I'm going to jump in for the last time
with my feelings on this subject - for
whatever it's worth (probably not much -
I'll wager). Anyway, here goes:

If you were to weigh up on the scales -
the achievements of Marcus Einfeld, for example:

1)As President of Human Rights Commission -
took a stand and spoke out against the
treatment of asylum seekers.

2)Took a stand and spoke out about child
poverty.

3)Managed to persuade his colleagues to
provide free legal advice and resources to
developing countries.

4)He worked towards improving the living conditions
of indigenous
people in the community of Toomelah, in northern NSW.
Housing, sewerage, roads, and water were all provided
thanks to Einfeld's efforts. Even a bridge was built
to allow locals to get out when the water was high.

And that's only some of Einfeld's achievements.
Balance them against a traffic ticket (for which
he's going to jail) - and how does it add up to you?
Are all these achievements to be wiped out by one
traffic ticket?

Now imagine yourself having to go before your maker
and account for the things you've done in your life.
Would your "checks and balances," be such a perfect
record that you're in a position to judge another's
failings?

I know my wouldn't be.

Foxy:"Are all these achievements to be wiped out by one
traffic ticket?"

There wasn't just "one traffic ticket", there was a history of dishonesty going back a long time. It appears his fellows in the Law knew of this habit but never said a thing. It all comes down to the fact that this fellow was prepared to accept the open kudos of a nation, whilst behaving in a manner that would have got a lesser light punished long ago, not to mention that over his career he swore several oaths to uphold the Law before taking up some of his offices. That he was a capable lawyer doesn't exonerate him of his failure, it increases his culpability.

spikey:"What is it that OLO posters are saying without having the guts to use the words?"

What are you suggesting, spikey, without having the guts to use the word? Anti-semitism? Hahahaha. I was wondering how long it would take. The Jewish Community has been conspicuously silent in his defence, now he's been convicted. It must be time to invoke the great conversation-stopper, eh?

The guy screwed up and got caught; his religion has nothing to do with it, other than that it may (among other factors) have played a part over the years in allowing him to get away with things he should have been punished for.

As for Howard, if anybody looks up my various utterances on that excresence on the arsehole of Australian politics, they'll find that my preferred name for him has been "Dishonest John" for years. I'd like to see him in the cell next to Einfeld, frankly.

Given that the guy was a Judge, do you think his crimes should be just swept under the carpet now he's been caught and convicted and that his reputation, which was based on integrity and fearless advocacy, should be untarnished? If so, would you feel the same way about other judges behaving badly?

Foxy, it wasn't a traffic ticket that was the problem. Einfeld is going to jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice. For attempting to undermine the legal systems of which he was a part. Had this been an isolated event, it may have been seen as an aberration, but it was not an isolated event.

Einfeld's good works still stand, but his actions will be forever tainted by his belief that he was above the law and his acting on that belief.

That's just petty, Spikey.

>>Pericles: "And I'd be prepared to say what I have said to the man directly." But when you met him you didn't, did you?<<

a) it was some years before all this hit the fan b) it was in a business context c) it is not considered polite, in most circles, to tell someone you have only known for a few hours that they are an arrogant bully.

It leaves a certain impression, though.

"What I am asking is why is the attack pack so virulent?"

Probably simply because many ordinary people who have in the past been on the wrong side of the law and who were hammered for doing something minor and could never say anything because they had no political voice, see his conviction as the trigger to blast the powers to be in general that have created/maintained/presided over that iniquitous situation in the past. It's just a spill-over of water over the dam wall. When a judge uses his privileged position to put himself above the law, and it becomes widely known, the fury of the public can reach fever pitch.

To some degree Einfeld is a lightning rod for general frustration and discontent and to some degree he is a fair target in my view.

Foxy,

His good deeds, if in fact that's what they are, will to some degree insulate him from the opprobrium coming his way. But that doesn't mean shouldn't get the return wave of what he himself has helped to create.

foxy:"I know my wouldn't be."

Nor, it appears, would Einfeld's.

There are lots of people who do good things who don't habitually behave dishonestly and very many of them aren't either lawyers or Judges.

I fail to see the logic behind your defence, Foxy.

My daughter, who's 12, is currently serving 2 weeks of lunchtime detentions for not only failing to do her homework, but failing to tell the truth when asked about it. She's also suffering a "grounding" at home for the same offences. IOW, this 12 year old girl is being punished for an initially trivial offence which she aggravated with dishonesty, She can legitimately claim to have "made a mistake", since this is her first experience of this type of behaviour. Einfeld, who is in very similar circumstances, is a 70 year old Judge and Human Rights Commissioner. By all accounts, he has done similar things while, at the same time, probably punishing people for similar things. He tried to perpetuate his lie in the face of evidence, thus he's not remotely contrite. He even said as much on Four Corners.

If anything, the DPP should be appealling the inadequacy of the sentence.