Judges decisions can be appealed, but that is not the same as making judges answerable for bad decisions. There are quite a few judges whose decisions are regularly overturned on appeal, and yet they are never censured or pulled into line in any meaningful way.

The media are probably the least reliable means of policing the judicary, since rather than looking for bad decisions they devote most of their efforts looking for controversy, and all too often, if they cannot find it, make it up. 4 in 5 times I've read of an horrendous court decision in the newspaper, upon reviewing the actual judgment, it has turned out the journalist has glossed over important issues in order to make the judgement controversial.

Whatever it's failings, our court system is better than the press would have us believe.

In relation to the difficulties people face when dealing with minor offences and the apparent presumption of guilt inherent in the system, I suspect this too is overstated. I once challenged a parking ticket and had to sit in the local court all day before my case was heard. I probably saw around 12 minor matters plus one criminal assault case, all run by the same police prosecutor. By the end I felt sorry for the guy because he didn't succeed against a single defendant, including myself. Only in the criminal case was the defendant represented represented.

The real bias in the system is that justice is just plain too expensive, but unfortunately you get what you pay for.

kalin..I have to agree with that point about access to justice being too expensive.

W.... I do have biases..for sure, and I'm quite open about them I think... (correct me if I'm wrong).

I would not like to sit as a judge on a case involving say homosexual behavior, because my Christian biases would surely emerge.
For example, if the issue was accomodation and a neighbour objected to a homosexual couple moving in next door, I would find in favor of the complainant. So, in such a case, if I had to uphold a law regarding non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I would prefer not to have to decide the case.

I have a very passionate sense of community values, and they are very much Christian based.

I'm glad you stated 'judges are not required to switch of their beliefs' :)

But, not being a judge it does not impact me personally on that side of the bench.

The point about appeal is worthwhile but seems to be countered by the cost factor. No wonder Jesus condemned the Lawyers "You make burdens hard for men to bear, but carry nothing yourselves"

I applaud the willingness of some lawyers to work pro-bono, but you can only work for free for so long, and the bills still come in.

Boaz, you just made my jaw drop with your last post. Are you seriously suggesting that it is even remotely reasonable (let alone within cooee of the law) to object to a neighboring couple living next door because they are gay? In 2006? In Australia? Have I completely misunderstood what you’re saying there?

Dear Snout...no, you did not misunderstand me ... (BOAZ puts on the body armour)

While you might find such a position objectionable, I not only feel this way, but with a passion.

You made a key statement "In this day..in 2006".... which is probably the best thing you could have said to give me a handle on which to respond.

As I've maintained often, the change of public perception about homosexual behavior and lifestyle has not been an overnight event.
It has been 'incremental' and the result of a sustained campaign of activism over a long period, mainly since the 60s.

I watched this unfold..step by step...increment by increment until now, we see the full 'journey' b4 our eyes.

As I reflect, and now observe social trends, I am noticing the 'SAME' arguments and the same embryonic activism by groups such as NAMBLA and in the netherlands a political party advocating Paedophilic policies.

So, it is with considerable confidence that I put forward the position of a framework 'enduring social values' in the Judao Christian tradition.

Now..this is the part where all my woffle just now actually does relate to the topic..... "bias" in the Judiciary, and it connects with my first example 'a bi-sexual judge' and his pattern of decisions.

Now.. I fully understand your 'jaw dropping' at this line of thinking.
But consider this. My jaw dropped when I read Nambla quoting prominent psychologists as saying "Sexual experiences between adult men and boys can be quite health" then they point to social icons such as Walt Witman to seek support for their views.

This is all part of the democratic struggle.. my views...your views..public forums... its all good

Doh! Of course it’s not just a concern with leniency, it’s also BD’s obsession with homosexuality.

Well, now we have a better idea of how far BD’s respect for the law extends.

Personally, it scares the crap out of me that there are people walking around in this country who place their own filthy prejudices above the law.

Holding those prejudices openly doesn’t make them in any way forgiveable. Further, saying, ‘well that’s just how I am’ is no justification. Civilised human beings accept how others are, to the extent that third parties are not harmed.

Please don’t respond that pedophilia damages people, BD, because your problem is with homosexuality, and you use the unrelated issue of pedophilia as a phoney justification for your ill will.

Unlike homosexuality, your hate damages many, not directly, as I’ve been pointing out in another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#58475, but by providing the environment in which homophobic violence thrives.

I suspect you’re not one of those wielding the baseball bats http://snipurl.com/ztfz, BD, but when you claim the right to hold your prejudice above the law, you make yourself complicit in the suffering of gay people all over the world.

Dear W
my concern is primarily for a robust, enduring and healthy moral values framework in which we can all live.

I have to correct you on one thing. My 'obsession' as u put it, is not with 'homosexuality' it is with homosexual BEHAVIOR.. I'm equally 'obsessed' with the dangers of Bratz dolls.

My use of the Nambla and Padophile issues was in connection with the pattern of political/social activism which was used by the Gay Lobby to erode the standards which stood in the way of them persuing such things as Gay Mardi Gras and the Melbourne event the article you referred to.

We don't have special 'we are straight' events. We just have 'events' and any special event which promotes and glorifies deviate sexual behavior of ANY kind is in my humble view not socially ok.

We should do nothing which facilitates or makes easier, behavior which is socially harmful. We can disagree with what the nature of such behavior/actions is, but we cannot disagree that it is my (and your) democratic right to persue a political social agenda which I see as right.

I reject the view that my approach creates an atmosophere which encourages violence against homosexuals. At the same time, if people wish to throw mud in my face, they should not be surprise if I try to move the mud from their reach. "In your face" exhibitions of sexual devience is not the way to discourage violence or reaction. The way to avoid that is twofold.

1/ Be discreet and out of sight with such behavior.
2/ Educate people to avoid violence outside the law against others.

People can have their own struggles with their sexuality, whether it be with same sex, child or beast, but they can have that struggle without legal support.
If a man has paedophilic tendencies, we would expect such a man to DEAL with them and NOT to act on them. Same goes with homosexual behavior. Nambla says "It is not harmful"... Gays say "consenting adults are not harmful".... who is right ?