This is the very thing we are fighting for "the rule of law" and with it the process and procedures. Just what is the author teaching his students if he doesn't believe in the process of law.

No better message will be sent to those that oppose our way of life then us leading be example. That everyone one is equal under the law and the rules apply to everyone no matter what the issue.

It's really getting silly the terror treat is very low in reality yet people are pushing to have those charged with terror offences to have less rights the rock spiders.

Now if the author was a public defender and he was assigned this case this is what he would be arguing for his client.

The author makes a mockery of his occupation and profession. He is an officer of the Court, as all lawyers are, and his duty is to advance the rule of law.

When you are alone, and have the might and machinery of the state assembled against you, with its bottomless pit of funds to prosecute/persecute you, you need a few checks and balances. While most judiciary uphold these, a few around are cutting corners simply because Mirko B. or Piers Akerman Alan Jones or whoever says that the bad guys are getting too easy a run.

Its not easy a run when you're alone up against a big enemy with a bottomless pit of funds, and the enemy [under]funds a legal aid system deliberately starved of funds so you might be denied counsel, or if you get one, usually get some career public servant more worried about their promotion or salary review rather than doing their best advocacy on your behalf.

The man who was freed by the Victorian Court of Appeal and subject of current debate is named Joseph Thomas. That's what his family and friends call him. That's what he is called in all settings except the media and the fringe commentariat. Why does Professor Mirco Bagaric call him “Jihad” Jack Thomas (and posters follow suit and can even save time and call him JJ)?

Why do the popular media and people like Professor Mirko Bagaric use that nickname? Is it because 'Joseph Thomas' is too Anglo-ordinary? Lacks colour? Won't sell papers (whether they be newspapers or pseudo-academic papers)? Or is it because the use of 'Jihad' with its connotations of terror and fear suits their purpose much better? As Alan Atwood points out, "A jihad is a serious thing; a holy war waged by Muslims against unbelievers. It is not, incidentally, something that Thomas was charged with."

The pejorative nickname is a suggestive shorthand for implying evil and guilt without the need to prove anything. It removes the need to refer to the primary facts. The nickname is a neat way of imply culpability without the need to refer to uncomfortable evidence (or the lack of it).

So when Citizen Bagaric uses nicknames like 'Jihad Jack' he softens up his readers to more readily accept his real agenda. He wants a terrorist or two to be convicted and we should not pussy-foot around with conventional legal safeguards. To use his words, "The community should no longer be punished by having its safety jeopardised for the sins of police officers." Not for this Professor of Law to worry about a mere trifle like proof beyond reasonable doubt: "...we should not compound the harm constituted by police transgressions by allowing the guilty to walk free. While Jihad Jack is enjoying his new found freedom, the rest of the community is becoming jack of the rights of suspects constantly trumping the common good."

Were Citizen Bagaric made Public Terror Prosecutor would we all sleep better at night?

In a bygone time winning something was dictated by a charity run ‘chocolate wheel’. The chocolate wheel approach to law is similarly a game of chance. In court No 1 a judge is disturbed by the fact that inducements are offered to secure a confession and so the accused must be set free. Juxtapose that with the scene in court No 2 just down the hall. The judge conducting a Royal Commission seeks to induce the witness by threatening him. Rejecting the judicial inducement will lead to imprisonment for the witness. If our judges are to make a burlesque of their office why not dress them in clown outfits?

We are tough on drugs but the courts won’t deport a drug dealer because it might deprive a family of a husband and father. When we catch a pedophile he can’t be put on trial because he’s got a bad back. A former judicial officer has nominated two deceased persons as the drivers of his car. Why not complete the comedy by nominating Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe as his passengers. A magistrate bids him ‘have a nice day’ and the circus moves on. The DPP gives a prosecutor about 2 hours notice to clear his hard drive of porn and other pedophile material and then contacts the police. A high court judge is so pure and honest that we may not gaze on the contents of his file until 2016. Another high court judge remains beyond the reach of the law even though he admitted to breaking the law. To top it all off along comes a high-minded judge who is concerned with the appearance of the law.

I’d like to join the legal club but I don’t know what this week’s rules are

FrankGol

Time to do a bit of research mate.

Thomas has been referred to in the media as "Jihad Jack" because when he converted to Islam he took on the name "Jihad". Before he went off to Pakistan and Afghanistan for terrorist training he announced that his new name was "Jihad".

However once he was freed from the Pakistani prison by the AFP and returned to Australia he had sound legal, personal and propaganda reasons for not wanting his Muslim name anymore - even though he wears that religion on his sleeve in other ways.

He's now the "cleancut, naive Aussie lad" ;-) didn't you know.

If we want to call Jack by his pre terrorist training name (that he called himself) isn't that OK?

Pete

I totally agree with Mirko Bagaric, but Sylvia is right: the law is the law, and the Government, not the Court, must take full responsibility for this pathetic result. Terrorism 1, Australia 0.

The bum kicking should start with the Prime Minister and work on down to ensure that this farce can never happen again.