The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial > Comments

Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 27/2/2007

There is no logical or normative basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Kirby should have been removed in accordance with s72 (ii) of OUR Constitution one day after he was appointed. As a matter of fact he should never have been appointed.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 6:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the resume provided for this author it states; He is not connected with any political party or other interest group. How incorrect can this be when he belongs to an elite group of bottom feeders that believe they are above politics and the ordinary people and it is from this very group where the so called honourable Justice Kirby was selected from. Any body who has had their matter heard by this individual and been insulted and offended by his so called educated judicial comments knows that he should never have been selected for this appointment in the first place. It is obvious that MIRKO has never had a hearing before this individual and suffered at the hands of this radical. He is one Judge who took part in the Luton matter before the High Court which was basically about a persons RIGHTS to his or her property after they had been effected by the Registrar of the Child Support Agency who had done an assessment of one's income and deemed that your earning capacity was twice what you were earning. The conduct of the Child Support Registrar and the decision, manipulated by Kirby in the High Court, has resulted in hundreds of suicides of the non custodial parent and again on the 13/2/07 the High Court had to cover for their resident radical Judge when he was exposed for his dishonesty in Luton.
MIRKO can provide a reason for the two individuals, appointed as High Court judges, pretending to hear an application on the 13/02/07 when the originating process was not signed, sealed, filed or issued by the Registrar but they, along with all of the highly paid bottom feeders, pretended to conduct this sham hearing when they had no authority to defraud anybody of their RIGHTS, but that is how the members of legal profession treat ordinary people of this country and steal their money (property) and don’t honestly seek a remedy in our courts but set out to dishonestly defraud their clients of the hard earned property. Not connected with any other interest group my ass.
Posted by Young Dan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 11:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is true but vacuous to say that "the interests of each person count equally". Axiomatic systems lead to paradoxes: do we count equally the interests of a person who doesn't count equally the interests of others? It is the human condition to care more about near ones.

"Maximising good consequences" is both simplistic and dangerous. Post-enlightenment history has many examples of such maxims leading to the oppression of minorities.

Let's not be so arrogant as to discount natural tendencies. Let's think harder, strive for an holistic ethical system that doesn't distinguish the whole from the individual.
Posted by Rick Tooth, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 8:15:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plerdsus,

I suspect you are winding me up, but I will take you at face value.

1. I did not say people are entitled to disobey laws that they consider grossly immoral. I said that disobedience of immoral laws can constitute ethical conduct. There is a difference.

2. I hope you do not truly consider income-tax and GST immoral. I for one like living in a country where single mothers and their children need not starve. I like the fact that we have good roads and drinkable water. I like the fact that children get educated and vaccinated. I am content to be taxed so that these things happen.

3. When was this idyllic time when we had a simple system of laws under the Constitution? Australia inherited English common law and statute law in the mid-19th century and our law has always been a complex mix of old and new case law, ancient principles and modern statute.

4. The Constitution does give the Commonwealth government the power to make treaties with overseas nations; by implication, the Constitution gives the government competence to legislate to meet those obligations. Its section 51(xxix). Read the Tasmanian dams case. In any event, those overseas treaties usually require ratification by the Commonwealth Parliament. If you don't like one of those treaties, you have plenty of chances to write to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Treaties and say so.

5. For your sake I truly hope that you see more to life than the preservation of DNA.

As for Kirby, we will not truly know the measure of his worth until we have another high court like the Mason High Court. Just watch how often they cite Kirby's dissenting judgements with authority then.

Anthony
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 9:33:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The human mind has evolved to become insensitive to the suffering of large numbers of people far from home, according to research. While people show much sympathy for the plight of individuals, and often respond by going to great lengths to help them, reports of death and distress on a large scale induce a ‘psychic numbing’ effect than can neutralise compassion.”
Experiments led by Professor Paul Slovic, of the University of Oregon, suggest this numbing can take hold even when people are asked to donate money to help two starving children instead of just one.”

The Australian, 17/02/07
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:07:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought I'd added my two cents' worth. If we are so insensitive to the sufferings of large numbers, how was it that Australians gave $80+ million to the tsunami victims in two days? These issues don't resolve themselves into simple either/or statements.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:30:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy