- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,521
- 40,717
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
So our Constitution does in fact have the right to free speech? Which bit? The vibe?
Not at all a piece of judicial over-reach there...
The Law Finally, some judges show some proper ticker
- Thread starter Snake_Baker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So our Constitution does in fact have the right to free speech? Which bit? The vibe?
Not at all a piece of judicial over-reach there...
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #127
You're too ignorant to be having this conversation.
Come back when you get a skerrick of education on the matter.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,521
- 40,717
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
So you cant actually point to where in the Constitution it says we have a right to free speech. And more specifically a right to free political speech.
Yet you also have an issue with politicians making political comments about the judiciary.
Though really you just hate Conservatives.
Its okay, Ive got you worked out.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #129
I can't be arsed spending pages and pages educating you about well known constitutional principles, the common law & separation of powers, only to have you engage in infantile extrapolations and baseless rebuttals. Read some books. Ignore.
No he's not.
Do understand the difference between common law and statute law?
Do you understand what the separation of powers means?
Do you understand the main purpose of sub judice is to protect juries from undue influence and to ensure an accused gets a fair trial free from prejudice?
Do you understand the importance of a judiciary that is independent?
To reiterate an earlier post, both the judiciary and those critical of those facing contempt proceedings have made it abundantly clear neither has an issue with criticism. In fact, the judiciary cops it almost on a daily basis because it is a soft target. It's only those who give no credence to the separation of powers; seek to undermine the dignity of the courts; don't understand matters associated with sub judice; question the independence of courts in an egregious manner often directing it to the person rather than to the issue et al who should rightly be brought to account.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,521
- 40,717
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
A well known Constitutional principle which only appeared in 1992 and redefined in 1994. Got it.
You cant be arsed doing much other than slinging arrows and taking cheap shots. And pointing out how much you hate Conservatives.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
you don't understand how the political game is played do you? It's all a cynical game to get enough votes to be elected, and finding enough hot button issues to get voters to stay or switch to yourself without hitting buttons that cause more to leave.
probably explains why I can't follow your posts.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Can they claim it if the comments occur outside of Parliament though?
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #135
You, and the 3 stooges in question, don't understand how the legal game is played.
You have no interest in following my posts or the general gist of the threads in question. You isolate a discussion that could minutelly support your prejudices and meander off down another road and derail the thread.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
You are offended that I am not repeating your view like a sheep. Should rename thread snakes echo chamber.
S
So there is no free speech in Australia otherwise many of the ridiculous state hate speech laws and 18c wouldnt exist. You're correct its the vibe.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,739
- 24,889
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
Correct! It was a general reference directed toward someone who appears not to be in the least bit au fait with the legal process.
- Jan 25, 2016
- 9,350
- 7,819
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
The judges haven't been very wise in this either. Being poorly handled by all!!
Arrant nonsense! The Judiciary has played this deftly and with dignity. Refused to go with the weak withdrawal. Let the three flogs stew while the pressure built on them. Now we await the abject apology and presumably a dressing down. They three pollies are dumbasses who have been humiliated and they have only themselves to blame.
?
They're getting an apology delivered by the lawyers while the three pollies sit in Parliament and duck the cameras. And outside of the legal professional bubble and those who regularly follow politics, people are spinning the Liberals as being picked on by thin skinned judges.
Until the Courts show a willingness to chase down and prosecute the thousands of breaches of the rules of sub judice/contempt and suppression orders on social media each day, they're effectively meaningless. Pollies/Journos just make for easier, lazier targets.
- Jan 25, 2016
- 9,350
- 7,819
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
They certainly look better right now than the ministers. Although I don't see how Tudge in particular could look any worse. Comically inept.
I take your point about the part of my post directed toward you. It was unnecessarily abrasive. That doesn't extend to my view of the three unwise monkeys, none of which I recant.
However, I am interested in knowing where you think the three Judges hearing the contempt were at fault. You have given no explanation so far.
My views are born of seeing first-hand countless examples of reporting of judicial judgements by people who haven't spent one hour in the court during proceedings (let alone the whole hearing) or taken the time to read the transcript. It has been all about ratings, selling newspapers and click bait. The days of news organisations taking pride in the accurate presentation of news and the fair presentation of views are long gone much to our detriment.
One relatively recent case about which I have some knowledge was of an editor who was contacted about a story that was replete with errors. Even rudimentary matters like names of some of those involved were incorrect. Some hearing days were wrong, let alone a complete misunderstanding of the sentencing. All of which reflected poorly on the judge and was not designed for accuracy but to bash the judiciary.
When the editor was given the details and asked to retract he smiled and said flippantly, but it was fantastic click bait though.
You actually don't have to have much interest in the legal system to see the regular attacks on the judiciary, you just have to view Media Watch on the ABC.
So when three legally qualified members of parliament launch an attack that could reasonably be considered to be contempt I guess the judiciary drew a line in the sand.
As for the approach of the judiciary, they ordered the three "to make any submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt". A reasonable request in the circumstances I would have thought. The three chose to be represented rather than appear and through their legal mouthpiece made some changes to their form of words which did not amount to an apology or even close to it. The judges then retired to consider whether prosecution was called for or not. Candidly, I don't see how else they could have handled the matter.
Freedom of speech should be encouraged but it isn't an absolute. It is generally accepted there should be some reasonable limits. All these unwise monkeys were asked to do is to explain why they thought their criticisms were within those limits. Seems they have now reluctantly accepted they were not.
End of rant.
