Yes, he was the only gay in the village, and a fine one at that!

It is not a pity that the retiring age for a High Court Judge is seventy. Instead of the platitudes poured on Michael Kirby, some of the inconsistencies and failures he was part of as a High Court Justice, should be exposed and debated. In 1988, as a President of a Court of Appeal he made a decision called Pambula, in which he stated that there was a right to jury trial in New South Wales.

In 2002, he was part of a five man court, that overruled Pambula. The decision was Gerlach V Clifton Bricks, and he and Callinan were on the same side of a three –two decision. He was unable to persuade Mary Gaudron, to follow her own precedent set in the Kable decision in 1996. He consistently refused to allow very important cases to be heard in the High Court, as a Judge who without due process refused access to that so called Court.

He was one of the seven judges who in 2004, put himself above Parliament and as a member of a cadre eliminated the Queen from all process issued out of the High Court. I refer to the High Court Rules 2004. This is the new testament of the atheists. No eminent jurist would defy the Commonwealth Parliament like that, but a member of the New South Wales Bar would. S 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979 mandates the Queens name on all process. He should be indicted and disgraced. Murphy did not deserve it, Kirby and six others do.

A proper jurist would know the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a law. A first year law student would know that Section 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) makes a schedule part of an Act. The covenant is Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

As a Justice, I respect Lionel Murphy. I have no such respect for Kirby. He is just one of the sorry parade of federal judges, patently lazy both intellectually and physically, who have allowed the Commonwealth to disintegrate

Peter the Gullible,

So when Pambula came to the High Court it was overruled in a three two decision in which Callinan and Kirby were the minority. By what kind of warped logic does this then become Kirby's fault?

Was Kirby, the staunch monarchist, for or against the section of the High Court Rules 2004 which "eliminated the Queen from all processes issued out of the High Court"? (Which section I have searched for but am unable to find. What was the number of the section?)

You keep harping on about things being "atheist" when what you mean is "secular". The High Court in a multicultural country like Australia should be independent of all religious standpoints, including atheism, otherwise it could be seen to be biassed and therefore not serving the cause of justice for all.