Should Triggs step down too?

Last November, the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, delivered a lecture at an event of the Australian Labor Party organised by member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh – the annual Fraser Lecture (note similarity to annual Sir Garfield Barwick Lecture).

Yes, she actually delivered the lecture, rather than just accepting the invitation and then realising that this was an event organised by the Labor Party (note invitation to a supporter and to donate) and then declining to speak.

Will Shadow Attorney General be calling for her resignation, suppported of course by Julian Burnside, QC.

Here is all the information you need to know:

2014 Fraser Lecture by Gillian Triggs

Gillian Triggs

 

Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, will deliver this year’s Fraser lecture on the evening of Monday 17 November.

Gillian Triggs will be speaking on the subject of An Unprecedented Expansion of Executive Power

More details can be found by visiting Andrew Leigh’s websitehttp://www.andrewleigh.com/fraser_lecture

WHEN
November 17, 2014 at 6:30pm – 8:30pm
WHERE
Copland Lecture Theatre
Kinglsey Street
Acton, ACT 2601
Australia
Google map and directions
CONTACT
Nick Terrell · [email protected]

Will you come?

 Authorised by M. Byrne for ACT Labor 1st Floor, 222 City Walk, Canberra ACT 2600.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Should Triggs step down too?

  1. H B Bear

    I think the difference is that no-one could possibly be under the mis-apprehension that Triggs is anything other than a Labor shill. Except certain members of the Senate Estimates Committee of course.

  2. JakartaJaap

    I agree, of course, with Mr Bear that Ma’aam Triggs is an active and conscious agent of the Filth. But she needs to be hammered mercilessly, as do all of the other useful idiots, agents of influence, place(wo)men, knobjockies and poonjabbers put into positions of authority by the Filth. The forces of good need to understand this is a war. We need to go in hard and do it to them first, because they are sure as shooting doing it to us

  3. Rabz

    Copland Lecture Theatre
    Kinglsey Street
    Acton, ZP

    Cripes – could you imagine the cloud of smug that would have been hovering over the venue that evening?

  4. sabena

    Well done Judith-the complete hypocrisy of the ALP is on display.
    Given the story of Hayden being on the Rhodes Scholarship selection committee(entirely appropriately as he was an academic at the time),I am waiting for the line that he harbours a grudge against the ALP because Evatt sent his father and him to Moscow in 1944 as a punishment.It is said Evatt did this because Heydon senior had a photo of Menzies on his desk at work in the Department of External Affairs.

  5. Tom R

    What court or Royal Commission is Triggs judging in?

    You realise that Freedom boy has been doing the same for Liberal events (and Greens also)

    But, interested in answers my initial question

  6. Judith Sloan

    She is head of a statutory authority which misuses taxpayer money to make political statements and make ludicrous recommendations, including extraordinary high levels of monetary compensation, on the basis of vexatious complaints made to the HRC. She is much more powerful than Heydon.

  7. Kingsley

    Tom R I think Triggs wears a ladies shoe size 7 whilst Heydon wears a men’s size 9. Got any other spurious differences to let her off the hook?

  8. Dave of Cossack

    No not step down… but similar to an egg dropped from a great height would be more suffice for her.

  9. Tom R

    So, no one is able to point to the document that prevents Triggs or freedom boy from doing this, as opposed to a judge?

    Didn’t think so.

    Will you attack freedom boy for doing the same then?

    Didn’t think so.

  10. Judith Sloan

    I actually think it is unwise for Tim Wilson to speak at political events, but he is not the head of the HRC. She has more serious responsibilities, like telling the government that public servants getting two bits of the cherry of taxpayer money to fund their parental leave is a ‘uman right. Oh please.

  11. Econocrat

    “like telling the government that public servants getting two bits of the cherry of taxpayer money to fund their parental leave is a ‘uman right. Oh please.”

    The leftard ratchet. No spending can ever be stopped without breaching ‘uman rights.

  12. Rob MW

    Triggs will be speak about WHAT ???

    Is this the same fright bat that unilaterally gives large taxpayer funded compensation payments to the likes of bike wielding murderers because, really, it was Leprechauns wot done it ??

  13. Pickles

    It follows then, that any judicial officer who was ever been a member of a Labor Lawyer’s club, or was appointed by a Labor government is disqualified from hearing matters in the court of disputed returns or in any matter where any party to any proceeding has any political connection. Happy days.

  14. Baldrick

    Forget it.

    Just like Choppergate, it was only the conservative that steps down. Never the socialist.

  15. candy

    If Bill Shorten didn’t step down while a rape charge was being sorted, why should Ms Triggs step down?

    That would be the guiding standard, to my mind.

  16. Graham

    Tom R, there is effectively no relevant difference between President Triggs holding public enquiries and making recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, and a Royal Commissioner doing the same. Neither are deciding the rights of parties to the hearings, and neither are acting as a ‘judge’. Both can do no more than make recommendations. Sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander and all that.

    If it is ‘bad’ for Dyson Heydon to agree to give a public lecture about a former Chief Justice to a meeting arranged by members of a political party, and that in itself is enough to disqualify him from being fit to conduct a Royal Commission into another matter entirely, it must also disqualify Professor Triggs from being able to hold hearings into matters as AHRC President since she in essence has done the very thing that Dyson Heydon QC now says he will not do namely give an address to a function arranged by members of a political party.

    There is no logical distinction between the two. Neither Heydon nor Triggs need resign by reason of agreeing to give or actually giving public lectures on unrelated topics to the enquiries both engage in as part of their jobs.

  17. Lem

    Tom R
    #1771212, posted on August 18, 2015 at 3:48 pm
    So, no one is able to point to the document that prevents Triggs or freedom boy from doing this, as opposed to a judge?

    Ah, actually Tom, although Heydon is an ex judge, he is now acting as a commissioner, not presiding over a court.

    Try again.

  18. James

    Was Heydon appointed under a Labor government before?

  19. Splatterbottom

    Lem, you’ll have to forgive Tom R. He is a bit out of his depth on this one. He usually contents himself with re-tweeting CFMEU propaganda.

  20. Ubique

    Triggs is a creature of the left so gets a free pass. Nothing to see here.

  21. Oh come on

    If Bill Shorten didn’t step down while a rape charge was being sorted, why should Ms Triggs step down?

    Candy, you seem to have forgotten the stance you took immediately after the chopper business came to light, as it’s completely inconsistent with the standard you just stipulated. Alternatively, maybe you’ve been trolling the blog all along.

  22. Tom R

    he is now acting as a commissioner, not presiding over a court.

    Yes, with the same quasi-legal applications of a court. That would be why they refer to him as “The Hon. John Dyson Heydon AC QC”

    So, no takers? Nice to see the “rape” charges get another go though. I think that pretty much explains it all 😉

  23. Oh come on

    So, no one is able to point to the document that prevents Triggs or freedom boy from doing this, as opposed to a judge?

    You do realise that Gillian Triggs repeatedly claimed she was “above politics” in defence of her position when Brandis stated the government had lost confidence in her impartiality and called upon her to resign?

  24. Oh come on

    Tom R – do you think the HRC Chair should be a non-partisan figure? A simple yes or no will do.

  25. Tom R

    do you think the HRC Chair should be a non-partisan figure?

    Yes, she is.

    That does not prevent her from speaking at party events. Unlike a judge

  26. Gilas

    @ Tom R

    HRC Chair SHOULD be non-partisan, but she IS. AND she gave the lecture.
    Anyone who can’t see that, given her past efforts, can only be a leftard or an invincible cretin (same thing really).

    URC Commissioner SHOULD be non partisan, and there is no evidence he is. He did NOT give the lecture.

    If you can’t see the difference in how Triggs and Heydon have conducted themselves there is no point in further discussion. Back to kindy for you.

  27. Lem

    he is now acting as a commissioner, not presiding over a court.

    Yes, with the same quasi-legal applications of a court. That would be why they refer to him as “The Hon. John Dyson Heydon AC QC”

    Wrong again, a commission of enquiry is completely different to a court, Tom. You might like to google that yourself. The Hon. refers to his previous life as a judge, the AC is his Companion of Australia, and his QC is of course his Queen’s Counsel moniker.

  28. candy

    Candy, you seem to have forgotten the stance you took immediately after the chopper business came to light, as it’s completely inconsistent with the standard you just stipulated. Alternatively, maybe you’ve been trolling the blog all along.

    Not at all, Oh come on.
    Bronwyn Bishop was right to stand down and should have done earlier. Bill Shorten though on a charge rape was not asked to stand down, and his case is much more serious. Barry O’Farrel went after forgetting a bottle of wine.

    In that sense if you compare it all to Bill Shorten, no-one should stand down, as rape is the most serious of all the alleged charges, but no-one has asked him to stand down. There’s no moral consistency here at all.

  29. Tom R

    Wrong again, a commission of enquiry is completely different to a court, Tom.

    I did google it, a while ago.

    Given the commission is a quasi-judicial process

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/aug/13/security-committee-chair-says-bomb-syria-politics-live

    Is the HRC quasi-judicial ?

    And Triggs has not been partisan, except for morons like Chris Kenny who continue to lie about her comments.

    As I said, freedom biy has and does do it, as do many public servants. But Heydon is not a public servant, he is a judge appointed to a Royal Commission, which carries with it quasi-judicial duties. It has different rules applied to it.

    You may not like that, yet it remains the facts

  30. Oh come on

    That does not prevent her from speaking at party events.

    So explain why the act of giving a presentation at a party-political event makes Dyson Heydon partisan, but not Gillian Triggs?

    And before you start off with hez a judggggge!!!1!, their respective positions are irrelevant beyond the already established expectation that both positions need to remain politically non-partisan.

    Am interested to see what kind of tortured logic you deploy to get out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into here.

  31. Tom R

    Bill Shorten though on a charge rape was not asked to stand down

    Wow, the gutter gets reached quick around here doesn’t it!

  32. JC

    TomR

    What did this former Judge actually do wrong? Detail it you, pipsqueak. Full dets.

  33. JC

    Bill Shorten though on a charge rape was not asked to stand down

    Of course he wouldn’t. That gets you promotion in the Liars Party.

  34. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Bill Shorten though on a charge rape was not asked to stand down

    Look’ I’m only too proud to say I despise Bill Shorten, but isn’t it a fact he was never charged? Cops forwarded the brief to the relevant legal authorities, but they decided that a prosecution wouldn’t succeed?

  35. Gab

    Look’ I’m only too proud to say I despise Bill Shorten, but isn’t it a fact he was never charged?

    Correct. The police performed a cursory “investigation” and then the matter was dropped. But no, even while under investigation, Shorten did not step down.

  36. candy

    Wow, the gutter gets reached quick around here doesn’t it!

    Well, Tom R, I said allegation, cf course. So I don’t think that means”gutter” talk.

    But, if we’re talking things being inappropriate, an opposition leader on a rape charge seems inappropriate, never proven nor disproven. Of course you would say if it was T. Abbott as opposition leader he would have to stand down. Now don’t be churlish, Tom R, Labor people all say that and I know quite a few.

    Just comparing the morals and ethics of these different situations, is all.

  37. JC

    So fucking what he wasn’t charged, Zulu. All that means is that there isn’t a legal case most probably because it’s long past the due date.

    That, however doesn’t mean we as individuals can’t form an opinion.

    Abbott was accused of punching a wall and people freely discussed it like he had raped the woman.

  38. Oh come on

    Tom R has already displayed the double standard he applies to wayward Labor types. No doubt if Abbott was being investigated for rape, Tom R would be screeching for his castration before Abbott’s accuser had even got off the phone to the cops.

    Tom R appears utterly oblivious to his inconsistent approach, however. It’s an incurable case. No amount of reasoning will enlighten him.

  39. And Triggs has not been partisan, except for morons like Chris Kenny who continue to lie about her comments.

    The stupid is strong in this one.

  40. 2dogs

    Abbott should introduce legislation making all present and former members of all political parties ineligible to serve in any public service position where impartiality is required.

    All judicial positions. ABC, too.

    Even if he loses Dyson Heydon in the sweep, he would gain so much from it, by the replaced appointees.

  41. Tom R

    The stupid is strong in this one.

    Stupid is what kenny says

    http://theguttertrash.com/2015/02/25/an-open-letter-to-the-rest-of-the-world/#comment-96840

    I note that amongst all the slurs and denials, nobody has been able to come close to answering my initial question. That very much validates imo 😉

  42. Poor Tom R – the butt hurt is making him cranky

  43. Gab

    That very much validates imo

    lol

    Who is this new clown?

  44. Who is this new clown?

    He just wandered in off the street wearing floppy clown shoes smelling faintly of eau de grease trap.

  45. 2dogs

    What court or Royal Commission is Triggs judging in?

    The Human Rights Commision.

    It is a judicial body. Like all such bodies, a citizen can lodge a complaint with the HRC, and get a hearing as a result.

    Determinations made by the HRC can have a legal effect.

  46. A Lurker

    Interesting timing.

    Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, will deliver this year’s Fraser lecture on the evening of Monday 17 November.

    Earlier that year this happened…

    National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention 2014.

    Which was used by Triggs (and Labor/Greens) to whack the Abbott Government.

  47. Tom R

    It is a judicial body

    Got a link for that? Because I think you will find it is a statutory body, not a legal one.

    A Royal Commission is another thing entirely.

    There are numerous reasons why judicial officers are viewed as the appropriate members of society to undertake this role. Firstly, judicial officers possess the skills and experience that make them uniquely qualified to conduct public inquiries, which generally require the examination of evidence, fact finding, assessment of the credibility of witnesses and setting out reasons for decisions.
    Secondly, judicial officers bring to a public inquiry a necessary perception of independence and impartiality from government and afford a sense of authority to the proceedings.
    These skills are particularly necessary when the inquiry is examining issues of conduct, as opposed to inquiries into social or economic policy.

    http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/a-z-docs/ReviewoftheRoyalCommissionsActIssuesPaperSub190509.pdf

    Of course, lots of ongoing slurs, but no answers yet to my, what seemed at the time, quite simple question.

  48. candy

    It’s no good going on about Ms Triggs, Tom R.

    She offered $300,000 to a man who killed his wife and unborn baby as compo. It’s not a popular move.

  49. Oh come on

    nobody has been able to come close to answering my initial question.

    What, you mean this one:

    What court or Royal Commission is Triggs judging in?

    We’ve already established that the answer is not relevant to Judith’s point. Do try to keep up.

    You claim that a judge making a presentation at a party-political political function renders the presenter a partisan figure. Okay, fine. However, you have provided no reason why this principle should not be extended to the holder of any position that’s expected to remain non-partisan. No ifs, no buts – you have provided no logical reason why Dyson Heydon presenting at a party-political event brands him a partisan figure, whereas Gillian Triggs can present at a party-political event and continue to be regarded as non-partisan.

  50. Oh come on

    So, is Triggs a judge?

    Still no answers.

    And still irrelevant.

  51. Entropy

    I like this idea, a lot. Ditto boards and things like the fair work commission. The snouts would never vote for it though.

    Ps heydon has never been a member of a political party AFAIK.

  52. Entropy

    That would be two dogs’ idea

  53. I don’t care if you’re a commissioner, president of a commission or a mid level public servant, if your job requires you to be apolitical then you don’t go giving lectures at political shindigs period.

    So no, no difference between Heydon and Triggs.

  54. Oh come on

    Well, there is a difference. Triggs gave the speech at the political shindig. Heydon didn’t.

    But I’m taking baby steps with Tom R. The first step is to see whether he has the intellectual honesty to apply his principles consistently.

  55. Oh come on

    The first step is to see whether he has the intellectual honesty to apply his principles consistently.

    Shorter version – whether he has principles or enemies.

  56. Tom R

    We’ve already established that the answer is not relevant to Judith’s point.

    it is entirely relevant

    However, you have provided no reason why this principle should not be extended to the holder of any position that’s expected to remain non-partisan

    Because Heydon is a Judge, and acting under that capacity, and, as a Judge, is specifically restrained from party political events while acting in that capacity, in a way that might imply bias.

    Triggs (like freedom Boy) acting as commissioners for the HRC, do not have such restrictions. They are not judges, and not tied by the same restrictions.

    So the question remains. Heyson has been shown that he breached the bias requirements of his position. How has Triggs, except by some people saying “I don’t care if you’re a commissioner …..”? That is no logical or required explanation

  57. 2dogs

    and acting under that capacity, and, as a Judge, is specifically restrained from party political events while acting in that capacity, in a way that might imply bias.

    You’re just going around in circles ther, Tom R. You need to say why this principle should be the case, not merely assert that it is.

  58. Tom R

    Here.

    Nothing about it being judicial, quasi or not.

    And, even if it were, Triggs is not a Judge, and so not under those specific requirements Heydon, as a Judge, found himself in breach of.

  59. 2dogs

    So a body that hears cases referred from members of the public and make determinations from them that can have legal effect, is not quasi-judicial in your opinion?

    Ok folks, Tom R is now starting to fail basic comprehension. He is not using words to mean what they are normally taken to mean.

    Can I have an interpreter, please?

  60. BrettW

    Time to remind people about all the Union connections of the great majority of Labour Senators and MP’s. In particular the process of how the Unions get such a big say about their selection out of all proportion to their representation in the population.

    People should also remember or be reminded how the Unions inflate their numbers to get more delegates and power at Labour conferences. Such conferences decide policies and small cliques of Union leaders choose their mates to represent Labour. TURC for example heard how the TWU NSW submitted false membership details which effectively doubled their numbers. Other evidence has shown AWU and CFMEU also played the numbers game. AWU VIC under Shorten was particularly good at this with one company forwarding workers names based on the first certain names in the alphabet. Witnesses have given evidence in TURC that they were surprised to learn they were apparently members of AWU. Then you have the stand over actions of CFMEU in ACT where many witnesses have given evidence about being intimidated.

    I have not seen any news articles about last weeks evidence about the handling of money supposed to go to a charity set up for rehab for construction workers. The Australian has been a major disappointment in this respect. They seem to have a permanent reporter assigned to the Jackson/Lawler story but surely TURC deserves a bit more coverage.

    So much of what has been revealed in TURC so far is not getting through to most of the public. The Coalition MPs and supporters need to get active in spreading the word about the evidence so far. Labour MP’s have been posting about TURC/Heydon on Facebook (Bourke 4 posts in one day) but seems Coalition and Liberal Party more concerned about other matters on their FB pages.

    Would be nice to see some well researched summaries in the press highlighting what has gone on in TURC so far and the hypocrisy and self interest of Labour. They are only interested in protecting their own and hiding the actions that are coming out.

  61. Oh come on

    Tom R, you’ve already said the chief of the HRC needs to remain non-partisan. You have also stated that making a presentation at a party-political political event indicates the presenter is partisan. Sorry, there’s no two ways about it – when applying your principles consistently, Gillian Triggs’s position is untenable. Restating points you’ve already made that have no bearing on the discussion won’t magically endow them with traction simply because you’re trotting them out again.

  62. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    OCO:

    The first step is to see whether he has the intellectual honesty to apply his principles consistently.

    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha… gasp…. hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa ……… gasp, oh my aching ribs hahahahahahahahahahaha…. snort, gasp. hihihi hee…

    OCO, you utter cad, sir, you are having WAY too much fun here.

  63. Tom R

    You need to say why this principle should be the case, not merely assert that it is.

    I guess you haven’t been listening

    … justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-18/olijnyk-do-the-unions-have-a-good-case-against-dyson-heydon/6705668

  64. Oh come on

    It’s okay, 2dogs. At least Tom R believes the Bolt case judgement should be overturned, and Judge Mordy retired from the bench. Judges *must* be non-partisan.

  65. Tom R

    You have also stated that making a presentation at a party-political political event indicates the presenter is partisan.

    It can give that impression.

    In Triggs case, it is allowable, she is not a sitting judge. Neither is freedom boy, which is why he can also

    Heydon has a higher bar to uphold in this respect, which he has failed.

  66. 2dogs

    The principle I was referring to to was this dichotomy you are drawing, suggesting that the restriction applies to judges but not other officers.

    You have given no reason why that dichotomy should be drawn.

  67. 2dogs

    In Triggs case, it is allowable, she is not a sitting judge. Neither is freedom boy, which is why he can also

    Possible translation:
    The nurse has taken away my pill case, and chilled my bed pan also.

  68. Tom R

    Judge Mordy

    How did Judge Mordy show his bias while the case was ongoing?

  69. Sydney Boy

    I know you have been told before Tom R, but Dyson Heydon is the Chair of the Royal Commission. He is a former judge. A Royal Commission’s powers are non-judicial. They make recommendations. The HRC, however, makes judgements which are judicial in nature. That is, they must be followed. Hence Gillian “frightbat” Triggs awarding $300k compensation to a convicted wife-killer. I thought you lefties were all over domestic violence?

    So the hypocrisy is obvious. Heydon was invited to a liberal fund-raiser but did not attend. Lefties are outraged. Triggs was invited to a labor fundraiser and whined her way through. Lefties are proud. You cannot see the difference? Or just choose not to?

    And seriously? Your evidence is a link to an opinion column in the Guardian? That’s your evidence? Hahahaha!

  70. Tom R

    Possible translation:

    You cannot understand why two applications of perceived bias can be applied? Even after it has been spelt out.

  71. Gab

    How did Judge Mordy show his bias while the case was ongoing?

    How has Heydon shown his bias during the TURC?

  72. Tom R

    but Dyson Heydon is the Chair of the Royal Commission

    See my post at 7:26 pm

  73. Tom R

    How has Heydon shown his bias during the TURC?

    Wow, you all DO live under rocks here

    By accepting an invitation to a liberal fundraiser

    gotta go now, should be a fun read in the morning

  74. Gab

    By accepting an invitation to a liberal fundraiser

    Which he cancelled before the event and before the media got onto it.

    Meanwhile, Judge Mordy was up for preselection as a Labor candidate.

  75. Sydney Boy

    Yes Tom R, we can see why there are two claims of bias. But the difference is one attendance happened (Triggs) and the other didn’t (Heydon). And the lefties are outraged at one (Heydon), and not the other (Triggs). That is called hypocrisy. It’s a word you obviously don’t know. Look it up in a dictionary.

  76. Gab

    Wow, you all DO live under rocks here

    Puerile insults, the last resort of the Left who have lost an argument.

  77. Rob MW

    When Triggs forms a committee of inquiry, as is her remit, then she is acting judicially.

    This was decided by the High Court in Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.

  78. Oh come on

    It can give that impression.

    No. It either does or it doesn’t. You could argue that it’s less necessary for the HRC chief to be non-partisan than a Royal Commissioner, but you’ve already said that the HRC chief needs to be non-partisan. Triggs’s position is thus untenable according to your own standards.

    In Triggs case, it is allowable, she is not a sitting judge. Neither is freedom boy, which is why he can also

    You are sounding increasingly desperate. Why not concede the point – or, hell, admit you have a politically motivated double standard? Either would be a more dignified exit than maintaining your current carry-on.

  79. Slayer of Memes

    Slayer of Memes
    #1770981, posted on August 18, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Re. the Heydon fiasco..

    If the Libs had any balls they would point out that Gillian Triggs gave a speech (and subsequent Q&A session) at a Labor fundraiser organised by Andrew Leigh in 2014 discussing topics like asylum seekers, S18C, and the government’s (then proposed) anti-terror legislation….. all at the same time that she was conducting her ‘review’ into the children in detention ‘scandal’…

    Under ALP/Green logic that means she is hopelessly biased, and that any findings from her review must be comprised and should be ignored, right?

    (Note: I did say “IF the Libs had balls….” )

    3 hours later…

    Should Triggs step down too?
    Posted on 2:53 pm, August 18, 2015 by Judith Sloan

    Maybe I should approach the Doomlord about becoming a regular contributor…

  80. Oh come on

    gotta go now, should be a fun read in the morning

    He won’t be back.

  81. Toiling Mass

    The trick of loudly insisting on one slur based on another rarely referred to one is beginning to establish the rarely referred to one is true.

    Even now the argument is whether Heydon should step down after agreeing to a Liberal party function and overlooking the fact that he did not agree to any such thing – he agreed to a law lecture and withdrew when it was discovered to be connected to the Libs.

    Even if he does not step down people are used to assuming he agreed to do something with a political bent rather than the truth which is the exact opposite.

  82. A Lurker

    gotta go now, should be a fun read in the morning (posted on August 18, 2015 at 8:52 pm)

    Obviously 9pm is knock-off time for GetUp/Sussex Street operatives.
    I wonder if Tom.R’s superiors know that he’s logging off eight minutes early?

  83. Splatacrobat

    Heydon is a retired judge and presently employed as a commissioner.

    Triggs is a president and commissioner.

    They are one and the same.

  84. Oh come on

    Even now the argument is whether Heydon should step down after agreeing to a Liberal party function and overlooking the fact that he did not agree to any such thing – he agreed to a law lecture and withdrew when it was discovered to be connected to the Libs.

    Steady on. I think most here are familiar with the specifics of the matter, see

    Well, there is a difference. Triggs gave the speech at the political shindig. Heydon didn’t.

    But I’m taking baby steps with Tom R. The first step is to see whether he has the intellectual honesty to apply his principles consistently.

    It’s simply more profitable to expose the hypocrisy of people like Tom R through using a direct equivalent, rather than letting him off the hook by allowing him to change the subject.

  85. Splatacrobat

    My guess is Tom R was Mrs Fihi. She’s desperate to get her hubby off the hook.

  86. Copperfield

    Federal court justice Mordy Bromberg didn’t recuse himself when the case of TOYOTA vs AMWU was brought before him.
    Despite the fact that he had represented 2 of the Toyota workers on behalf of the AMWU some years earlier when he was a Barrister.Those same 2 Toyota workers that he represented where then before him in the Federal court as part of a group taking on Toyota.
    FFS,that more bias than Heydon has ever shown.

  87. Andrew

    Should Triggs step down too?

    Yes, definitely. And there should be a police van waiting for her outside the door.

  88. And there should be a police van waiting for her outside the door.

    No bring back outlawry. (That could be one of the plebiscite questions.) Let her be declared an outlaw—after a fair trial, of course—so no man might give her food or shelter but might terminate* her on sight with impunity and, I hope, with extreme prejudice.

    * NaDT

  89. C.L.

    Federal court justice Mordy Bromberg didn’t recuse himself when the case of TOYOTA vs AMWU was brought before him.

    Brendan O’Connor didn’t recuse himself from demanding Dyson Heydon step down today, even though his brother is a paid propagandist of the CFMEU.

    Well done, Peter Dutton.

    O’Connor looked like one of Mike Tyson’s early victims after that hay-maker.

  90. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    No bring back outlawry. (That could be one of the plebiscite questions.)

    I’m trying to remember the full sentence of outlawry “With every man’s hand against them, and anyone who takes their lives as doing God’s work” but I keep getting the sentence mixed up with “drawing, hanging and quartering.” Can’t see that being back, though.

  91. Auto De Fe

    What would a black-letter jurist, one who respects the purpose and the word of legislators’ express intent, make of suggestions in this place that Gillian Triggs might avoid or refuse to perform any and all of her range of statutory obligations under relevant Parliamentary enactments and prevailing legal instruments, and to the utmost of her ability, including using her initiative to promote human rights discussion in the community? Would a black-letter jurist confuse Triggs’ performance with bias, or is that sort of confusion only possible via an unbiased, ex ante political calculus of the kind proferred so often above about the remit and worths of ‘umans and/or rights?

  92. Toiling Mass

    OCO,

    Sorry, I was unclear.

    I meant out in the wilderness where people just go with the soundbites and lamestream media – to which is regurgitated around all the pubs and BBQs.

    It will become something everybody ‘knows’, like Abbott’s ‘problem with women’ and ‘homophobia’.

  93. Auto De Fe

    FFS,that more bias than Heydon has ever shown.

    Cab rank?

  94. Tom R

    When Triggs forms a committee of inquiry, as is her remit, then she is acting judicially.

    You forgot to link to the committee of inquiry she had formed while attending the event? Unlike like heydon, who had planned to attend the fundraiser whilst the RC was still going, and only pulled out once the story was about to break.

    You might think that a report written a long time ago that you don’t like might look the same. However, for a start, it is a report, not a tribunal, secondly, it was written and finalised well before the Labor event and thirdly, the report was a damning of Labor as it was of the Liberals.

    You are sounding increasingly desperate.

    Or increasingly accurate. If, as you claim, Triggs position is “untenable”, then neither is freedom boys. Of coure, your claim is “untenable”, which is why both are still there.

    overlooking the fact that he did not agree to any such thing

    Sorry, but the email trail show he was aware of it and did agree to, the invitiation even highlighted that they assumed the RC would be over. Heydon has been burnt by abbotts desire to prolong this for his own purposes.

    and withdrew when it was discovered to be connected to the Libs.

    No, he knew that from hte start. He withdrew once the papers went to print with the story.

    Despite the fact that he had represented 2 of the Toyota workers on behalf of the AMWU some years earlier

    That there highlights very precisely why Heydon finds himself in this predicaament. He planned to attend WHILE the RC was still going.

    But it’s fine if judges speak at Labor events, of course

    Are either the judge or Gillian Triggs running anything akin to a Royal Commission (which the Human Rights Commission demonstratably is not, no matter how much you want it to be) in conjunction with these events?

    The simple fact is, Heydon got busted breaking the rules of engagement in a game in which he is applying those same rules to the utmost extent.

  95. Craig

    Tom R,

    Tell me Tom, what is most bothersome to you, Heydon agreeing to speak at a liberal party function or Heydon uncovering illegal union activities and persistent law breaking or perhaps Bill Shoren accepting 40,000 dollars in the form of a paid staffer to work in his office?

    Tell me Tom, what side of the fence do you stand on when it comes to the morally corrupt behaviour of the unions? Or Tom, would you have us believe that you, yourself, are simply a paid labor shill trolling this blog?

    Over to you Tom, 3 questions, 3 answers and let’s measure the mark of Toms character shall we?

  96. Tom R

    3 questions, 3 answers

    Nice, I get demands to answer questions while no one has answered my one question yet. Fine, I’ll play your game

    I’m not bothered by Heydon speaking at a lib fundraising event, unless of course he is judging a highly political Royal Commission at the same time, then there is a problem.

    I am no fan of any case of illegal activity linked to a Union (or anyone or thing else). The sad case is, any evidence of this is very thin on the ground from the turc evidence. Lots of accusations, but not many related to illegal activity, and much leads to nothing but examples Union officials getting better pay and conditions for workers in a highly charged environment.

    You can believe what you want about myself or my motivations, but I would advise sticking to addressing the facts as presented, which show Heydon has a case to answer, and that Triggs (or freedom boy) do not.

  97. Lem

    I’m not bothered by Heydon speaking at a lib fundraising event, unless of course he is judging a highly political Royal Commission at the same time, then there is a problem.

    Well, you can rest assured, because he is not judging anything, as you well know from the above discussion, and he did not attend a lib fund raising event.

    I’m not bothered by Heydon speaking at a lib fundraising event, unless of course he is judging a highly political Royal Commission at the same time, then there is a problem.

    I leave you with this in rebuttal: from the Australian today:

    Last week, Master Builders Australia backed the integrity of the evidence given to the commission so far. “The testimony of ­numerous witnesses including contractors, subcontractors, employees, employers and union whistleblowers, provides compelling evidence of a culture of intimidation, coercion and unlawful behaviours on and off building sites,” said chief executive Wilhelm Harnisch. “The integrity of the evidence provided by witnesses cannot be brought into question.”

    Over 143 days of hearings the commission has heard hundreds of hours of evidence from union and industry figures, alleging threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation and harassment. It exposed an alleged “culture of bullying”, harassment and intimidation within the Victorian branch of the Health Services Union, which the commission heard was overseen by its branch secretary, Diana Asmar. Details of slush funds set up by the Australian Workers Union, the National Union of Workers, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, and the Canberra branch of the CFMEU have also been aired.

    Mr Heydon’s interim report recommended sanctions against the construction union’s national office, the head of the health services union’s Victorian branch, the national office of the transport union and the Queensland office of the shoppies’ union. It examined the Victorian CFMEU branch black ban on concrete supplier Boral from construction sites as part of its “war” with developer Grocon in 2013. Mr Heydon warned the CFMEU “treats itself as above the law”.

    The commission’s investigations into the CFMEU’s NSW branch exposed claims Mr Parker was involved in a plan to obtain confidential details of union superannuation members to use in his campaign against construction firm Lis-Con.

    Its continuing investigations into Mr Shorten follow allegations he failed to disclose more than $40,000 donated to his political campaign by a company with which his union was dealing. The AWU has also come under fire over revelations it traded away the penalty rates of low-paid workers, and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in unexplained payments.

  98. Tom R

    because he is not judging anything

    Then you read close enough to note the “quasi-judicial” part I see 😉

    The integrity of the evidence provided by witnesses cannot be brought into question.

    You mean like this one?

    http://commissionwatch.com.au/wilsons-statement-read-part-radio/

    which only adds to the appearance of bias.

    it traded away the penalty rates of low-paid workers

    I really love the way they are now using workchoices undermining of conditions as rates as somehow the fault of the Union. That takes some Chutzpah.

  99. John

    Let’s go to basics.
    Why do we need Human Rights Commission?!?!?!

  100. Craig

    Bravo Tom R, I admire your work.

    Ok, you are not bothered by Heydon speaking at a Lib event and while you express some concerns about union activity, the facts are, 3 officials have now been arrested and charged with illegal activities. That Tom R, is not evidence that is thin on the ground and that Tom R, is the root of the problem that the labor party want covered up. Do you believe, in all sincerity, that it stops at 3 Union officials? You, me and every other blogger on this site know that is not the case, hence why Heydon should do his job irrespective of his acceptance to speak at a lib event and which he has now pulled out of.

    I, Tom R, am all for better wages and conditions for workers but not at the expense of the business itself and this is coming from a guy who holds an MBA. However, the sincerity you have displayed in your posts are of concern given the imputation that you would rather disqualify Heydon and shut down the enquiry than root out the malfeasance of corrupt Union officials. As for Triggs, partisan to the core and while you may argue semantics, I’ll simply take a broader view and say a pox on both houses.

    Tom R, welcome to the blog and good luck.

  101. Andrew

    The sad case is, any evidence of this is very thin on the ground from the turc evidence.

    This scum has outed himself. It isn’t a young and naive student operating under the delusion that he’s a “progressive” – Tom R is coming here to deliberately push lies and smear to facilitate union corruption. what a total grub Tom is.

  102. .

    I, Tom R, am all for better wages and conditions for workers but not at the expense of the business itself and this is coming from a guy who holds an MBA.

    Craig, I put it to you that you care more about the workers, who Shorten sold out for his 30 pieces of silver.

  103. .

    I really love the way they are now using workchoices undermining of conditions as rates as somehow the fault of the Union. That takes some Chutzpah.

    Thy name is Bill Shorten!

    If he was opposed to WorkChoices, he wouldn’t have done that.

  104. Wow! Such extraordinary arguments concerning definitions of “quasi”, “judicial officers”, “commissioners”, etc. and all I thought that this matter was about was the “perception” of bias – or at least that’s what the main thread of Labor’s argument. (although some confusion here – in his Censure Motion last week Tony Burke claimed Dyson Heydon was “biased” whereas the seconder of his Motion (Mark Dreyfus ) explicitedly avoided that description instead relying on the “perception” mantra).

    If Labor’s argument of “perception” prevails in respect of Dyson Heydon then there is absolutely no difference in these matters involving M/s Triggs – none whatsoever – and undergraduate esoteric arguments about the definitions of titles is mere puffery.

  105. strange

    “She is head of a statutory authority which misuses taxpayer money to make political statements and make ludicrous recommendations, including extraordinary high levels of monetary compensation, on the basis of vexatious complaints made to the HRC. She is much more powerful than Heydon.”
    The usual blather from Judith Sloan and sounding a little shrill.
    Heydon has much greater power as a Royal Commissioner, for example, coercive powers such as being able to compel a witness to attend a hearing, answer questions and produce documents.

  106. .

    strange – judith is correct. Heydon pulled out of the event. You’re a mob looking for someone to lynch.

    The ALP and unions are corrupt to the bone and need some serious investigation.

  107. Craig

    Numbers,

    Yes, I do care about worker conditions and wages but not at the detrimental expense of business if the said business is already meeting its lawful obligations. So, I do express the desire for workers wages to be improved above the award rate only when productivity gains are seen and not before. With respect to Shorten, this goes the heart of debate of the moment and why labor want the commission shut down.

    Bill Shorten, the gift that keeps on giving.

  108. Ralph

    They both should resign.

  109. copperfield

    FFS,that more bias than Heydon has ever shown.

    Cab rank?

    A perception of bias outranks ‘Cab rank’,surely!
    We can forgive his failed attempt at ALP preselection.
    However,he had worked for the AMWU before and represented those 2 Toyota employees as a Barrister when they sought action against Toyota.
    Then low and behold,those same 2 Toyota employees are before him in the Federal Court, seeking action against TOYOTA once more,under the auspices of the AWMU.
    Also,when the Justice was asked to step aside,he didn’t mention ‘Cab rank’ as a reason for denying the motion,IIRC!

  110. Oh come on

    They both should resign.

    This is a completely consistent and respectable opinion. Perhaps a little harsh on Dyson Heydon, who cancelled his presentation once he was aware of the nature of the gathering, but c0nsistent nonetheless.

    However, Tom R wants only non-ALP/leftist aligned figures to resign at the merest whiff of impropriety. If you’re a leftist/ALP wrongdoer in a similar situation, Tom R will concoct any number of silly justifications as to why you should be let off the hook.

  111. jupes

    However, Tom R wants only non-ALP/leftist aligned figures to resign at the merest whiff of impropriety. If you’re a leftist/ALP wrongdoer in a similar situation, Tom R will concoct any number of silly justifications as to why you should be let off the hook.

    Lefties are completely immune to hypocrisy.

    It works its arse for them. Every time.

  112. Oh come on

    What I find curious is that it seems Tom R genuinely doesn’t have the perspective to recognise his hypocrisy, even in the face of an avalanche of logic that has clearly and repeatedly highlighted the colossal double standards he’s applying. No, his Herculean effort to keep carrying water for Mordy and Triggs continues.

  113. jupes

    No, his Herculean effort to keep carrying water for Mordy and Triggs continues.

    And they survive because Labor is full of hypocrits who continue to to do the same for Mordy and Triggs but shamelessly go in hard against Heydon (who may not survive). Just like Burke attacking Bishop for travel entitlements.

    The Lefties win every time.

  114. Tom R

    an avalanche of logic

    I think you are confusing the group thinks locked in opinion with something entirely different.

    If someone can simply answer my original question, then actual “logic” might be applied.

    Until then, you can keep thinking Triggs is biased, but only Heydon has shown himself to be, by accepting to speak at a political event (fundraiser) while he is commissioner charged with the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court, presiding over a tribunal that is directly attacking the opposing political party

    Sorry, but simply calling me names and abusing me isn’t “logic” of any sort. It resembles more a defensive pack with nothing left to offer.

    imo 😉

  115. Oh come on

    I suspect the ALP caucus knew full well that Burke took a giant risk by going in hard against Bishop, given his own willingness to spend large amounts of public money on inappropriate things – a propensity they all would have known about. After the dust has settled, they no doubt view the calculated risk he took as genius brinksmanship. He succeeded in removing a major thorn in Labor’s side for the crime of doing the kinds of things he himself got up to – and emerged unscathed! He was dead right when he figured the Libs would be too gutless to go after him even though he’d felled one of their own, and even though he was particularly vulnerable to the same attack he used to gut Bishop. He pissed hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money up the wall while entertaining his floozy, and he got away with it – what a champ! What a hero!

    Tom R, if you want to walk this kind of amoral line, then fine. Whatever it takes, right? But be honest about it. Don’t bullshit people here by pretending your defence of people like Triggs and Judge Mordy is rooted in morality. It’s so easy to see past the pretence.

  116. Oh come on

    If someone can simply answer my original question, then actual “logic” might be applied.

    It has already been explained to you, several times, why your original question is irrelevant. Read up if you can’t remember.

  117. Walrus

    Sorry folks TomR is well known to us at another “Village.” He recently escaped and we miss him

    Here’s a photo of his bedroom floor

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/content/dam/images/2/v/s/7/h/image.related.articleLeadwide.620×349.2vrpp.png/1382081773427.jpg

  118. Oh come on

    Sorry, but simply calling me names and abusing me isn’t “logic” of any sort.

    Throughout this thread you have chosen to ignore logic as it has been presented to you, and instead continue to pretend that a silly question of yours, which has been demonstrated to be irrelevant, is in fact irrefutable proof that you’re correct. I think you’ll find you’re called names because of this sort of intellectual dishonesty.

  119. Tom R

    It has already been explained to you, several times, why your original question is irrelevant

    And I explained why it is not irrelevant, but central to the point.

    If the RC had finished, and Heydon had spoken, there would have been no problem. The problem was, he was caught planning to still speak while the RC was still running.

    It was highlighted in the invitation when they said wtte “if the RC has finished”

  120. A Lurker

    The Lefties win every time.

    They win because they are immoral and unethical. There is no line that they will not cross. No rule they will not break. No law they will not bend. No lie they will not push. Means to an end. Whatever it takes.

    They turn my stomach. What they are is a disease of society.

  121. Oh come on

    OK, I’ll try one more time. Your question, namely

    What court or Royal Commission is Triggs judging in?

    is irrelevant when consistently applying the principle you are seeking to hang Dyson Heydon on. See my posts from yesterday at 7.48pm and 8.39pm for more details – I don’t care to repeat myself.

    Because Heydon is a Judge, and acting under that capacity, and, as a Judge, is specifically restrained from party political events while acting in that capacity, in a way that might imply bias.

    This is irrelevant. You stated that the position of Chief Commissioner of the HRC must remain non-partisan. You’ve also established that making a presentation at a party-political event is grounds to be considered a partisan figure. Therefore, Triggs’s position at the HRC is untenable.

    You have boxed yourself in with the above. Your “original question” isn’t just irrelevant – you’re engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading through the application of a double standard. There is no reason why the range of actions that cause others to consider an individual politically partisan should be any different on the basis of whether they are a judge or the Chief Commissioner of the HRC.

  122. Oh come on

    Because Heydon is a Judge, and acting under that capacity, and, as a Judge, is specifically restrained from party political events while acting in that capacity, in a way that might imply bias.

    I should have blockquoted this above.

  123. Giffy

    If the RC had finished and Heydon had spoken at the function, there would have been no problem, according to Tom R.
    As long as Heydon didn’t “speak”, he could be (covertly) biased, still.
    No problem.

    The only ones “caught” are those union officials.
    This is the highlight.

  124. Splatterbottom

    Heydon knows that appearing at a Liberal Party fundraiser would give the appearance of bias. Hence his withdrawal.

    It is not only his role as Commissioner but also the subject matter of the Royal Commission which must be considered. When assessing bias the identity of the persons involved, especially those who may benefit or who may be subject to adverse findings, is highly relevant.

    In this case it was always likely that evidence would be required from senior ALP politicians and in fact this has proven to be the case. Further some of them may be subject to adverse findings.

    It is enough (for an ordinary lay person like me at least) that Heydon agreed to attend when he knew or should have known that it was a Liberal Party event. It may well have been an oversight on his part and that is unfortunate, but that oversight has resulted in the appearance of bias. He should resign.

    Triggs is a different case altogether. Hers is a case of actual bias clearly demonstrated. She should resign in shame.

  125. Tom R

    If Labor’s argument of “perception” prevails in respect of Dyson Heydon then there is absolutely no difference in these matters involving M/s Triggs

    There is a HUGE difference, as I have explained, Judges have different level of acceptable behaviour attached to them, BECAUSE of their position, and it is VERY specific.

    The second edition of the national guide to chief court officers outlines some well-established principles. Among them is this one:

    “Although active participation in or membership of a political party before appointment would not of itself justify an allegation of judicial bias or an appearance of bias, it is expected that, on appointment, a judge will sever all ties with political parties. An appearance of continuing ties, such as might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fund raising events or through contributions to a political party, should be avoided.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/union-royal-commissioner-dyson-heydon-has-a-problem-20150813-giyalk.html#ixzz3jFK3lLAY
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    That is why my question needs to be answered in order for any of this “logic” to apply.

  126. Oh come on

    We have already established that a judge should be a non-partisan figure. That excerpt you quoted merely provides a (painfully obvious) tip as to how one can can be seen to be politically non-partisan. This tip may have been provided for the benefit of the judiciary, but it’s also basic bloody common sense; applicable to any position which is expected to to be non-partisan. For example, the Chief Commissioner of the HRC, as you stated. Who, according to your logic, should resign.

  127. candy

    Ms Triggs misled the Senate.

    In her heart I bet she knows she has stuffed up, but ego and the protection of Bill Shorten and Labor make it easier for her to survive in her job.

    Also for the government to criticise her work performance again, would bring down accusations of misogny and ageism. She old, she’s a woman, she might get sick from stresd. Best just leave the elderly lady in her job till she retires.

  128. .

    If judges had no biases, there’d be no equity, mercy, partial criminal defences, estoppels…

    Triggs misled the Senate. Dyson has not.

    The end.

  129. Oh come on

    I am trying not to completely blow Tom R’s mind with the fact that Heydon didn’t even act in a manner contrary to what we saw outlined in “[t]he second edition of the national guide to chief court officers”.

    First thing’s first. Tom R needs to admit he has a problem.

  130. Auto De Fe

    “For example, the Chief Commissioner of the HRC, as you stated. Who, according to your logic, should resign.”

    Logically, if Gillian Triggs is President of the HRC, how would a mere resignation by her, as Chief Commissioner of the HRC, as stated, be any kind of complete end to all of her, and the HRC’s, many biased activities?

  131. Rob MW

    “You forgot to link to the committee of inquiry she had formed while attending the event? Unlike like heydon, who had planned to attend the fundraiser whilst the RC was still going, and only pulled out once the story was about to break.”

    It is of little consequence sunshine because Brandy v Human Rights Commission speaks loud and clear on the issue.

    In short mate…….Brandy totally fucks your totally stupid argument and more importantly, your moral competency. Acknowledging that you are fucked is the first step towards redemption, notwithstanding, when you’re fucked……..you’re fucked.

  132. That is why my question needs to be awered in order for any of this “logic” to apply.

    Your question has been addressed multiple times, and then you link to Shake My Hamas and expect credibility.

    Put down the crack pipe and move away from the keyboard.

  133. Tom R needs to admit he has a problem.

    The 1st step is for him to stop typing one handed before he goes blind.

  134. Tom R

    Brandy totally fucks your totally stupid argument

    In what way? As I said, was there a tribunal in place, in the way that their is a tribunal in place in Heydons case. Even the report written by the HRC had been completed and given to the grubmint to ignore by then.

    What the “argument” here seems to be is that, since Heydon is being called on bias for attending a political event (a fundraiser no less), then nobody in the PS allowed to attend political events because they are public servants.

    All I asked was to provide the documentation to support this.

    Personally, I think it would be a sad day should public servants, especially highly respected and successful people such as Heydon and Triggs from speaking to our politicians. Let’s face it, the more our pollies are exposed to, dare I say, “people of calibre”, the better.

    The problem for Heydon is, he has a specific set of rules, relating to this specific set of circumstances, that expressly remarked upon a court officer (which the RC is acting under the remit of) from attending political gatherings.

    Again, for those who missed it.

    The second edition of the national guide to chief court officers outlines some well-established principles. Among them is this one:

    “Although active participation in or membership of a political party before appointment would not of itself justify an allegation of judicial bias or an appearance of bias, it is expected that, on appointment, a judge will sever all ties with political parties. An appearance of continuing ties, such as might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fund raising events or through contributions to a political party, should be avoided.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/union-royal-commissioner-dyson-heydon-has-a-problem-20150813-giyalk.html#ixzz3jFK3lLAY

    Of course, you can argue that Triggs attending a Labor event makes her some kind of Labor stooge. Of course, I could sink to this level of ignorance and argue that freedom boy is a Greenie hack because he spoke at a Greens event.

    But I won’t.

    Instead, I’ll just point out, again, that a Royal Commissioner, acting under the remit of a judicial officer, must set a higher bar, and follow those guidelines laid out in the above quote, in order to provide “a necessary perception of independence and impartiality from government and afford a sense of authority to the proceedings.” here

    And given the highly political nature of the RC, this was even more important.

    So, unless anybody can point to the documentation requested, yea, you can go on spouting about “but she looks biased”, in much the same way as the argument was ran previously about her alleged bias in the timing of the release of the Children In Detention report. Illogically and quite often deceptively as highlighted by such statements as “Ms Triggs misled the Senate. “. Factually incorrect and simply repeating wingnut talking points, which have already been exposed as lies. And perhaps some fool will be (crazy?)brave enough to use the same precept to argue that therefore freedom boy is a raving Greenie for attending one of their events.

    Until then, it is probably best to avoid the use of the word “logic” on a regular basis.

    #justsayin 😉

  135. Auto De Fe

    All I asked was to provide the documentation to support this.

    Whereas Brandy’s constitutive elucidations on the delimitations of the exercises of powers are, indeed, most vociferous in their assiduous separations from the manifold mysteries of bureaucrats’ mislaid briefs and cases, the status quo, today, seemingly, if somewhat objectionably, still sustains.

  136. Tom R

    You’ll have to highlight the very spot where Gillian Triggs is declared a Judge Auto De Fee, and then link to the tribunal that she was charged with judging in at the time of the speech in question.

    Otherwise … what’s your point?

  137. Oh come on

    No point continuing to flay this corpse – it’s down to the sinews already.

  138. Tom R

    No point continuing to flay this corpse – it’s down to the sinews already.

    I AGREE!

    One wonders why the article was even written in the first place 😉

  139. A Commissioner doesn’t engage in judging in the usual legal sense, they make recommendations.

  140. Tom R is still quoting Shake My Hamas to achieve credibility – aaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha

  141. Tom R

    A Commissioner doesn’t engage in judging in the usual legal sense

    Someone who has followed this thread closely I see 😉

  142. No need to follow this thread closely to notice your argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.

  143. Tom R

    your argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.

    If that is the case, I think you might mean that it is the national guide to chief court officers and the lawcouncil that you would be accusing of “equivocation”

  144. Oh come on

    “Although active participation in or membership of a political party before appointment would not of itself justify an allegation of judicial bias or an appearance of bias, it is expected that, on appointment, a judge will sever all ties with political parties. An appearance of continuing ties, such as might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fund raising events or through contributions to a political party, should be avoided.”

    Good. So Dyson Heydon’s in the clear, then. Glad that’s sorted. Now, when are you going to demand Triggs’s resignation?

  145. Rob MW

    Look you dumb shit:

    Triggs is employed ‘FULL TIME’ as an officer of the commonwealth conducting commonwealth public inquiries in which service holds on a 24/7 basis for apolitical, taxpayer funded employment which also demands an oath, duty and function. Giving speeches to party political organisation WHILST employed by the taxpayers should not be tolerated, HOWEVER, unless otherwise employed by the taxpayer, when she retires from that position she can do whatever she likes.

    It is inconsequential whether or not Triggs was conducting an inquiry at the time of giving her speech to (a) labor party talk-fest, the point is, because of her ‘FULL TIME’ duty and function to the Commonwealth that ‘apprehended bias’ (what others may think) whilst in the employ of the Commonwealth had occurred. Done deal – Triggs should have resigned or be sacked.

    Heydon (retired) is currently employed ‘PART TIME’ as an officer of the commonwealth conducting (a) commonwealth public inquiry in which service holds on a 24/7 basis for apolitical, taxpayer funded employment which also demands an oath, duty and function ONLY FOR THE DURATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION. Giving speeches to party political organisation WHILST employed by the taxpayers should not be tolerated, HOWEVER, unless otherwise employed by the taxpayer, when he ‘FINISHES’ that duty and function he can do whatever he likes.

    Heydon accepted the invitation to give a speech to a party political organisation on the basis that his duty and function with the Commonwealth had expired and he had returned to retirement (private life). He has not/did not and would not give the speech therefore there is no ‘apprehended bias’. Because nothing had or was ever going to occur it is not enough to sanction what others may think.

    Now fuck off you moronic prick.

  146. Auto De Fe

    Game Over. Eddie Wins. Again.

Comments are closed.