Never before has there been an opposition that has blamed a government for an act of terror and mass murder. Before Sunday, the rule for both major political parties was to place national unity ahead of any political gain.
Howard, Morrison, Abbott, Frydenberg, Ley, Joyce, Hanson, Littleproud, McKenzie...the whole gang have jumped on a divisive bandwagon using a terrorist event for political gain. Large sections of the legacy media have used it to get the clicks in the slow period over Christmas.
But slowly the voices of reason are having the courage to make their expert views known on what is happening against the onslaught of shrill politicking. For example..
'In a profession steeped in consensus and cautious alignment, Richter’s refusal to add his name was neither accidental nor surprising. For five decades, he has occupied a singular place in Australian law: a barrister whose authority rests not on popularity but on a fierce attachment to legal principle, even when that attachment places him at odds with his peers.'
He argues that a federal royal commission – particularly one framed around defining antisemitism – is both premature and dangerous.
His concern extends beyond legal doctrine. He warns that a royal commission explicitly framed around antisemitism risks inflaming community tensions – echoing the comments from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about it being a potential platform for hate speech.
“If there is to be a royal commission … and I don’t think we need one,” he said,“it will go for years, and its definitions will be argued about endlessly.”
In Richter’s view, the key institutional failures exposed by the Bondi attack are already apparent.
“The tragedy at Bondi was the result of a stuff-up by ASIO in not red-flagging the man for overseas travel or anything of the kind, red-flagging his father,” he said. “It was a complete stuff-up by a combination of ASIO, the federal police, NSW Police and border control. We don’t need a royal commission for that.”
Hear, hear.
