- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,647
- Reactions
- 24,545
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.
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.Too many "Lefties" on the High Court.
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..
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.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.
The High Court is the last port of call when it comes to the law, so there is no appeal,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.
Perhaps just too many no hopers and old school tie brigade.Too many "Lefties" on the High Court.
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.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
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.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
So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?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
Don't be awkward.So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?
So how is it that some States have laws in place that can keep some people in jail indefinitely and that is not unconstitutional?
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.
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.
That reminds me; can a journalist morally report an event that they have proven themselves too not be impartial?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?