The Voice

[sptrawler]

Too many "Lefties" on the High Court.

Whether they are 'left', 'right' or whatever isn't the problem, overturning or even appealing a ruling made by them on any issue becomes a problem.

 

[IFocus]

The latest ruling by the High Court regarding the release of criminal detainees, highlights how problematic dealing with issues through the High Court can be, it is strange that only 60% of the population could see that..

The high court ruling was actually in line with basic law that you cannot hold someone indefinitely without a conviction.

It still happens (unbelievably) but the day the government determines that they can lock someone away forever (including foreign nationals) instead of the courts is a dictatorship, I think Australia in the only western nation thats has done this.

The high court is our only defense against ERWNJ's unlike the US supreme court which is made up of ERWRNJ's.

 

[sptrawler]

The high court ruling was actually in line with basic law that you cannot hold someone indefinitely without a conviction.

It still happens (unbelievably) but the day the government determines that they can lock someone away forever (including foreign nationals) instead of the courts is a dictatorship, I think Australia in the only western nation thats has done this.

The high court is our only defense against ERWNJ's unlike the US supreme court which is made up of ERWRNJ's.

I don't disagree with that, but as I was alluding to, doing something that meant it could only be dealt with by the High Court is very open to unintended and unforeseen consequences.
Therefore it should be well tested and well proven, before it gets to the stage of implementation, as the detention issue has highlighted.

 

[Belli]

Until a matter reaches the High Court it isn't well proven unfortunately.

Section 44 has been in the Constitution from the get go but it took over 100 years before a High Court decision caused it's impact to be fully realised.

 

[SirRumpole]

RtWhether they are 'left', 'right' or whatever isn't the problem, overturning or even appealing a ruling made by them on any issue becomes a problem.

The High Court is the last port of call when it comes to the law, so there is no appeal,

The pollies have to pass new laws to negate a High Court ruling as they are doing now.

 

[Belli]

The High Court is the last port of call when it comes to the law, so there is no appeal,

The pollies have to pass new laws to negate a High Court ruling as they are doing now.

You've got it. The High Court's role is not to initiate reviews of the laws but to decide on cases brought to it. Otherwise, each piece of legislation would need to be reviewed by and decided upon by a High Court decision before it is implemented.

 

[farmerge]

Too many "Lefties" on the High Court.

Perhaps just too many no hopers and old school tie brigade.

 

[Belli]

Would someone care to point out the "no hopers" and the reasons why they are so? Also state why you will do betterer.

About the Justices - High Court of Australia

There have been 13 Chief Justices and 42 Justices since the Court was established in 1903, including the current members of the Court. Three members o...

www.hcourt.gov.au

 

[sptrawler]

Would someone care to point out the "no hopers" and the reasons why they are so? Also state why you will do betterer.

About the Justices - High Court of Australia

There have been 13 Chief Justices and 42 Justices since the Court was established in 1903, including the current members of the Court. Three members o...

www.hcourt.gov.au

Exactly, they just do their job, it is the responsibility of the politicians to ensure they stay inside the bounds of the constitution and how the constitution is interpreted goes back to how well the original intent was encompassed and laid out, so that it couldn't be misinterpreted.
If something is written with ambiguity, it leads to assumptions, which leads to misinterpretation, which leads to unintended consequences.

The High Court is the highest court in the Australian judicial system. It was established in 1901 by Section 71 of the Constitution. The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts.

 

[JohnDe]

I’ve read rumours about certain influential unions being extreme left, and more rumours about some influential indigenous groups being infiltrated by extreme left activists. Today on the way home from working to pay my own way, and the taxes that keep growing, I saw a flag hanging from a crane and now realise all the rumours are true .

 

[Sean K]

I’ve read rumours about certain influential unions being extreme left, and more rumours about some influential indigenous groups being infiltrated by extreme left activists. Today on the way home from working to pay my own way, and the taxes that keep growing, I saw a flag hanging from a crane and now realise all the rumours are true .

View attachment 165811

A hammer and sickle will be attached to the top left of that shortly.

 

[sptrawler]

I’ve read rumours about certain influential unions being extreme left, and more rumours about some influential indigenous groups being infiltrated by extreme left activists. Today on the way home from working to pay my own way, and the taxes that keep growing, I saw a flag hanging from a crane and now realise all the rumours are true .

View attachment 165811

Ah the cement mixers, I got to spend 40 odd continuous hours at work, keeping the lights on, due to one of their picket lines.

That was a big couple of days and nights.

 

[SirRumpole]

Would someone care to point out the "no hopers" and the reasons why they are so? Also state why you will do betterer.

About the Justices - High Court of Australia

There have been 13 Chief Justices and 42 Justices since the Court was established in 1903, including the current members of the Court. Three members o...

www.hcourt.gov.au

So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?

 

[sptrawler]

So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?

Don't be awkward.

 

[Belli]

So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?

Ah, now you see we're getting into the operation of Section 109 of the Australian Constitution and Section 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. You'd need someone better than this non-lawyer to go through that on how it works.

 

[Sean K]

So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?

Something to do with far Left activist refugee lawyers probably.

 

[JohnDe]

Something to do with far Left activist refugee lawyers probably.

That reminds me; can a journalist morally report an event that they have proven themselves too not be impartial?

Journalists can’t be writers and activists

A week ago people identifying themselves as members of the journalists’ union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, signed a public letter which they circulated on social media and sent to news organisations, including the ABC.

The letter condemned the Australian government’s support for “Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza”. The letter went on to demand that the government change its policies and condemn Israel for its genocide of the people of Gaza.

The letter was signed by hundreds of people and if you scroll through the names, the journalists who have signed it – some I know – do not refer to themselves as journalists but media workers.

Did they not want to be recognised as journalists? Perhaps they believe the designation journalist is now no-longer meaningful. After all, being a journalist implies an adherence to certain values and ethical principles.

Like fairness, like factual accuracy, like making sure you are not – and could not be seen to be – pushing an agenda, being an activist for a cause.

It is on that basis that journalists have certain rights. The right, for instance, to ask questions of people in power and even the right to poke into the lives of people who are not particularly powerful.

The right to protect sources and the right to offer a public
interest defence of journalism that breaches privacy laws and even national security laws. Among other rights and privileges.

All this is why the codes of conduct of most media organisations, including the ABC, forbid journalists from being members of a political party or any other organisation that they might one day have to cover.

That’s the price we journalists pay for the rights and privileges we enjoy.

How then does the MEAA letter – signed by media workers, most of whom once called themselves journalists – square with this sort of ethical basis for journalism, for this sort of code of conduct? It does not.

Fair, accurate​

How could any of these media workers, given what they have signed, ever cover anything to do with the conflict between Israel and Palestinians and be believed and trusted to be fair and accurate?

This letter is not the only one journalists have signed.

In May 2021, hundreds of journalists and media workers signed a petition urging journalists and media companies to “no-longer prioritise the same discredited spokespeople and tired narratives” and instead make space for the Palestinians who are the victims in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

I assume that included making space for Hamas?

It went on to say that media companies should respect the right of journalists to “publicly and openly express personal solidarity with the Palestinian cause without penalty in their professional lives”.

Is this not troubling? Journalists demanding the right to a sort of activism for a cause? Journalists demanding to prioritise some voices over others, on the basis of what these journalists believe about this most complicated conflict.

Is it not troubling that one day they may have to cover the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, or the way that conflict is playing out in Australia? How could their reporting ever be
trusted?

Indeed, it has happened. Journalists who signed this petition have written major stories about the conflict and its impact in Australia. They wrote news stories.

Were they “prioritising voices” in their reporting? Were they activists for the Palestinian cause? Who knows? But they clearly had a conflict of interest. They should not have been allowed anywhere near the story.

There have been other petitions and letters since the Hamas slaughter of civilians on October 7. Journalists signed these letters too. There was no mention of October 7 in most of these letters.

They signed a letter produced by the cultural and literary magazine Overland, which is supported by the taxpayers of Victoria. One of the signatories and instigators of the letter is a senior lecturer in journalism.

The letter is full of the crude jargon of anti-colonialism, so ideologically driven, essentially justifying the Hamas attack, that Barry Jones, the magazine’s patron, described it as “appalling”. Journalists signed this letter. Including senior journalists who work in the mainstream media.

An increasing number of journalists want to be social-justice warriors, anti-racism warriors, anti-colonialist warriors. This is a trend across the English-speaking world.

In the main, media companies have not called them out. Mostly, they have been silent.

They cannot remain silent. Media companies need to get over their timidity and fear of offending their staff. They must tell their journalists that they cannot sign letters and petitions. That they cannot be promoters of any cause.

The companies must do this if they want the journalism they produce to be believed and trusted.

 

[Sean K]

That reminds me; can a journalist morally report an event that they have proven themselves too not be impartial?

No, you're either a journalist or a commentator. It's something a lot of people mix up with Sky News. During the day it's all news and very impartial but after about 5pm (after dark) it's all commentary. Sky advertise it as such and none of the late presenters pretend to be journalists. The ABC on the other hand don't seem to openly acknowledge who is a journalist or a commentator. The ABC have some supposedly 'investigative journalists' such as Milligan, but they only seem to investigate conservatives.

 

[sptrawler]

From the non Murdoch press, both article, in the name of fairness, understanding and inclusiveness and allowing people a voice..

Woollahra Council resolves to support a Voice to Parliament

On 14 October 2023, Australians will be asked via Referendum if there should be constitutional recognition of Indigenous people through a Voice to Parliament.

www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au

Woollahra Council is committed to reconciliation and building greater understanding and respect among all people who live, work in and visit Woollahra. As part of this commitment, on 27 March Council resolved to support the Voice to Parliament (the Yes Vote) and the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Our support for the Yes Vote will involve educating the Woollahra community on what a Voice will mean for Indigenous people and Australian society as a whole, providing a platform for First Nations voices to be heard and consultation with Indigenous organisations including the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Gujaga Foundation.

Residents fight not to share tennis courts because plan will ‘attract noisy children’

A plan to allow netball and pickleball to be played on public tennis courts in an exclusive area of Sydney has prompted an outcry from residents about the “rambunctious sports”.

www.smh.com.au

Woollahra Municipal Council will hold a new tender process to find an operator for the Cooper Park tennis courts in Woollahra following strong opposition to a proposal to share the facility with other sports.

Councillors this month rejected the advice of council staff to hand a seven-year lease to Sydney Sports Management Group, which operates a number of tennis centres and displayed “a better program of multi-court uses”.
Woollahra councillor Harriet Price said she did not like the term NIMBY but some submissions opposing the plan for multi-use courts suggested “a sense of ownership when in fact the courts are public facilities”.

“In response to community concern, councillors opted to exclude multipurpose use as a selection criteria for Cooper Park and due to this change, it was considered prudent to invite fresh tenders,” a council spokesman said.

 

[JohnDe]

Jacinta for PM