his position. Under the act, his role is to “act as counsel” for the government and to “furnish his opinion” to the Attorney-General on *referred matters. In short, the *Solicitor-General is the government’s lawyer.
Yet Gleeson told the committee he would “take instructions from the government of the day but will also owe an ultimate duty to the Commonwealth of Australia and its people”. We, the people, might think the way to fulfil such a duty would be to take instructions from the government.
But Gleeson sees himself as far more autonomous and lofty than that. “I am not just an adviser to the government,” he testified. “Senator, my primary responsibility is to the commonwealth, to the Governor-General and to the parliament,” he explained later.
This is extraordinary. Remember, Gleeson revealed he spoke with Labor’s legal affairs spokesman, Mark Dreyfus, during the election campaign and didn’t tell the *Attorney-General.
As counsel for the government, Gleeson might defend laws in the High Court that were opposed by the opposition in parliament. Yet he contends he can fulfil a duty to the whole parliament rather than the government.
He seems to be trying to set himself up as a higher and independent authority on legal matters — like an auditor-general for legal affairs — when that is not his legislated role. Gleeson should back down but won’t. One rule for them and another for the rest of us.
The opening shot of Four Corners on Monday showed two refugee children on Nauru peering from behind cyclone fencing while the voiceover used the word *detention. Yet the program producers must have known that no children, or adults, have been held in detention on Nauru for more than a year.
The program used YouTube footage of brawling men, a few shots of the ugliest parts of the *island, pictures of decrepit facilities and interviews with refugees and teachers about untested claims of violence and abuse.
Four Corners didn’t mention that two journalists had visited Nauru in the past year (I was one of them), had interviewed refugees and their children, and reported problems and anguish but a more positive reality about conditions and treatment.
The ABC report mentioned *detention 14 times yet failed to make clear that no one had been held in detention on the island for more than a year. It also failed to mention or show new school and hospital facilities or show how many refugees were working and studying on the island.
In short, it was jaundiced and misleading, and deliberately so. It was part of the ABC’s continuing and longstanding campaign against offshore processing.
If there were any evidence that my reports from Nauru, or those of the Nine Network, were as misleading, we could imagine the ABC response. They could not fault them so they ignored them.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us.
When Triggs was confronted with her own outlandish comments — denigrating mainstream voters and their politicians in The Saturday Paper — in a parliamentary committee, her imme*diate response was to deny them. She claimed the quotes were *“inaccurate” or “put in by a sub*editor” or had been used “out of context”.
But when she was told the paper had a recording of her comments, she backed down and sought to “clarify” her evidence.
This is far from the first time she has been exposed for misleading a parliamentary inquiry. *Defending her 18-month delay in holding an inquiry into children in detention, Triggs denied discussing the issue with a Labor minister. After extended and excruciating cross-examination she revealed she had discussed the issue with two Labor immigration ministers.
Triggs also claimed to have seen armed guards at a detention centre and retracted her statement when challenged. And some of the many excuses she offered for *delaying her inquiry didn’t measure up against the facts.
Not only does Triggs remain in her job but her blunders and *apparent deceptions have not even been reported by the ABC, which usually is obsessed by border protection issues and often *reports Triggs’s condemnation of offshore processing. Triggs seems to have some unwritten arrangement with the ABC so it censors her mistakes and embarrassments.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us.
Triggs told The Saturday Paper that Australians “don’t even understand their own democratic system”. She underestimates the people who pay her large salary.
There is a false morality at play and mainstream voters are on to it. Little wonder the disconnect *between the elites and the voters grows deeper.
Mike Kenny sums up Gillian Triggs with her bias.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/b553cb6c479a25dbbc956c1b985e91f3
From the cheap seats in our demo*cracy it looks like the people in the members’ enclosure are *operating under different rules. The publicly funded political *insiders are quick to denounce mainstream voters as racist, selfish, ignorant and angry yet they excuse their own dishonesty, promote their own hateful invective and seek to entrench their superiority.
And still they wonder at the rise of Pauline Hanson, Nick Xenophon and the like — populists who assume the mantle of political outsiders so they benefit from the same resentment towards the political class that fuels Donald Trump in the US and the UK Independence Party in Britain.
In three seemingly unrelated issues this week we could see how the political elites from the so-called progressive Left were operating under a different code; one far more forgiving than that *applied to conservative politicians or the rest of us. There was a typically jaundiced ABC Four Corners report on offshore processing; a defiant Australian Human Rights Commission president in Gillian Triggs *excused for repeatedly misleading parliamentary inquiries; and a Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, setting himself up as a legal oracle to the parliament and the nation. In each case the platform is provided by public money and authority. In each case the individuals are seeking to recast the policy of a democratically elected government. And in each case they claim to be serving a higher goal.
This indulgence — which we might describe as “one rule for them and another for the rest of us” — actually has deep philosophical roots in post-Marxist political activism. It is the belief that the standards expected by the mainstream represent a “repressive tolerance”, as it was dubbed by German-American political theorist Herbert Marcuse. To deliver their nirvana, the elites must rise above the “tyranny of the majority”, he argued, and play by their own rules. “Liberating *tolerance, then,” wrote Marcuse, “would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”
In May refugee activist Julian Burnside QC launched Offshore by Madeline Gleeson, a book attacking Australia’s border protection policies. Burnside suggested Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton should be indicted for crimes against humanity. He said it was incontestable that detention centres at Manus Island and Nauru were concentration camps.
In the audience were the *author’s grandfather, former chief justice of the High Court Gerard Brennan, and her father, Commonwealth Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson. Among Gleeson’s duties is arguing migration cases and defending legal challenges against commonwealth law for the government in the High Court.
Given these responsibilities, and notwithstanding the book was his daughter’s, Gleeson might have been wise not to attend a launch that was so wildly and openly antipathetic to the government’s policies, politics and personnel. Yet Canberra insiders say Gleeson has given the book to at least one senior *bureaucrat and possibly other senior judicial figures (the Solicitor-General’s office would not comment).
Gleeson is now in open political/bureaucratic warfare with his boss, Attorney-General George Brandis. Their dispute has played out publicly before a parliamentary committee. We have a complete breakdown of trust between the *Attorney-General and his official legal *adviser, the Solicitor-*General. Yet, of course, Gleeson remains in his role.
At the heart of this dispute is Gleeson’s inflated concept of his position. Under the act, his role is to “act as counsel” for the government and to “furnish his opinion” to the Attorney-General on *referred matters. In short, the *Solicitor-General is the government’s lawyer.
Yet Gleeson told the committee he would “take instructions from the government of the day but will also owe an ultimate duty to the Commonwealth of Australia and its people”. We, the people, might think the way to fulfil such a duty would be to take instructions from the government.
But Gleeson sees himself as far more autonomous and lofty than that. “I am not just an adviser to the government,” he testified. “Senator, my primary responsibility is to the commonwealth, to the Governor-General and to the parliament,” he explained later.
This is extraordinary. Remember, Gleeson revealed he spoke with Labor’s legal affairs spokesman, Mark Dreyfus, during the election campaign and didn’t tell the *Attorney-General.
As counsel for the government, Gleeson might defend laws in the High Court that were opposed by the opposition in parliament. Yet he contends he can fulfil a duty to the whole parliament rather than the government.
He seems to be trying to set himself up as a higher and independent authority on legal matters — like an auditor-general for legal affairs — when that is not his legislated role. Gleeson should back down but won’t. One rule for them and another for the rest of us.
The opening shot of Four Corners on Monday showed two refugee children on Nauru peering from behind cyclone fencing while the voiceover used the word *detention. Yet the program producers must have known that no children, or adults, have been held in detention on Nauru for more than a year.
The program used YouTube footage of brawling men, a few shots of the ugliest parts of the *island, pictures of decrepit facilities and interviews with refugees and teachers about untested claims of violence and abuse.
Four Corners didn’t mention that two journalists had visited Nauru in the past year (I was one of them), had interviewed refugees and their children, and reported problems and anguish but a more positive reality about conditions and treatment.
The ABC report mentioned *detention 14 times yet failed to make clear that no one had been held in detention on the island for more than a year. It also failed to mention or show new school and hospital facilities or show how many refugees were working and studying on the island.
In short, it was jaundiced and misleading, and deliberately so. It was part of the ABC’s continuing and longstanding campaign against offshore processing.
If there were any evidence that my reports from Nauru, or those of the Nine Network, were as misleading, we could imagine the ABC response. They could not fault them so they ignored them.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us.
When Triggs was confronted with her own outlandish comments — denigrating mainstream voters and their politicians in The Saturday Paper — in a parliamentary committee, her imme*diate response was to deny them. She claimed the quotes were *“inaccurate” or “put in by a sub*editor” or had been used “out of context”.
But when she was told the paper had a recording of her comments, she backed down and sought to “clarify” her evidence.
This is far from the first time she has been exposed for misleading a parliamentary inquiry. *Defending her 18-month delay in holding an inquiry into children in detention, Triggs denied discussing the issue with a Labor minister. After extended and excruciating cross-examination she revealed she had discussed the issue with two Labor immigration ministers.
Triggs also claimed to have seen armed guards at a detention centre and retracted her statement when challenged. And some of the many excuses she offered for *delaying her inquiry didn’t measure up against the facts.
Not only does Triggs remain in her job but her blunders and *apparent deceptions have not even been reported by the ABC, which usually is obsessed by border protection issues and often *reports Triggs’s condemnation of offshore processing. Triggs seems to have some unwritten arrangement with the ABC so it censors her mistakes and embarrassments.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us.
Triggs told The Saturday Paper that Australians “don’t even understand their own democratic system”. She underestimates the people who pay her large salary.
There is a false morality at play and mainstream voters are on to it. Little wonder the disconnect *between the elites and the voters grows deeper.
