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 > Much ado about Mason > Comments

Much ado about Mason : Comments

By Dilan Thampapillai, published 18/7/2007

Australia’s democracy and legal system has proven robust enough to withstand the controversies of the Mason court.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
If the polls are true, we’re about to have a Labor federal government, led by Kevin Rudd, who, as the premier’s closest adviser, was at the very heart of the Goss QLD Labor government that placed itself above the law, by illegally destroying evidence that they had been notified needed to be preserved for forthcoming court proceedings.
The Labor government gave undertakings to lawyers that the evidence would be available, and then immediately had it shredded, to avoid scrutiny of child sexual and other abuse , of children in state care…ensuring that the abuse continued …..it is inconceivable that Rudd , in his powerful position, didn’t know about and condone the whole thing.
Peter Beattie was chairman of the CJC at the time.
During the course of the subsequent extraordinary cover-up, the same government prosecuted and convicted to the fullest extent of the same law, an ordinary citizen, whose transgression was similar to , but much less serious than, that of the Labor government….they appealed his sentence , trying to get it upgraded to a jail sentence, knowing they had broken the same law themselves with impunity.
Soon after the destruction of evidence, a murder went completely uninvestigated by the QLD police, even though the perpetrator, ( who was connected to the sexual abuse matter, and who confessed to the murder twelve years later ) , was found right there at the scene, and was available for questioning in hospital for about two months.
An inquest was never held….separation of powers appear to have been non-existent.
The cover-up continues in Beattie’s QLD, while Beattie preaches to Howard on law matters.
Except for a few, the legal profession have played dead on the issue.
Rudd will be appointing three high court judges if the worst befalls us, so how could Australians have faith in separation of powers, and law as written , under Labor.
Google ‘The Justice Project’, ‘Lindeberg Petition’, ‘Dilkera O’Neill’
Posted by real, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 2:08:41 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
Dilan, While you may be a Lecturer with the Faculty of Law I view some of your comments are darn silly (politely stated) and if anything give me grave concern what on earth you are teaching in legal studies.
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I have set out in my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_Q numerous constitutional issues.
.
BECAUSE OF LIMITATIONS ON POSTING I HAVE SET A MORE EXTENSIVER RESPONSE TO YOU AT THIS BLOG.
.
As an Attorney (not a lawyer) I assist people in their litigation and, so to say, eat lawyers and spew them out because of the rubbish they can come up with.
.
QUOTE
As long as the judges are actually exercising judicial power under Chapter III of the Constitution it should not matter if their work shows a degree of recognition of the social consequences of their decision.
END QUOTE
.
Judges are to interpret the Constitution and any laws made within it as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, not to do their own social engineering!
.
As for your “terra nullius” argument, the Constitution provides very limited powers to the High Court of Australia that is that the High Court of Australia was to adjudicate within the framework of the Constitution and so accept the States (formally Colonies) as was at Federation and not beyond! Hence, I view MABO decision as to “terra nullius” was beyond constitutional powers as was the Australia Act 1986 Sue v Hill decision.
.
Surely, you as a lecturer should be aware that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES?
.
See further my blog, you may just "learn" something what is really applicable, constitutionally that is!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 1:26:33 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
The critical point that is often missed in regard to the implied freedom of political communication established by the Mason Court is that it only protects political speech from official censureship.
It is a restricted freedom from law only. A politician, acting off his own bat, as a private citizen, is still legally entitled to attack political signage exposing his corrupt relationship with big corporations to prevent voters from finding out about it.
Thus the freedom of political communication is a deceptive title.

Prodigal
Posted by Prodigal, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 11:32:33 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. Page 2
  4. All

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