Mangroves: environmental guardians of our coastline

University of South Australia Media Release They are the salt-tolerant shrubs that thrive…

Tuvalu, Climate Change and the Metaverse

When lost to climatic disaster and environmental turbulence, where does a whole…

Nats Vote No OR When You're Standing At…

It's sort of interesting that just a few days ago we had…

Was Amtrak Joe derailed?

By 2353NM Prior to becoming President, Joe Biden was a US Senator for…

Football Capitulates at Qatar

It did not take much. The initial promises of protest from a…

Thanks To Dan Andrews I Got My First…

Just to be clear here, I didn't get it at the polling…

Democracy Tested

The only defence that we, the people, have against an arrogant leader…

Promises, Promises, Promises

What's a promise or, more specifically, an election promise? Is it a…

«
»
Facebook

Judging The Judges Is A Judgement Call!

Ok, so we shouldn’t be critical of Dyson Heydon. He’s a judge – a highly respected judge. And as Tony Abbott suggested, criticising a Royal Commissioner could be against the law.

However, when a judge rules that the Environment Minister didn’t follow correct procedures, it was an “appalling” decision according to Georgie Brandis. Mind you, he wasn’t criticising the judge. Just the decision. It was appalling that the judge chose to uphold the law, because around here, certain Liberals adopt the Wild West philosophy of “We are the law round here, and what we say goes” and if it doesn’t well it’s the law that’s wrong.

Apparently, the bar has been set too low resulting in what our Eminent Attorney-General refered to as “vigilante litigation”.

Mm, poor George needs to read more because the meaning of vigilante:

A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.

One wonders how going to a court of law can ever be considered a “vigilante” action because the definition suggests that they themselves do the punishing. That they take the law “into their own hands”. That they appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. Like Abbott wanted to do with the citizenship of dual citizens accused of terrorism.

Nonetheless, the Liberals have now decided that only those “directly affected” should be allowed to object to projects, and there’s a plan to introduce legislation to that effect. They’ve decided this all by themselves – like some Stalinist collective. They don’t need a plebiscite for that one.

Which, of course, begs the question, who is “directly affected” by allowing certain projects to go ahead?

One assumes that the snake and the skink would be directly affected by the decision, but I very much doubt that these are what the Liberals have in mind. (By the snake and the skink, I’m not refering to Abbott and Credlin, but to the actual snake and skink in the Adani decision.)

And while I might sound like I’m being flippant, it does raise a serious question. Are these “inner city greenies” affected by the potential extinction of a species?

Well, on some level, of course. There’s a strong case that reducing biodiversity may have unintended consequences, so it’s arguable that anyone is directly affected.

However, the Liberals are making it clear that they don’t like “inner city greenies”.

Or anyone else who isn’t a coal miner or Royal Commissioner, come to that. Come to think of it, they don’t seem to like each other very much.

In fact, like Reclaim Australia, they claim to love the country while hating most of the groups in it.

 

 526 total views,  2 views today

20 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    Hear, hear Rossleigh,

    for connecting the dots on so many issues that these ugly, degenerate LNP buffoons are contradicting, conflicting, conflating, … creeps!

    I also approve of your characterisation of Abbott and Credlin as the snake and the skink … most appropriate … for they both stink.

  2. babyjewels10

    You have to come to the conclusion that, apart from everything else, they’re just not very bright.

  3. Carol Taylor

    Given that the people were the Mackay Conservation Group, I am wondering just how close does one have to be to be considered ‘effected’. Perhaps Brandis could give everyone a clue..a hundred kilometres? One kilometre? Or is it centimetres?

  4. mars08

    And… while we’re at it, lets outlaw halal certification …. because those people directly affected by it aren’t going to ban it themselves!

  5. kerri

    What about the Lawrax who speaks for the trees! For the trees have no tongues!!!
    Oh yes Georgie sees another 18c on the horizon, so when the law effects your mates there’s only one thing to do! Change the law! After all that’s what mates are for?
    But seriously this does come hot on the heels of kicking Indigenous Australians off their very lucrative land!

  6. mars08

    @Carol Taylor …. “we will decide who litigates in this country and the circumstances in which they are affected”

  7. Harquebus

    Abbott is our Bush and Brandis is our Rumsfeld. Do we have a Cheney?
    Goodwun Rossleigh.

  8. Poselequestion

    PROBLEM the loudest protests are coming from the farming community. Get them to sign on the dotted line for lifetime LNP votes then ignore them for perpetuity. No PROBLEM

  9. Carol Taylor

    Oddly enough this law about which the Libs have so many complaints belongs to none other than J. W. Howard.

  10. keerti

    We’ve noticed for a while that although a-bit is a pom, that he doesn’t seem to have an understanding of his own country’s system of government (the westminster system) or democracy in general. Now it appears that his ministers don’t understand the english language very well either. Begs the question. Just where do these w++nkers come from and when will they bloody go back there?!

  11. Matters Not

    Yes the ‘separation of powers’ concept which so befuddled Joh (and his subsequent embarrassment) now has currency at the national level.

    Quentin Dempster to Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen, during the
    FitzGerald Inquiry: “Mr Premier, what do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers?

    Bjelke Petersen: “Eh…”

    Quentin Dempster to Queensland Premier, Russell Cooper, just after he rolled Joh: “Mr Premier, what do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers?”
    Cooper: “Eh…”

    One wonders what answers Abbott et al would give today? Anyone betting on an ‘Eh’?

    Sorry due to the volume of money on the overwhelming favourite “Eh’, the market is now closed.

  12. Pingback: Judging The Judges Is A Judgement Call! | olddogthoughts

  13. Ricardo29

    Good one, you nicely identify the hypocrisy of this mob, we all know of it but it keeps needing reiteration.

  14. Itsazoosue

    If city folk cannot weigh in on environmental issues, surely heterosexuals should not have a say on gay marriage. There must be endless, similar analogies. Do these LNP ideologues ever actually consider the arguments that they make?

  15. rossleighbrisbane

    If they do, Itsazoosue, I strongly suspect that they’re hoping nobody else does.

  16. Peter F

    I expect that the Mackay Conservation Group are considerably closer to the Reef than they are to the mine. Perhaps they might be trying to protect something closer to home, but don’t you worry about that. This reminds me of when Joe railed against the group trying to protect the bats in the Kaolin caves near Rockhampton. It turned out the he had a financial interest in the mine which was proposed for the area.

  17. Pingback: Judging The Judges Is A Judgement Call! – Is this Australia’s worst AG? | olddogthoughts

  18. Kate M

    It seems that the answer to who judges the Judges is the Judges themselves.

    In the ULTIMATE example of bias – Dydon Heydon is hearing arguments today as to whether or not he is bias.

    It’s farcical!

  19. Max Gross (@Max_Gross)

    Brandis and Abbott and the rest of that gang of grifters, bigots and crackpots driving parliament into the ground are clearly channeling a certain Richard M Nixon: “If the President does It, that means it’s not illegal”

  20. Möbius Ecko

    Seems that Heydon during hearings in the Royal Commission offered an email exchange supposedly damning the union except that that email trail wasn’t complete. The union admits the emails weren’t doctored but that they had their Word document attachments removed so the full context of the body text in the email did not reflect the actuality of the account.

    The terms of the RC clearly state that altered or incomplete documents cannot be offered as evidence and even specifically mentions that emails cannot in anyway be altered and must be given in full including any attachments.

    The story is this was another oversight.

    That Heydon accepted incomplete documents is another nail in his coffin and the oversight excuse is now becoming a hammer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: