Friday, November 25, 2005
Judgemental – or what?
Judgemental – or what? By A. J. Johnson 15 November 2005
Former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson, was criticised by the Attorney General Philip Ruddock for having the audacity to comment on the legality and other aspects of the Counter- Terrorism legislation.
To quote the Chief Justice as reported on ABC Radio on 4 November: “ It overrides so many accepted individual liberties that it's difficult to know where to start. It's in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It runs contrary to all of our historical approach to criminal law. It creates a power to detain without having committed an offence. The whole of it is surrounded in secrecy, so it can never be challenged. The people involved are unaccountable.It shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the importance of the judicial process in Australia.”
Talking to ABC reporter David Marks, Minister Ruddock said” Family law judge? ..Knows all about counter terrorism, does he, as well? He's a human rights specialist, as well as a family law judge?”A reporter said “Well, he's schooled in the judicial process, and he says…”To which Ruddock replied: ” No, he's schooled in being able to comment on a wide range of public interests from a particular perspective that he holds”.I would like to remind the Minister that anyone who has been a judge in the Family Law Court understands only too well what terrorism is. Remember David Opas, a Family Court judge who was shot dead in NSW in 1980. Remember Pearl Watson who, in 1984, was killed by an explosion apparently aimed at her husband, a Family Court judge. In the same year, a bomb exploded at the home of another judge, Richard Gee.
I have three points to make here – and there are many more, I’m sure.
First, if the incidents described above - plus all the murders of women and children by estranged partners – are not terrorism, what is?
Second, is being a family court judge incompatible with being a human rights specialist? I would have thought it was an essential requirement.
Third, Ruddock is giving us – as if we needed it – a really brilliant demonstration of what might be considered sedition after the Counter- terrorism bill becomes law. We will have to be licensed to comment on any topic, publicly interesting or otherwise.
As it is, this once ‘clever’ country has been becoming stupid for years because of the obsession with ‘sourcing’. An idea should be considered on its merits – or lack of them – regardless of who said it or where it comes from. And people should not be classified into speakable and unspeakable. Except Mr Ruddock, who every day increasingly resembles Mr Burns from The Simpsons in more ways than one cares to imagine.
Former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson, was criticised by the Attorney General Philip Ruddock for having the audacity to comment on the legality and other aspects of the Counter- Terrorism legislation.
To quote the Chief Justice as reported on ABC Radio on 4 November: “ It overrides so many accepted individual liberties that it's difficult to know where to start. It's in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It runs contrary to all of our historical approach to criminal law. It creates a power to detain without having committed an offence. The whole of it is surrounded in secrecy, so it can never be challenged. The people involved are unaccountable.It shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the importance of the judicial process in Australia.”
Talking to ABC reporter David Marks, Minister Ruddock said” Family law judge? ..Knows all about counter terrorism, does he, as well? He's a human rights specialist, as well as a family law judge?”A reporter said “Well, he's schooled in the judicial process, and he says…”To which Ruddock replied: ” No, he's schooled in being able to comment on a wide range of public interests from a particular perspective that he holds”.I would like to remind the Minister that anyone who has been a judge in the Family Law Court understands only too well what terrorism is. Remember David Opas, a Family Court judge who was shot dead in NSW in 1980. Remember Pearl Watson who, in 1984, was killed by an explosion apparently aimed at her husband, a Family Court judge. In the same year, a bomb exploded at the home of another judge, Richard Gee.
I have three points to make here – and there are many more, I’m sure.
First, if the incidents described above - plus all the murders of women and children by estranged partners – are not terrorism, what is?
Second, is being a family court judge incompatible with being a human rights specialist? I would have thought it was an essential requirement.
Third, Ruddock is giving us – as if we needed it – a really brilliant demonstration of what might be considered sedition after the Counter- terrorism bill becomes law. We will have to be licensed to comment on any topic, publicly interesting or otherwise.
As it is, this once ‘clever’ country has been becoming stupid for years because of the obsession with ‘sourcing’. An idea should be considered on its merits – or lack of them – regardless of who said it or where it comes from. And people should not be classified into speakable and unspeakable. Except Mr Ruddock, who every day increasingly resembles Mr Burns from The Simpsons in more ways than one cares to imagine.