A "liberal democracy boasting adherence to the rule of law."

What we call a liberal democracy is closer to authoritarianism that most people think: particularly with our politicians rubbing shoulders with the CCP.

The old communists would be green with envy if they could see 'free' populations allowing things to happen that they (the old communists) had to bring about by force.

This young man apparently has not been here long enough to see and hear voiced the similarities creeping in here that other immigrants escaping from in their old countries have recognised.

The extreme feminists, most politicians and the Australian mob bay and slaver for rape convictions - without evidence and pre-trial.

The time is coming when the only men safe will be those who abstain from women altogether . There is too much risk involved in this "we believe you" and #me too society.

Mobiles in the dock would be a breach of the right to privacy and create a precedent that would hurt individual rights, all over the shop.

As for the young man's claims of innocence, that is easily verified via space age, unbeatable, lie detection. Or conversely, the young lady's claims of rape.

Not for nothing are less than 40% of rape cases/sexual violations, reported. Given for the most part the victim is put on trial/retraumatized all over again, as the author here is, I believe, attempting.

We need a long overdue bill of irrefutable rights, that would ensure no such breach by anyone, or court would be possible.

Not for nothing is it writ large, know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Our courts are not focused on revealing the truth and the whole truth, but rather on winners and losers.

And it's those with the largest bank balances/ the most expensive legal team, who invariably win.
Alan B.

I like the 'keep it simple' principle.
When someone sends me a message, surely they have given it to me?
It is mine to read and to pass on if I choose?
And when I send a message, surely I am permitted to tell others so, and say what it is?
So it seems all general messages should be available if they are needed to prove a point?
Only messages about sensitive (perhaps commercial) negotiation should be kept under wraps?
And those not for ever.
And certainly not if they are needed for legal proceedings.

A message is the modern version of a personal letter. And a personal letter is just that. You share if you want to and do not if that is your choice. Ditto your personal diary.

Conversely a newsletter is something all interested parties may choose to read or pass on. Just because someone keeps/stores content doesn't make it available to joe public or as allowed evidence.

Hackers can and do steal data, that doesn't make it right or legally available to anyone else, including a court. And is covered by the legal right to remain silent! End of story.
Alan B.

If every man pretended to be poor, accusations of rape would become a thing of the past !

When something finds its way in to the public arena, it becomes 'common knowledge', and available to everyone?
That includes newsletters?
Only when the originator of a text has strict control over who reads it, can it be said to be private?
The finer points of law might introduce variations to this idea of course.
But anyway, who wants to delve in to another man's secrets?
I have quite enough to do without riding on the scandal wagon.

To collect another's mail one needs written and signed authorisation, given they may open and read personal mail.

Personal mail is not a newsletter and for it to become public requires theft.

There needs to be a court order to allow stolen information to be tendered as evidence, which is the case currently. And not forthcoming.

As I said initially, space age lie detection would settle this matter altogether rather than the slime merchants trying it on because they can.

If it was your sister, your daughter, your wife, your mother it'd be different, wouldn't it? And the truth is, it was someone's daughter, wife, sweetheart, mum.
Alan B.

If police can use a persons phone as evidence against that phones owner;
Then individuals should be able to use their phones as evidence to defend themselves against accusations from others, including police.