There was a front page article in the Australian attacking justice Kirby. Even by the standards of the backpage editorial it lacked integrity. There was something out of place about it, like the editors of the paper had a personal vendetta and let it cloud their judgement.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1183184822/86#86

BTW Steven, I would never trust someone who relied on 'paraphrasing' the words of someone else in order to criticise them. Instant strawman.

Thank you freediver. I was utterly unaware there had been an attack upon Justice Kirby in The Australian on 3 August 2007. See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22180819-5013404,00.html . (I tend to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice with respect to newspapers. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5018#58271 )

What insolence on the part of Chris Merritt, who wrote the article in The Australian. (And what inverted irony in the name, for merit the article certainly does not have!) Last I heard it was Sir Owen Dixon who was a former Chief Justice of the High Court, not Owen Dixon. What is wrong, when presuming to instruct all Australians as to alleged present deficiencies in the composition of the High Court, with referring to people by their proper title? As a journalist, Chris Merritt insults us all with the manner of address chosen, a peremptory manner typical of the Nazi press in a former era, I might add, since s/he chooses to refer to fascism in the article.

stevenlmeyer,

Was this the article to which Justice Kirby was responding when, in your view, he revealed himself as an intellectual weakling through standing on the dignity of his office in the manner indicated in your paraphrasing?

Also, to be completely clear, were you actually present where Justice Kirby was addressing the young lawyers to which you refer, or was it that you saw/heard a report of the actual words/demeanour of Justice Kirby on that occasion?

Do you have any connection, directly or indirectly, with The Australian newspaper or Chris Merritt?

Answer very carefully, as I think I can see an orchestration of a deliberate eliciting of comment intended to further delegitimise Justice Kirby, and thereby scandalize the High Court.

For all of the foregoing, stevenlmeyer, you have been instrumental in bringing to the attention of at least one Justice of the High Court certain serious misrepresentations with respect to past reporting of Constitutional referenda results, and of an ongoing error on the part of the Australian Electoral Commission.

Forrest Gumpp

In answer to your questions:

I have no link with any newspaper or any other media outlet.

I actually share Kirby's aversion for control orders and various other laws that increase the powers of the state. It illustrates yet again the need for a BILL OF RIGHTS in Australia

MY POST WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT KIRBY. I simply thought his comments were an especially egregious example of judicial pomposity, arrogance and self-righteousness. If any other of our DICTATORS IN FANCY DRESS had made similar comments I would have used him or her as an example.

I was not present when Kirby gave his speech. As I have made very clear, I rely on a segment about Kirby's speech broadcast on one of the ABC radio stations. My paraphrase accurately reflects the tone and substance of what I heard.

There is no need for posters here to repeat ad infinitum that they don't believe me. I noted it the first time around.

I see no reason why the media should not be able to treat members of the judiciary as robustly as they treat politicians, business people and non-judicial civil servants.

Perhaps someone here can enlighten me as to why judges, as opposed to say prime ministers or CEOs of major corporations, deserve special protection from media comment.

stevenlmeyer: "Perhaps someone here can enlighten me as to why judges, as opposed to say prime ministers or CEOs of major corporations, deserve special protection from media comment."

Actually, I think you're exaggerating the extent to which they are protected from media comment. There's certainly been plenty of media commentary about political adventurism in the courts, and Justice Kirby and others have frequently been subject to quite aggressive campaigns of thinly disguised personal vilification in the media.

Contempt provisions only apply to comments and acts that undermine or detract from the effectiveness and authority of the Courts, rather than individual judges. Otherwise, members of the judiciary are protected by the same defamation laws as the rest of us.

I understand that the legal, traditional and constitutional basis for these protections are to be found in the Common Law and in the Separation of Powers provisions in the Constitution.

Further, it is my understanding that the Townsville case to which Steven referred us as evidence never actually proceeded. In any case the issue was the authority of the Court rather than the character of the judge, as this quotation indicates:

"Judge Wall says he is concerned statements by mayor Tony Mooney and councillors Jim Gleeson and John Robertson, reported in the local newspaper, may undermine the public's confidence in the administration of justice."

Lastly, I agree with Steven that Australia needs a Bill of Rights.

How interesting that this thread is now starting to focus upon promotion of a bill of rights. This now makes it necessary for me to point out an error in one of my previous posts, the 17th post in this thread.

I mistakenly referred in that post to a 1944 Australian referendum as the Commonwealth Powers referendum. I should not have gone from memory. The 19 August 1944 referendum was the Constitution Alteration (Post-War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights) referendum.

There was to have been a 1942 Act called the Commonwealth Powers Act, which contained essentially all of the proposals that were subsequently to be put to the people in the 1944 referendum proposal. The Commonwealth Powers Act failed to get off the ground because, alone of all the Houses of the various State Parliaments of Australia, the Legislative Council of Tasmania refused to ratify a proposal to refer virtually all State powers to the Commonwealth during the then emergency of war.

Both attempts, first, the referral of powers by the States, and then, subsequently, the referendum, failed.

I find it extremely interesting that some sort of Bill of Democratic Rights (remember all those 'Democratic' Republics?) was put on offer at referendum in 1944, but only after a relatively covert attempt was first made to institute them under what was perhaps a more honest description of the real effect of that proposed legislation, the enhancement of Commonwealth power.

What makes it even more interesting in the present day is that, in the event of an ALP government being returned at the upcoming Federal elections, nothing will stand in the way of such a referral of powers scenario as that of 1942 occurring, and this time succeeding. Such would mean the end of federalism, the end of the Constitution, and, with the end of the Constitution, the end of any role for the High Court.

Stevenlmeyer, you have just handed John Howard his election-winning issue! A real concern for all Australians, something to really fear.

If its his government that goes to election as expected, that is to say.

stevenlmeyer,

Precise attribution in your opening post as to what was said, and in response to whom, would have been nice, but let me make it very clear that I do not disbelieve your rendition of the tenor of Justice Kirby's remarks on this occasion. Indeed, I agree with you that it is very telling that the ABC saw fit to, in your words, 'Bowdlerise' or 'sanitise', but in mine 'tone down', what Justice Kirby said. I only disagree with you as to what it revealed about Justice Kirby, and that certainly was no revelation of his being an 'intellectual weakling', or of his taking refuge from criticism. Quite the reverse.

By now, all of the other Justices of the present High Court, let alone all of the aspirants to future appointment thereto, will be silently (or perhaps not so silently) thanking Justice Kirby for being the 'duty target' in this disgraceful attack upon the dignity of the High Court by The Australian newspaper. It has to be either that article, or that reporter, to which Justice Kirby responded so incisively, and indeed with such restrained precision, that your topic has indirectly brought to the attention of OLO, and thereby revealed to all Australians, surely.

This whole matter may be about to become a classical illustration of the failure of the mainstream media to get to grips with the fact that the real news now comes out only from the blogosphere, if it is correct to place OLO under that umbrella term. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6276 "Rupert was right to Worry", an article that has perhaps not received the attention of which it is worthy from OLO readers.

All of which goes to the utter undesirability of the 'press', in any way establishing itself on an 'equal' footing with the High Court outside the bounds of legitimate criticism based upon real grounds. "This year’s federal election will be the first in which mainstream newspapers have lost their near monopoly on analysis and comment.", says Margaret Simons in that article. Indeed.