Breaching Human Rights: Australia, Climate Change and the…

Australia has a mixed relationship with the United Nations Human Rights Committee. …

So Now It's Wrong To Be Racist, Eh?

Just a few short years ago, Attorney-General George Brandis assured us that…

“I'm Sorry, Your Majesty...”

A Tribute to our Late Queen Liz, with Post-Colonial Afterthoughts By Loz Lawrey…

More of the same

1 Here are a few jaw-droppers that are guaranteed to shock you. They…

Shoddy Consultations: Santos, Drilling and First Nations Peoples

Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg has been in the environmental news again,…

Can we avoid mass extinction?

We only have one planet! And we each have only one life! The…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

Offence by Another Name: Suppressing Anti-Royal Protest in…

The right to protest, fragile and meekly protected by the judiciary in…


When People Break The Law

Image courtesy of

Image courtesy of

Let’s take a look at Peter Greste for a second. He must have known that he was breaking the Egyptian law. Or at the very least, by working in a country which cooperated with the USA in the rendition of terror suspects and publishing things which the government didn’t like, he must have known that he was running the risk of a lengthy jail sentence.

Similarly, anyone who participates in a protest is running the risk of being jailed.

“Premier Denis Napthine said increased sentences would apply to anyone who attacks police, paramedics, firefighters, protective services officers, State Emergency Services staff and lifesavers who are on duty.”
The Age.


People who break the law must know that – if convicted – they are in danger of being jailed for their crimes. Ok, we may not agree with the particular law, but when people break a law – even an unjust law – they are running a big risk of punishment. Whether we think that it’s fair or not, we must accept that they’ve brought it on themselves.

But yesterday, I heard a suggestion that Rebekah Brooks may be sent to Australia by Rupert Murdoch.

I find this appalling for a number of reasons:

  • Sending people to Australia for punishment stopped with the last penal colony in the 19th Century.
  • Rebekah Brooks was found not guilty so why is she being punished?
  • She has red hair and Australians have a recent history of persecuting red headed women in the past twenty years.
  • It’s presumed that she can get a visa when we decide the people who come to Australia and the circumstances in which they come.

Which I’m sure will lead some to attempt to link Brooks to illegal immigrants.

Let me explain the differences.

  1. Rebekah Brooks was found not guilty in a court of law, so she should be allowed to get on with her laugh. Whereas. Illegal immigrants have never been charged with their crime and therefore have never been found not guilty.
  2. Even though people should be presumed innocent until convicted, this doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants because they’ll never be charged with anything unless they go back to where they came from. After that, we may find that they were, in fact, not the sort of people we want here, because they’ll be immediately arrested or executed.
  3. People who haven’t been actually charged with any crime can be put into situations which we’d find appalling if anyone who’d actually been convicted was subjected to. The reason for this is that because they’ve entered the country illegally by boat, they’re basically prisoners of war because they’ve invaded us. And Prisoners of War have NO RIGHTS because – under the War on Terror – the Geneva convention does not exist for people who may be terrorists. And can anyone say for sure that somebody who is foreign is not a potential terrorist?

Ok, I know some of you are probably saying that, if these people have broken the law by coming to Australian, should we charge them and jail them in Australia. There is one simple answer to that. WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THESE PEOPLE ACCESS TO OUR COURTS WHEN THEY HAVEN’T – LIKE REBEKAH BROOKS – BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY?

I trust that this clears things up.


 54 total views,  2 views today


Login here Register here
  1. Gregory T

    In the words of Stan Laurel,
    “It certainly does”

  2. darrel nay

    Clearly we are treating these people like suspected terrorists but does it factor that we have a better chance of dying by bee-sting than at the hands of one of these ‘invaders’.

  3. Lawrence Winder

    10.15 Mayhem for Murdoch’s Minions. Enthralling and long running UK Court-Room drama exposing and detailing the lives, tribulations and trials of amateur journalists’ Andy and Beccy who “Apprentice-like,” try to anticipate their Master’s (The Ugly American) every wish.
    This week: “The Verdict.” The prosecution lawyer in “Mayhem” shows admirable restraint at the Beccy’s verdict. His quietly acerbic, “She was paid an awful lot to be very incompetent…” is a moment to watch.

    If the Poms as punishment, transport her Down-Under, it can only be as payback for “Rabbutt-the-Hun” having Downer seek asylum in Britain, not because the “Australian” needs more receptionists.
    (MA15+, N, S, V)

  4. mark delmege

    I guess she will be big on jury verdicts for a while and prosecutors (don’t forget the quality of prosecutors) and judges – don’t forget the judges – top men all of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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: