Guest Post: The Currency Lad – ABC Airbrush Cranked Up For War On Campbell Newman

Those of us who oppose the Newman government’s hysterical new laws designed to destroy the ‘menace’ of bikie gangs are obviously disinclined to have Mr Newman’s back now that a donnybrook has begun between a justice of the Supreme Court and the Executive (which is to say, Mr Newman). The temptation to pile on over this particular brawl, however, must be resisted because the either/or ginned up today in the media is nothing more than a trick designed to plaster over the very real and very worrying tendency of Australia’s magistracy and judiciary to see themselves as a House of Lords charged with vitiating the excesses of legislatures. That’s a round-about way of saying the robed and/or wigged worthies of the bench are frequently seen to be near-contemptuous of democracy.

Listening to ABC FM this evening I was shocked – shocked! – to hear Mr Newman’s unquestionably imprudent comments about the preferred role of courts in the Bikie Wars analysed thus:

Justice Fryberg told the Court the Premier’s comments could put the public’s perception of justice at risk. Legal experts say the move is unprecedented, as Nance Haxton reports.

Nance Haxton then ‘reported’ the view of a senior law lecturer in Adelaide of all places:


GABRIELLE APPLEBY: I don’t think we’ve seen a stoush like this between the Government and the courts, or the Executive and the courts, since we saw something quite similar in 2002 between the Immigration Minister, Philip Ruddock, and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Chief Justice Black.

As a former Queensland Premier might have said, “my goodness gracious me.” So we haven’t seen anything like this for more than ten years? Could Miss Haxton the ABC reporter not have access to the archives of, say, Lateline?

Specifically, the programme aired on 1 September 2011? Gillard attacks high court over ruling.

Remember that? Yes, the Prime Minister of Australia went on the rampage against Robert French, Chief Justice of the country’s highest court. But wait, as they say in the world of ab-crunchers, steak knives and cafes frequented by Christine Nixon, there’s more. Our Adelaide legal expert – the one with amnesia – goes on to say that at least Mr Ruddock thought better of his remarks and …

… the Government was very careful to retreat from that position.

Not like the appalling Mr Newman:

So it’s very concerning to see that Premier Newman has responded to keep pressing this point, rather than, as we saw back in 2002, a retreat to protect the sanctity of that separation of judicial power.

When was the last time we saw such an example, of a politician preferring to double down in a fight with a judge rather than sagaciously “retreat”? There is another obvious answer to this historical teaser but, sadly, FM ‘reporter’ Miss Haxton cannot find oldSydney Morning Herald articles with her computer:

3 September 2011: Gillard resolute on her criticism of Chief Justice.

So the worst example – perhaps in all of Australian history – of a government leader breaching the separation of powers for a populist cause was Julia Gillard slamming the Chief Justice of the High Court after she had bungled yet another asylum seeker fix. But neither Gabrielle Appleby nor Queensland University of Technology Professor of Political Science Clive Bean – his remarks come later in the segment – could remember that case.

Could there be a better demonstration of why it was that Mr Newman attacked “the insiders in the legal system” in the first place? For there does appear to be a one-sided political agenda in play. One further example from the same ABC FM segment illustrates the point. Here we simply quote Justice Fryberg, speaking today:

It is essential in our system that justice be seen to be done. If we hear remarks on the record that are not withdrawn, it would be very difficult for members of the public to avoid the conclusion that the Court was bending to the will of the Government. Justice would not be seen to be done.

Now let us imagine a fantastic hypothetical to test how committed the Australian judiciary is to justice being both done and seen to be done. Imagine a lawyer running for preselection for the Labor Party’s left-wing faction, failing, and winding up as a judge presiding over the trial of the country’s most influential critic of the very same Labor Party.

Would that be possible? Surely not.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

149 Responses to Guest Post: The Currency Lad – ABC Airbrush Cranked Up For War On Campbell Newman

  1. H B Bear

    The Green-Left Radio Hour aka AM, The World Today and PM, actually the Green-Left Radio Three Hours really, is a constant source of ALPBC excess.

    It is truly woeful.

  2. Rabz

    Well, that’s a comprehensive, objective analysis by our media betters in the taxpayer funded broadcasting behemoth – the ALPBC covering itself in glory, yet again.

    Shut. It. Down.

    Fire. Them. All.

    You know it makes sense.

    P.S. Thanks for the forensic dissection, CL.

  3. Alfonso

    Yeah, had Bolta refused to run a defence until the judge was changed, that would have fixed it….Mordy could not have survived the subsequent repetitive recounting of the facts of his background by News .

  4. Brett

    Melanie Phillips has an interesting piece about the British Judiciary and its role in the secular state and Islam. It is slightly off topic but nevertheless a very interesting read with some pointed criticism of the way some judges see their role.

  5. Steve Kates

    Imagine a lawyer running for preselection for the Labor Party’s left-wing faction, failing, and winding up as a judge presiding over the trial of the country’s most influential critic of the very same Labor Party.

    I may not be up on all of the nuance here. Does the enigmatic analogy at the end refer to a certain Judge MB in a trial involving commentator AB?

  6. Ivan Denisovich

    Now let us imagine a fantastic hypothetical to test how committed the Australian judiciary is to justice being both done and seen to be done. Imagine a lawyer running for preselection for the Labor Party’s left-wing faction, failing, and winding up as a judge presiding over the trial of the country’s most influential critic of the very same Labor Party.

    Would that be possible? Surely not.

    Another from the surely not file:

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2013/10/20/labor-party-ring-in-chief-magistrate-lauritsen-hears-the-julia-gillard-bruce-wilson-awu-fraud-matter/

  7. Robert Blair

    Steve:

    Does the enigmatic analogy at the end refer to a certain Judge MB in a trial involving commentator AB?

    That’s how I read it …

  8. The Gillard criticism was that the Chief Justice had ruled one way on matters of law in the lower court, but had changed his mind in the High Court. In the lead up to the case, I do not recall high expectations that the court would decide this way. Indeed, Frank Brennan wrote after it:

    The Government has taken a 6-1 drubbing in the High Court of Australia. Many lawyers, myself included, are surprised, and some of us delighted.

    Gillard criticism therefore appears to have some grounding in fact.

    In any event, the decision having been made, it is not as if was going to be a recurring issue in further individual cases that may come before the court. This is the problem with Newman’s comments.

    The analysis here is a strange and trite CL style hand wave, most commonly seen when he discusses child abuse in the Catholic Church. “Look, over there, child abuse!” Except this time, unlike when he discusses the Church, he is at least agreeing with the condemnation of the accused.

  9. Gab

    You pathetic lying douchebag, Shitforbrains, SFB.

    Thread derailment imminent becuase SFB always has to bring the Catholic Church into every matter when CL is around.

    And no, you Fucking liar, CL has never defended the abysmal record of the Church’s dealing with child abuse and the priests who perpetrated such abominations on children. No r has he hand waved away the matter.

    You really are a despicable attention-seeking whore, SFB.

  10. Shorter Steve: different when Gillard does it.

    Yeah, that’s also CL’s criticism, dufus.

  11. Chill, Gab. The stylistic approach struck me immediately.

    Abu: no. It’s “different when Gillard does it” because she made a criticism that appeared to be justified, and would have no ongoing effect on decisions that would continue to be made on individual cases. This is unlike Newman’s situation.

    Comprehension fail.

  12. Gab

    The stylistic approach struck me immediately.

    Pathetic.

  13. The ABC agrees with you steve: justified. Dumb arse.

  14. I have no intention of continuing in this thread about how CL approaches the other issue, Gab. You can relax, take a blood pressure tablet, and all will be OK.

  15. blogstrop

    We all wish daily for something to strike him, immediately.

  16. Gab

    Gab. You can relax, take a blood pressure tablet,

    You stupid presumptuous betamale. Don’t flatter yourself into thinking I would raise any emotion over you.

  17. Abu: I actually explained why it is different. If it is different, it is different.

  18. dover_beach

    I think I’ve reached my limit of tolerating sfb’s commentary which has now become nothing more than boarding the proverbial tram and beginning to masturbate publicly in order to provoke a reaction.

  19. Yes, Gab. I understand that your 12.07 comment was written in a calm state of Zen….

  20. Please, d-b. Unnecessary. The comment made an argument for why the post is wrong, and this took up most of it. The last bit was a note on the author’s persistent habit of complaining that journalistic or academic commentary is so unfair unless they also agree with him that Labor (or secular) figures have done worse.

  21. Gab

    Exactly, sfb. You are incapable of understanding many things, especially about females.

    Now why are you still commenting n this thread when you stated earlier you no longer would? Don’t bother answering, hypocrite.

  22. Bruce

    SFB,shouldn’t you be lurking about down at the local Pre-School about now ? The kiddies will be out in the play ground for lunch so hurry on now.

  23. I thought d-b’s grotesque characterisation deserved a response, Gab. I am also talking generalities.

    You’re rambling a fair bit now. Perhaps you should stop.

  24. Gab

    “Rambling”, yes you always use this when you’ve had your derrière handed to you on a platter.

    If you want to take more of a beating, move it to the open Forum and stop derailing this thread, attention-seeking whore.

  25. Gab: it takes two to derail. (Or four, if you include d-b and Bruce.)

  26. Gab

    And you’re still doing it, betamale.

  27. Quite childish, Gab, the “betamale” reference.

  28. Gab

    Sinclair, would you please delete all comments starting from when SFB appeared, including his comment. Thanks.

  29. Abu Chowdah

    I would say: accurate. Betamale. Arsehole. Douche.

  30. ChrisPer

    I realise SFB has form of an obnoxious kind, but in this thread I thought his writing and responses… adult.

  31. C.L.

    Abridged Steve: it was OK when Gillard did it.

  32. C.L.

    Struck off lawyer Julia Gillard was officially condemned by the Law Council of Australia.

    The ABC sent the episode to the forgettory.

    The only comparable case they could remember involved – amazing to relate – the Coalition.

  33. Abu Chowdah

    Agreed CL. See earlier post.

  34. C.L.

    I realise SFB has form of an obnoxious kind, but in this thread I thought his writing and responses… adult.

    LOL.

  35. Struck off lawyer Julia Gillard

    A completely imaginary (and defamatory) claim.

  36. C.L.

    As defamatory as your published claim a few years ago that Tony Abbott’s marriage was endangered by a sex scandal, Steve?

  37. Not the same at all, CL, given that I never claimed knowledge that a rumour I heard was true, and I never disclosed details for fear it would be defamatory.

    You, on the other hand, seem to think you can make a defamatory statement of fact, which in fact you’ve made up.

  38. Rabz

    I think I’ve reached my limit of tolerating sfb’s commentary which has now become nothing more than boarding the proverbial tram and beginning to masturbate publicly in order to provoke a reaction.

    Seconded.

  39. davey street

    Two words Nance Haxton et al at the ABC. JILL MEAGHER. Would you still attack Newman if it had been an Queensland outlaw bikie crim who had raped and murdered Meagher ? I thought not. The ABC is judge jury and executioner every day of the week.

  40. Gab

    You, on the other hand, seem to think you can make a defamatory statement of fact, which in fact you’ve made up.

    You mean like how you made a defamatory statement above saying CL just waves away child abuse issues in the Catholic Church? Like that, betamale hypocrite?

  41. C.L.

    It was my understanding that Gillard was struck off, Steve.

    If that’s incorrect – if she simply stopped practicing law mysteriously after the Slater & Gordon debacle – that’s fine. My apologies. I’m happy to stand corrected.

    But yes, you published a claim that Abbott was having a sexual affair or had committed a sexual indiscretion that would derail his marriage.

    This was a complete lie.

    You also claimed he was involved in a Northern Territory bribery scandal that would derail his leadership. This was also a complete lie.

  42. Fisky

    Gillard was sacked, not struck off.

  43. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Stevie, so Gillard and company had ‘expectations’ that weren’t produced in law. So she has a slam at the judge. And no-one complains? In terms of impact, it is possible to argue that many people were saved from a very uncertain (and illegal?) fate by the decision to which she objected so vociferously, as Prime Minister. and as an Officer of the Court herself.

  44. .

    Defamation is unacceptable.

    I say he ought to go.

  45. But yes, you published a claim that Abbott was having a sexual affair or had committed a sexual indiscretion that would derail his marriage.

    I never gave any details. I said I had heard a rumour, which, if true, had the potential to hurt him. I thought the source of the rumour was fairly credible, but could not vouch that it was true, and hence would not disclose further.

    Your ninny-ish reaction to this has always been out of all proportion.

  46. The meaning of “hand wave” I was using was this:

    1. v. To gloss over a complex point; to distract a listener;

    This is to clarify for Gab.

  47. Gab

    You’re rambling, SFB. Go have a lie down and put a cool cloth to your forehead.

  48. dover_beach

    I never gave any details. I said I had heard a rumour, which, if true, had the potential to hurt him.

    You disgraceful turd. In such an instance, the only conscientious thing to do is to refrain from repeating the rumour at all.

  49. Aristogeiton

    What’s the point of this post? Fryberg is undoubtedly right. Our High Court is more conservative than the HL. Or do you think that the executive should savage our courts in pursuit of political traction? It seems like the anonymous coward who posted this needs to read the chapter headings of our constitution and the Magna Carta. Neither Newman nor Gillard have the right to dictate to our courts. Remember that the problem with the changes to the Migration Act were not irremediable. Labor lacked the political power to pass them. Newman’s behaviour is an embarrassment, and far more so as his illiberal legislation is targeting Australian citizens.

  50. C.L.

    No, Steve. You published a claim that Tony Abbott was involved in a sexual scandal that would lead to his downfall. This was a complete lie.

    Today, your instinctive reaction to a post on the separation of powers (as reported on the ABC) – written by somebody who has established non-partisan bona fides on this broader issue (Newman, bikies and civil rights) – is to discuss child molestation.

    And I was one of the few people who asked Sinclair not to ban you and for others to formally address you more respectfully.

  51. Aristogeiton

    SfB, the turd, got that rumour from that defamatory prick Bob Ellis, most likely.

  52. Rabz

    Labor lacked the political power will to pass them.

    Fixed.

  53. Popular Front

    Gillard was sacked, not struck off.

    One would think that Slater & Gordon had a quiet word in Gillard’s shell-like to say that should the AWU thing blow up publically it would damage their corporate image so sling your hook. At the same time the word would be quietly passed around to any future employers that she had/has a ticking time bomb strapped to her back. How else can you explain why, having been given the arse from SLaG, she’s never worked as a lawyer since? Not even countrytown conveyancing?

  54. cohenite

    Gillard is not a lawyer as she does not have a practising certificate; at this stage it would be appropriate to say she is an ex-lawyer.

    One can only hope that her future status involves bars, including but not limited to disbarment, at least in a retrospective sense.

    The topic thread is the bias of the ABC; there is no doubt that the ABC is now a left, Green based PR outlet on all major issues. And we keep saying this, if the coalition allow it to go unchecked they will rue that nonfeasance at future elections.

    As for steve, he’s just a little turd who reminds me of E. B. Farnum in Deadwood, the best of TV.

  55. C.L.

    Neither Newman nor Gillard have the right to dictate to our courts.

    Absolutely correct.

    Which I why I hailed Justice Fryberg’s remarks when they were reported and why I have ceaselessly attacked Newman’s behaviour re magistrates and judges – and his contempt for the people of Queensland.

    It seems the anonymous coward Aristogeiton ought to loom before he leaps.

  56. Today, your instinctive reaction to a post on the separation of powers (as reported on the ABC) – written by somebody who has established non-partisan bona fides on this broader issue (Newman, bikies and civil rights) – is to discuss child molestation.

    The point being made was a “meta” one about your general style of commentary – see my 12.33 comment.

  57. Gillard is not a lawyer as she does not have a practising certificate; at this stage it would be appropriate to say she is an ex-lawyer.

    That’s debatable.

  58. How else can you explain why, having been given the arse from SLaG, she’s never worked as a lawyer since?

    She ran for the Senate, failed, then took up a job with John Brumby. Then got into Parliament.

    An unremarkable course of events for someone who was into politics from a young age.

  59. Aristogeiton

    Bullshit. The last half of your post speaks of a “one-sided political agenda”, then complains about partisanship in the judiciary. In fact, some of the most strident criticism of the laws has come from conservatives like Chesterman. Where’s the left-wing conspiracy which opposes these illiberal laws? The left’s support for due process is dependant upon whose bull is being gored. I ask again, what is the point of the post? You ought think before you write, because this post reads as a screed.

  60. cohenite

    That’s debatable.

    Well, go ahead, debate it; just putting forward some poxy little synopsis of Gillard’s career doesn’t address the issue of whether she could successfully apply for a new practising certificate. Maybe she could become an in-house counsel for the ABC; corporate licences can flow from a master licence.

  61. twostix

    An unremarkable course of events for someone who was into politics from a young age.

    Going into politics “from a young age” only after being fired from their “partnership” in a union law firm after being instrumental in helping her boyfriend embezzle a million dollars from another client of the firm.

    But you’re right, there’s nothing at all remarkable about all of that in union / Labor circles.

  62. entropy

    Aristo, you have misread the post and are unaware of currency lad’s history on the matter.

  63. Rabz

    An unremarkable course of events for someone who was into politics married men from a young age.

    More context.

  64. Aristogenian (not a friend of mine) is correct: the last 3 paragraphs of the post are far from clear in their meaning. (Well, put it this way – I get the point that he thinks the judge shouldn’t have heard the Bolt case – but the point about Newman’s criticisms of the court end up a rhetorical muddle.)

  65. twostix

    Bullshit. The last half of your post speaks of a “one-sided political agenda”, then complains about partisanship in the judiciar

    Adrian Bayley and dozens of other violent repeat offenders thank the “conservative” judiciary for relentlessly turfing them out of the prison system, reducing already lenient sentences to farcical visits on appeal and granting parole to the worst of us in defiance to the families victims.

    For instance:

    Rodney Thomas Clarke:

    Jailed for life in 1988 after smothering nine year old Deborah Keegan to death while repeatedly raping her, Clarke, then 21, finally showed remorse in 2001, telling a psychiatrist he had targeted the girl and it was an “evil” act.

    So yesterday a NSW Supreme Court judge gave him an opportunity for future release, saying he needed an incentive to continue rehabilitation and noting that it was not known if he intended to kill Deborah in her Tregear home in July 1987. Justice Peter Hidden granted Clarke’s application for a non-parole period, setting it at 28 years, making him eligible for release in 2015

    Why there’s that “Conservative” Judiciary working overtime again.

  66. Steve sticks his head out, gets it shot off, and claims victory by largely illegible scribble by virtue of being written blind.

    Steve argues exception to support leftard intolerance of exceptions to rule. Reverse genius!!!

  67. twostix

    More on our “Conservative Judiciary”:

    A Queensland father who bashed a man caught molesting his 10-year-old son is facing a prison sentence, while the boy’s attacker walks free.
    In a highly unusual case, Shane Thomas Davidson was spared jail despite pleading guilty to molesting the boy on State Of Origin night last year.
    Judge Ian Dearden told Beenleigh District Court the sentence was reduced because the young victim’s father had wrongly taken action into his own hands and badly beaten Davidson.
    “There is no place in our community for a vigilante approach,” he said.

    That is, because the father beat the shit out of the man in his home who was “molesting” his 10 year old son, the judiciary punished the father by not sending the molester to gaol.

    No need for a judicial reform though.

  68. Tiny Dancer

    Wish I’d been here for this. Stevie gets very irritated by the blisters on his ankle. It’s not just that he is a boring deadshit beta male who admitted to making up lies.

  69. C.L.

    Aristogeiton – who evidently struggles with English – is one of these Gerald Ford types who finds it difficult to fart and chew gum at the same time. The post is about …

    1. The left-wing ABC’s cover-up of the Gillard-French brawl (the worst of its kind in Australian history);

    and

    2. The issue of justice being seen to be done. This formed part of Justice Fryberg’s argument. There is a widespread view in the community that the bigger problem today is not executives bullying judiciaries but judiciaries lording it over legislatures. I think Newman has gone too far on this pretext but others may have other ideas. Certainly I think it’s a very live and real concern in the community. People are free to express their own views on this – even exceedingly dumb people like Aristogeiton and Steve.

  70. Leigh Lowe

    Gillard was sacked, not and wisely chose not to practice law again for fear of being struck off.

  71. who admitted to making up lies.

    Not at all. Never retracted or admitted to anything. Because it went precisely as I explained above (and have numerous times before.)

  72. The 3.14 comment is much clearer than the post itself.

  73. dover_beach

    The 3.14 comment is much clearer than the post itself.

    Apparently, even emboldening those parts of the argument CL determined were central was not enough; they may have been distracting.

  74. d-b, you’re hardly the world’s greater exemplar of clear writing yourself. I am not surprised you don’t recognise lack of clarity in others’ efforts.

  75. Tiny Dancer

    Then why are you known as Stevieliar QC?

    Politician yells at judge. Judge says if I do what he says it looks bad. Fair call.

    ABC twist story to protect ALP and Gillard. To be expected.

    Gillard dildo carrier, Stevie, agrees generally but defends ALP, former beloved leader and ABC. Raises child abuse in Catholic Church. Predictable crap from beta male dildo carrier.

  76. ABC twist story to protect ALP and Gillard.

    Did they edit out the academics when they mentioned the Gillard episode? Your all seeing abilities are most impressive.

  77. C.L.

    The Bar Association of Queensland weighs in and gets it right:

    “It is critical, in our system of government, that each of the legislature, judiciary and executive show due respect one for the other,” he said.

    The Parliament’s role is to define the law and penalties for its breach, within constitutional limits that, of course, must be given effect to.

    “The role of the courts is to apply the law. It is inappropriate to disparage the judges who, in individual cases, are called upon to decide how to do so.

    “It is critical also to our system of government that the public have respect for and confidence in the judicial system.”

  78. Infidel Tiger

    That is, because the father beat the shit out of the man in his home who was “molesting” his 10 year old son, the judiciary punished the father by not sending the molester to gaol.

    No need for a judicial reform though.

    The judge in that case should be heavily molested, beaten to death, revived and then imprisoned for life.

  79. Tiny Dancer

    Thanks Stevie. Are you going to answer the question?

  80. Incidentally, I forgot what happened in the Ruddock case, but here, by virtue of the ABC:

    FRAN KELLY: But the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Justice Black, says these latest remarks are out of line, and ordered the Solicitor-General, David Bennett QC to appear today with an explanation from his client, Philip Ruddock.

    The Minister gave the explanation, he said it was all a mistake.

    The comments “were not intended to apply any kind of pressure upon the court in relation to these matters -.”

    He went on to say: ” — the Minister’s remarks were not directed to the court, nor were they intended to have any reference to these proceedings.”

    While the Law Council, and a Judges Conference, criticised Gillard, there was never any question of the High Court asking her or her lawyers to give an explanation to the court.

    Contrast Ruddock and Newman, where the Judges in the court concerned actually spoke out from their office on the issue.

    The academics are therefore right: the nearest similar precedent goes back to Ruddock.

  81. JC

    While the Law Council, and a Judges Conference, criticised Gillard, there was never any question of the High Court asking her or her lawyers to give an explanation to the court.

    So it’s necessary for the judiciary to respond otherwise it doesn’t count?

    Stepford, you’re outdoing your worst examples of dumb.

  82. Infidel Tiger

    At least we found a subject Steve knows less about than economics.

  83. C.L.

    Incidentally, Steve – while it’s true (infamously so) that you are a militant supporter of killing unborn children in any and all circumstances, it isn’t true that I have ever trivialised or denied the problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I have sought to demolish people like you who actually do trivialise child sexual abuse by ignoring the following two facts: that child sexual abuse is equally or more prevalent in secular atheist institutions and the protestant churches as it is in the Catholic Church; and second, that by ignoring these facts people like you (and David Marr) essentially run over the top of victims so as to expedite your manic jihad against the Catholic Church – an institution which you certainly hate.

  84. while it’s true (infamously so) that you are a militant supporter of killing unborn children in any and all circumstances,

    Completely untrue.

    I said I wouldn’t talk about your attitude to Catholic child abuse, and I’ll stick to that because otherwise Gab will have an attack of the vapours again. Except to say that the “run over the top of victims” line makes no sense whatsoever.

  85. Rococo Liberal

    I am alawys amused when the media run to law academics. What the fuck do such academics know?

    If I want an opinion on the law I go to a QC.

    Unless you have now or once had a practising certificate, you ain’t no lawyer, no matter how many degrees you’ve got. If you aaren’t a lawyer your opinion on legal matters is of very little interest.

  86. Gab

    and I’ll stick to that because otherwise Gab will have an attack of the vapours again.

    Calling you out for your slurs is not an attack of the vapours, SFB. Good to see you in better mood after your little afternoon nap.

    Except to say that the “run over the top of victims” line makes no sense whatsoever.

    You appear to be having a day full of comprehension fails, you poor thing.

  87. Rococo Liberal

    Steve, you are splitting hairs.

    The point is that Gillard was fully lambasted by the judiciary for here remarks about the High Court decision on the Malaysian Solution. It doesn’t matter whether the judges made those comments from the bench or not, they are still of the same magnitutde and should have been mentioned by the ABC in their story about Newman.

  88. From the ABC:

    Adjourning the DPP’s application to have the bail decision reviewed, Justice Fryberg asked the DPP to determine whether the media reports of Mr Newman’s coments were accurate, whether the Premier had withdrawn what he said, and if not, whether the court ought to hear the matter or stay it indefinitely.

    No, the Newman situation is more serious than the Gillard one, as there was no prospect of her comments being taken as interference in a case about the application of the very same law.

  89. JC

    Lol

    CL was partially incorrect. You’re even more offensive when pretending to be a critical thinker.

  90. C.L.

    I said I wouldn’t talk about your attitude to Catholic child abuse, and I’ll stick to that because otherwise Gab will have an attack of the vapours again. Except to say that the “run over the top of victims” line makes no sense whatsoever.

    You won’t talk about it because I’ll demolish you again, Steve – as I have about 3 or 4000 times before. It usually ends with you having a breakdown, remember?

    And yes, the line you mention makes perfect sense to anybody who isn’t a stroke victim.

  91. C.L.

    GABRIELLE APPLEBY: I don’t think we’ve seen a stoush like this between the Government and the courts, or the Executive and the courts, since we saw something quite similar in 2002 between the Immigration Minister, Philip Ruddock, and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Chief Justice Black.

    A complete lie.

    If I want an opinion on the law I go to a QC.

    Yes, but Mark Dreyfusis a QC.

    I think Labor-appointed QCs should be required to use the postnominal LQC (or LSC).

  92. C.L.

    Justice Fryberg has decided to stay the bail application.

    His reasons are rather rambling and very Year 11 essay:

    Justice Fryberg said the separation of the judicial arm of government from the legislative and executive arms ensured independence and that its judges were “legally inviolable”.

    “The judiciary does not enquire into the internal workings of Parliament and evidence of what has happened in Parliament is generally inadmissible in court, regardless of its relevance,” he said.

    He said there were sound reasons for that convention.

    “In our democracy, political power is notoriously the product of public perceptions,” he said.

    “The power of a politician who is perceived to produce results which have popular appeal is thereby enhanced.

    “Conventionally, however, our political leaders have refrained from attempting to project power into the decisions of the courts. Those decisions are made according to law.

    “If they are to be influenced, the proper way is by the passage of legislation, not by comments to the mass media.

    “Such comments create the risk that public perceptions of the independence of the judiciary will be damaged.”

    Judges are “legally inviolable”?

    Like Marcus Einfeld, for example?

    His analogy regarding the courts’ lack of interest in the internal workings of parliament doesn’t make any sense. And no, political power is not the product of “perceptions” – much less is this “notoriously” the case. Campbell Newman has power because the people elected him to office and empowered him to make laws. Judges have no such power, no such mandate.

  93. I’ll demolish you again, Steve – as I have about 3 or 4000 times before.

    Now, now, CL. Everyone knows your modus operandi is to declare yourself the winner in every argument, no matter the merits of your actual case. Even Gab would have to acknowledge that.

    A rare exception happened today when you had to back down on the “struck off lawyer Gillard” claim – which you said you believed to have been the case, which just goes to show how careless and ill informed on factual matters you can be.

  94. Gab

    His reasons are rather rambling and very Year 11 essay

    In which case you’ll need to dumb it down further so SFB can comprehend.

  95. C.L.

    Steve, what everyone knows is that I have been personally responsible for at least a half dozen of your mental breakdowns – one of which led you to spend a fortnight photoshopping pictures and apparently going without food and bathing. You were so enraged this morning that you’ve spent an entire day talking about child molestation – which is not the behaviour of a psychologically normal person. Your “wife” must be permanently, well, puzzled.

  96. I have mentioned to you before, haven’t I CL, that you exaggerate to the point that you appear genuinely fantasy prone?

    The “rage” in the thread today has clearly not been from me. You should talk to your friends Gab, d-b, and a few of the other hyper ventilators, though.

  97. Splatacrobat

    Bligh slams judges as ‘out of touch’ April 2011.PREMIER Anna Bligh has accused the judiciary of losing touch with the community after two controversial decisions involving serious child sex offenders in as many days.

    Oh dear!

  98. C.L.

    … you exaggerate to the point that you appear genuinely fantasy prone?

    Steve, please take this opportunity to tell us more about your claim that the warmth of our current summer would lead to a Gillard landslide at the polls.

    We’re all deeply intrigued.

  99. C.L.

    So the ABC and those legal “experts” forgot about Bligh’s attack on the judiciary too, huh?

    Odd that Justice Fryberg didn’t weigh in on that occasion.

    Mmm.

  100. It was my hope, expressed once, I think, that a very hot summer might focus the public’s mind on climate change and lead to questions about the views of the Coalition. This could have helped Labor (if ever they would stop the internal fighting.)

    Unfortunately, while it was very hot in central Australia, it did not hit the big population centres hard enough, and so the issue was not as high on people’s minds as I would have liked.

    There is nothing unreasonable in the scenario and nothing for me to embarrassed about in such speculation.

    There is little doubt Labor was pretty much its own worse enemy going into the last election.

  101. jupes

    Very good post C.L.

    And thanks for those examples of the ‘conservative judiciary’ twostix.

  102. Tiny Dancer

    Steve. She’s as good as struck off you dimwit. Made dinner for hour husband yet?

  103. USE OF THE ENEMY’S UNIFORM

    Article 23F of the Hague Conventions of 1907 prohibits the improper use of the enemy’s uniform, that is, wearing its uniform while engaged in combat. The difficult issue is that of finding a proper use of the uniform.

    Although wearing the uniform while engaged in actual combat is unlawful, some nations authorize their forces to wear it to allow movement into and through the enemy’s territory. However, Article 39 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits this and other uses of the enemy’s uniform.

    An enemy nation party to Protocol I may consider such use of a uniform as a war crime and take remedial action.

    Perhaps remedial action should be taken against
    a. Lobbyists posing as Politicians
    b. Reprobates posing as Judges
    c. Criminals posing as Police

  104. Kaboom

    Quite simply, we need (as a matter of urgency, it appears) to adopt the United States system, whereby Judges and senior law-enforcement officers are elected, with short (3 yr) terms.

    Unelected Judges, being “appointed” by the Parliament of the day (or, worse still, the previous Government), harbour a significant conflict of interests, and for any of them to claim a “separation of powers” convention is tantamount to making those politically appointed members of the Judiciary the equivalent of the “appointed” Hereditary Peers of the House of Lords.

    Lamp-posts are available for all – Bankers, Judges, CEOs, whatever.

  105. Rabz

    … one of which led you to spend a fortnight photoshopping pictures and apparently going without food and bathing.

    Ah yes, that legendary stint of 20 hour shifts which eventually led to yet another ‘temporary’ banning.

  106. Splatacrobat

    Perhaps remedial action should be taken against
    a. Lobbyists posing as Politicians
    b. Reprobates posing as Judges
    c. Criminals posing as Police

    d. ABC opinionators posing as journalists
    e. Malcolm posing as a Liberal

  107. Malcolm posing as a Liberal

    A most egregious example of same

  108. Infidel Tiger

    Your “wife” must be permanently, well, puzzled.

    “You see dear, there is a man called Currency Lad on the internet who is often wrong…”

    “C’mon kids. Daddy’s having one of his turns.”

  109. Aristogeiton

    C. L., you don’t seem to understand the meaning of inviolable.

  110. C.L.

    Well, explain what you think it means in this context, Aristogeiton.

    Contribute something and I’ll listen. Stop sniping.

  111. C.L.

    Well, 24 hours into the news cycle on this and I think it’s fair to say the consensus is now that Newman and Fryberg have both gone too far. Here is QUT criminologist Mark Lauchs:

    QUT criminologist Mark Lauchs said both the Premier and Justice Fryberg had erred, but the judge should have applied the law rather than react to public debate.

    “The Premier’s comments are inflammatory, show a lack of knowledge of the separation of powers and should not have been made.

    “But judges should not be influenced by them and should consider themselves to be sufficiently independent enough to ignore what most people would consider as PR spin from the government.”

    Very well said.

    A bigger man – a bigger judge, that is – would have shrugged off Newman’s fairly vague (albeit dumb) comments and got down to business. The justice has raised Newman up to be some kind of opinion leader for The People – which he isn’t.

  112. egg_

    d. ABC opinionators posing as journalists
    e. Malcolm posing as a Liberal

    Two of the biggest threats to (our) democracy IMHO.

  113. Aristogeiton

    C. L., according to my OED, “to be kept sacredly free from profanation, infraction, or assault”. That is the case for the judge as well as for non-judicial actors. Further, Enfield was not a judge when he committed the offence, and, being subsequently struck from the roll, was not qualified to be so in any event.

  114. cohenite

    It was my hope, expressed once, I think, that a very hot summer might focus the public’s mind on climate change and lead to questions about the views of the Coalition.

    What a miserable little turd you; like a dwarf vulture sitting in some stunted bush squawking with viscous delight when some bad luck befalls the populace.

  115. C.L.

    Thanks, Aristogeiton.

    Justice Fryberg’s plea to be regarded as “inviolable” would be more convincing had he not blundered on to the political stage. Investing Newman’s remarks with sufficient magic that they can be used to stay all such bail cases is clearly legal nonsense. The judge has spoken of “public perceptions.” I think the Queensland public’s perception is that the judiciary get creative and precious when they want to mess with laws they don’t like. In fact I would bet a million dollars that this public perception is far more prevalent than any perception of the courts being intimidated by the Premier, qua Fryberg. I was quite shocked today to read the judge’s reasoning. For such an historic match-off, I thought he’d compose a learned cri de coeur for the annals in defence of the separation of powers. What I read was amateurish posturing.

  116. C.L.

    Oh dear. Now Tony Fitzgerald goes too far:

    Fitzgerald weighs back in to state politics, slamming premier for chasing ‘redneck support’.

    Yes, Tony – that’ll demolish Newman’s remarks about legal elites cocking a snoot at the public. Calling the public rednecks.

  117. Siltstone

    Poor retired Tony F., smooching back and forth between his multi million dollar Sunshine Coast pad and town, never having seen a mongrel street fight (bikie or otherwise) in his life. It’s just so obvious to him that the great unwashed who don’t agree with him are rednecks. Come on Tony, stand for parliament, make a difference.

  118. Aristogeiton

    The judiciary are not beholden to the public’s perception, one hopes. You confuse the functions of the branches of government. Surely this is the argumentum ad populum you are employing? The rest is just blather, and has nothing whatever to do with my specific criticism of your response to Fryberg’s remarks. So far as amateurish posturing is concerned, I think you have that market cornered.

  119. Ripper

    His analogy regarding the courts’ lack of interest in the internal workings of parliament doesn’t make any sense. And no, political power is not the product of “perceptions” – much less is this “notoriously” the case. Campbell Newman has power because the people elected him to office and empowered him to make laws. Judges have no such power, no such mandate.

    Campbell Newman has the power because the QLD Constitution was re written in 2001 without a referendum making Him CEO , removing the separation of powers and removing common law protection for the citizens.

    How it was done

    Lol’ing at the ABC tiptoeing around it.

  120. C.L.

    It’s hard to understand what you’re talking about, Aristogeiton. You appear to be an angry person with a dictionary and not much of a clue. I haven’t made any argument from populism at all regarding this issue. I am square against Newman’s foolish laws, his foolish comments on the courts and his foolish play for the shock-jock audience. None of that alters the fact, however, that Justice Fryberg’s grandstanding is intellectually second-rate and foolhardy. As for perceptions, it wasn’t me who raised them; Justice Fryberg did. First, he made the astonishingly pompous and bizarre observation that the Premier’s power comes from “public perceptions” – “notoriously” so, he said. In fact, Premier Newman’s power comes from the people at the ballot box. Second, Justice Fryberg has discussed the public’s perception of his court if he now considers the bail question, even purely de jure, arguing that citizens will see even that as the Premier having forced him to act and decide in particular ways. This is complete nonsense.

    You appear to be incapable of reading and writing and totally incapable of thinking in anything other than the diadic either/ors of an adolescent. “Newman: he wrong, Fryberg: he right … me Aristogeiton, me very angry, me have OED …” I’m not impressed, Cookie Monster.

  121. Aristogeiton

    Again, shifting the goal posts, then much ad hominem. You’re out of your depth, son. If you want some more information on the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to grant a stay for abuse of process, start with Williams v Spautz.

  122. dover_beach

    You’ve cocked this up from your first comment, Aristogeiton.

  123. C.L.

    Two Latinisms in as many comments. Thank heavens for the OED. As you started with abuse (and nothing else) I’m at least glad that you’ve learned about ad hominems.

    But again, no argument.

    I have made no comment whatsoever on Fryberg’s right to grant a stay.

    Try again. You need to prove that the Queensland public believes the Executive is harrassing the judiciary to the extent that this undermines the administration of justice in Queensland, as seen by the people of Queensland. For this was what Justice Fryberg claimed today.

    Good luck.

  124. JC

    If you want some more information on the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to grant a stay for abuse of process, start with Williams v Spautz.

    Huh? WTF? Does Aristotle think the post was about that?

  125. C.L.

    Newman must be pinching himself in joyful disbelief.

    Acting like a dictator, last week he took a swipe at magistrates and courts and claimed that legal elites resent and seek to stymie the will of the people, as voiced and enacted in the legislature. There he was, like a shag on a rock amongst respectable observers, until – drum roll – legal elites weighed in, blocking his bail law (in the public’s eyes) and denouncing the voters of Queensland as “red necks.” This is political gold for Newman.

    Now, I’m happy the bail law is blocked (for now) but I don’t accept the argument for doing so.

    Lauchs, quoted in the Courier Mail, gets it right:

    QUT criminologist Mark Lauchs said both the Premier and Justice Fryberg had erred, but the judge should have applied the law rather than react to public debate.

    “The Premier’s comments are inflammatory, show a lack of knowledge of the separation of powers and should not have been made.

    “But judges should not be influenced by them and should consider themselves to be sufficiently independent enough to ignore what most people would consider as PR spin from the government.”

  126. Aristogeiton

    JC/CL, Fryberg’s comments were directed towards the end of granting a stay, so you need to understand the context in which he was speaking before running your mouths. CL would then realise that neither I nor Fryberg, need prove any such thing. CL, life must be so confusing when everything is part of the same mess of nonsense. Your propositions need to make sense in their own right, not after a dozen rounds of special pleading.

  127. Cold-Hands

    Gillard is not a lawyer as she does not have a practising certificate; at this stage it would be appropriate to say she is an ex-lawyer.

    That’s debatable.

    She is an ex-lawyer. She has not renewed her licence to practise and there is no debate about that. A search for practising lawyers in Australia (performed state-by-state) reveal only two Gillards, both male (in Victoria). If she tried to renew her practising certificate, she would have many questions to answer before there was any chance of it being approved.

  128. J.H.

    C.L.

    #1052915, posted on October 31, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    “His[Justice Fryberg] analogy regarding the courts’ lack of interest in the internal workings of parliament doesn’t make any sense. And no, political power is not the product of “perceptions” – much less is this “notoriously” the case. Campbell Newman has power because the people elected him to office and empowered him to make laws. Judges have no such power, no such mandate.”

    CL has the crux of the matter right there……….. Fryberg should shut his trap and just get on with his job…… Judges are like children when it comes to politics……. They should be seen and not heard. It’s not their place. If he doesn’t like it……. resign or retire or whatever outraged judges do.

    Remember. Judges are not special people. They are not Gods, nor towering intellects……… after all, the Nazi regime had Judges and laws. There is nothing magical or incorruptible about the judiciary.

    Plus, I’m not to impressed about a judge likening the Queensland people to “Rednecks” either….. So fuk him.

  129. Aristogeiton

    JH, not a judge: Tony Fitzgerald.

  130. C.L.

    … neither I nor Fryberg, need prove any such thing …

    But of course. How convenient.

    Which public perception is strongest in Queensland right now?

    1. That the Executive is unduly interfering with or bullying the Judiciary.

    2. That the Judiciary seeks to undermine and vitiate the enacted laws of the Legislature.

    Anyone who says 1. isn’t paying attention.

    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    If he doesn’t like it……. resign or retire or whatever outraged judges do.

    Well, this particular judge is just weeks from retirement.

    By the way, did any Supreme Court judge make a comparable stand against Labor’s Anna Bligh when she denounced the courts in 2011 for being soft on child abusers?

    Bligh slams judges as ‘out of touch’.

    PREMIER Anna Bligh has accused the judiciary of losing touch with the community after two controversial decisions involving serious child sex offenders in as many days.

    Attorney-General Cameron Dick has been ordered to review a decision that allowed an Ipswich man, 45, to walk free on bail after being charged with 24 offences, including four of rape and 20 of indecently dealing with a minor.

    Mr Dick will also review the case last week of a child sex offender in Cairns who was jailed for seven years for raping and abusing six girls.

    Ms Bligh yesterday said the State Government would do whatever it could to appeal the decisions.

    “People want to see these types of offenders treated very harshly and that isn’t what they have seen in the past two days,” she said.

  131. M Ryutin

    This was an outrageous interference by a supreme court judge who us about to retire (thankfully) and an attempt by him to further the recent – and scandalous misuse of the term ‘separation of powers’. In fact, his judge band all others who carry on in this manner are themselves attacking the basis of the separation, abuse of which has long been practiced by judges and the like.

    Parliament makes laws as they see fit and judges have to administer them in courts of law. We saw a similar rush of tears when mandatory sentences were called for some years ago (tears in NSW at least). NSW had had mandatory sentences for murder for 80 years and this was never challenged.

    No, this is another attempt for judge-made law. What next? Law changes to reduce bail opportunities for criminals is to be called out as interfering with this spurious ‘separation of powers’ application? Rubbish!

  132. Leigh Lowe

    In fact, his judge band all others who carry on in this manner are themselves attacking the basis of the separation, abuse of which has long been practiced by judges and the like.

    True.
    Separation of powers cuts both ways.
    The parliament should not interfere with the judiciary and the judiciary should not frustrate the will of parliament as expressed in law.
    Fryberg seems to have forgotten the reciprocity of the principle of separation.

  133. .

    We have judge made law in Australia – since 1788. Indigenous Australians may have had it depending on how elders felt about oral law.

    We also have Parliamentary supremacy.

    If you don’t like them, lobby to change the constitution.

  134. Leigh Lowe

    Further, Enfield was not a judge when he committed the offence, and, being subsequently struck from the roll, was not qualified to be so in any event.

    No, but the criminal piece of shit continued to use the title “Justice” along with a bunch of Weetie packet qualifications long after he retired.
    And he was particular about using the title on grandiose letterhead when writing badgering letters attempting to have his criminal activity suppressed.
    He was a judge and the persona which gave rise to his appalling criminal behaviour (involving use of a dead woman’s identity to avoid conviction) did not suddenly surface the day he put the gavel in the rack for the last time.
    Corrupt through and through.

  135. Leigh Lowe

    Hey Aristogeiton, whilst you are going through your pidgin Latin fad, look up “non sequitur” and re-read the gibberish you wrote about Field-Marshall Justice Sir Marcus Einfeld KCMG, DSO, MBA, DFC, VC and bar.
    I am outing you as heaving scraped through one unit of law at a C-Grade TAFE and currently working as a conveyancing assistant( but rate yourself highly as a great legal intellect).

  136. 1735099

    There is a stink which pervades Newman and his Calabrian connections.
    This Bikie stoush and all that surrounds it is a confected distraction.
    Palmer hates the LNP (there is nothing so dangerous as a mining magnate scorned) and this will become more interesting once he has the cover of privilege.
    Queensland is in the hands of spivs and a scorned egomaniac has been elected in Fairfax.
    It will become, to say the least, interesting…….

  137. .

    1735099
    #1053479, posted on November 1, 2013 at 8:43 am

    There is a stink which pervades Newman and his Calabrian connections.
    This Bikie stoush and all that surrounds it is a confected distraction.

    Are you accusing Newman to be involved with organised crime with southern Italian heritage, numbers?

  138. JC

    Are you accusing Newman to be involved with organised crime with southern Italian heritage, numbers?

    Yep. looks like it.

  139. Aristogeiton

    CL, again, these kinds of general considerations are neither here nor there so far as this specific case is concerned. Leigh, you’ve got me – I’m actually Jarrod Bleijie. In relation to what was written about Enfield, re-read the post I was responding to.

  140. C.L.

    There is a stink which pervades Newman and his Calabrian connections.

    Wow.

  141. C.L.

    This was an outrageous interference by a supreme court judge who us about to retire (thankfully) and an attempt by him to further the recent – and scandalous misuse of the term ‘separation of powers’. In fact, this judge and all others who carry on in this manner are themselves attacking the basis of the separation, abuse of which has long been practiced by judges and the like.

    Yes.

  142. candy

    This Bikie stoush and all that surrounds it is a confected distraction.

    Looks like it to me and Mr Newman is chasing some voter support via this stoush with the judiciary. Who knew bikies were such a huge crime problem, but perhaps the police know more than they can divulge.
    Tony Abbott called the laws draconian and seems to have reservations about it, although is diplomatic as usual.

    The organised crime thing is a ridiculous idea ,1735099. But it’s puzzling and Campbell Newman is not showing the finesse you’d expect.

  143. Halladef

    It’s been evident for some time that Tony Fitzgerald believes his own publicity. As for using the term ‘redneck’, more fool Fitzgerald.
    Candy’s words “Who knew bikies were such a huge crime problem”
    Answer: Many knew. Many know.

Comments are closed.