Gillard Is Right … To Speak Freely

2 Sep

Look at all the hypocrites, dear reader.

Look at all the little hypocrites attacking Gillard, for questioning the High Court’s decision on her government’s Malaysian people-trading deal.

How dare she question their decision!

I mean, seriously. Not one of us would even dream of thinking that a court got it wrong if they made a judgment that we didn’t like, now would we?

Oh no.

Each and every one of us would totally and unquestioningly accept that the judge/s know better than us, are infinitely wiser, all-knowing and all-understanding, infallible gods-made-flesh of truth, justice, and virtue.

Oh yes.

Even if the court’s decision totally f***ed us over … say for example, in a Family Court decision over parental access rights … we would all, each and every one of us, meekly and unquestioningly prostrate ourselves before the bench and accept our fate.

Give me a break!

Each and every one of us would do far more than think questioning thoughts.

We would all give voice to our dissatisfaction. Long and loud, to anyone who would listen. In one way or another.

Let us be clear. I am making no comment on the Malaysian people-trading deal, or the government’s competence, or indeed, on the wisdom (or otherwise) of Gillard saying what she has said (ie, given the complex and nuanced context of her position as PM, and this particular situation). Regular readers will have a pretty fair idea of my views on those specific points of order 😉

What I am commenting on, is the sheer unadulterated hypocrisy … and even worse, the galactic stupidity … of all those (especially in the mainstream media) who have climbed onto an even higher horse than before, simply because Gillard has dared to express a different view to the High Court.

Our judges are human.

They are also highly pampered, pompous, arrogant, disconnected-from-reality lawyers, for God’s sake!

They are not infallible.  They are not unassailable genii.

It is perfectly acceptable … I would argue, needful … to question all authority.

You are a disgrace to Australia’s heritage, spirit, and traditional values if you do not.

And, you are also an idiot if you do not question all authority.


Because history demonstrates very clearly, that any “authority” left unquestioned for very long, very soon becomes a law unto itself.

Think about it.

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire


The Australian Catholic University’s Professor Greg Craven, author of “Conversations with the Constitution”, agrees that “.. Julia Gillard’s criticisms of it [the High Court] aren’t that scandalous“.

24 Responses to “Gillard Is Right … To Speak Freely”

  1. Bush bunny September 2, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    With respect, maybe I am a bit dumb but what you are inferring is Gillard has every right to question the High Court decision. Well if she feels very strongly about this she can or the government will appeal I suspect. However, would she be right to ignore also the vote given by both houses of Federal parliament who also voted against the Malaysian solution prior to this going to court. She won’t have the Greens support if she does.

    Blissful, I agree we have the right to appeal against any court decision. If one has the money to see it through.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus September 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

      Bush bunny, I’m not even commenting on whether she has a right to “appeal”. I’m simply pointing to the fact that the attacks on her (esp. by the media) for giving voice to her view, effectively imply that the High Court cannot/should not be questioned. IMO, that is a very dangerous (unspoken) attitude to take. Noone – especially those in positions of power – should be above questioning. As soon as we begin to accept the idea (subconsciously or consciously) that any authority is above question, we are already a very long way down a slippery slope.

      Even sheep kick and struggle when thrown on their back before being shorn. How much more should humans kick and struggle … to avoid being thrown on our backs in the first place.

  2. Frances September 2, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Julia Gillard has a right to appeal if that is what she wants to do. But please not on OUR PUBLIC dollars. Were we Aussies consulted about the Malaysian deal she made? Do we have a right to appeal? Not according to her. Neither was Parliament allowed to appeal when she made illogical decisions, she just packed up and walked out of the Parliament when she was questioned about Craig Emerson. So why should Australia have to wear what she does to us? She wasn’t ‘elected’ to Government, she got there by making dirty little deals with the Greens, and the so called Independents whose political careers are probably over now. But they will get their massive Retirement Packages, so they will be very happy regardless. They helped ‘stuff up’ this nation financially. I hope their retirement money is invested in something that goes broke. If there is any Justice it will happen.

  3. Frances Makarova September 2, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    I misstyped Craig ‘Emerson’ before when I meant Craig Thompson.

  4. Jazza September 2, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    I have always thought there was no appeal to the highest court in the land when it rules–would she appeal to the Queen?

    I don’t .believe all the media throws at us till I see it for myself, as a rule,but I did read this no appeal statement in more than 2 reports last night..

    I expected her to attack the ruling,because it was a blow to a government policy, and as such no paltry event, but what I object to is her attack ,so personalised on one member.

    A very bad look from a very bad PM

    After all it was NOT a ruling decided by one vote, nor was the earlier ruling he’d made.(she referred to his time in the Federal court) exactly the same basis for a decision ,as she has tried to make out

    Reading extracts from the court’s rulings on the web shows that.

    Coming from lawyer–as she was prior to becoming an MP– it caused an ambivalent reaction in me:

    I’m not sure if I should be surprised or not but I was,and again, not a good look for a PM I’d say

  5. Team Oyeniyi September 2, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    I agree with you. In a democracy we MUST question everyone and everything if we are to retain our freedoms. Even the High Court.

    My view:


    ”When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

    • The Blissful Ignoramus September 2, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

      Thanks TO … love that Jefferson quote, it is so very true.

  6. Frances Makarova September 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    This is my message re: Julia Gillard.

    Julia: This little piggy went to market.

    Aussie public: This little piggy stayed at home.

    Julia: This little piggy had roast beef,

    Aussie public: This little piggy had none.

    But when she didn’t get what she wanted Julia went “Wee! Wee! Wee!” all the way home.

  7. bushbunny September 3, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    Oh well we’ll see what happens but if she appeals again against the court ruling, she will have to have a new argument to throw at the judges. Very few appeals win by the way.

    • Team Oyeniyi September 3, 2011 at 12:18 am #

      I’m TOTALLY in favour of the High Court decision.

      I just happen to be also in favour of our right to question!

  8. Frances Makarova September 3, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    24.3 What does the High Court do?

    The function of the High Court is to:

    * interpret and apply the whole range of Australian law including issues of copyright, company law, criminal law and procedure, tax law, insurance, personal injury, property law, family law, trade practices and more.
    * decide cases of special federal significance including:
    o challenges to the constitutional validity of laws
    o challenges to the constitutional legality of state and federal government actions
    o appeals from federal, state and territory courts.

    Decisions of the High Court on appeals are final. There are no further appeals once a matter has been decided by the High Court, and *the decision* is *binding on all other courts throughout Australia.*

    24.7 What happens when the High Court makes its decision?

    The High Court rarely gives its decision (the judgement) at the end of a hearing. The decision is ‘reserved’ and presented some time after the hearing. Each justice makes his/her own decision on cases, and where decisions are not unanimous, *the decision of the majority prevails.* For example when the full bench sits a judgement requires at least four of the seven justices to agree.

    In the case of Julia Gillard trying to get the result she desired regarding the Malaysia deal, the Judges on the majority of the High Court Justices, voted against her Six to One.

    She lost! There is no higher court she can appeal to now. She can rail against the decision but she cannot *legally* go against the High Court’s ruling.

  9. Twodogs September 3, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Well said, TBI. What separates “us” from “then” is that we are prepared to dissent from our own partisan politics. We don’t fight for “us”, we fight for what we believe is right, even if it means hanging further to the left than Bob Brown. I even accepted AGW under the mistaken belief of overwhelming scientific support. The moment we can’t accept the possibility of us being wrong, we cease to add to any debate. We become nothing more than the other side of the same coin. I’m not going to criticise Gillard for exercising her right to freedom of speech. Of course, interfering in the high court would be another matter entirely.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus September 3, 2011 at 10:24 am #

      “…we are prepared to dissent from our own partisan politics. We don’t fight for “us”, we fight for what we believe is right, even if it means hanging further to the left than Bob Brown”

      Completely agree mate. Thank you for making these comments. I think there are few things more important than for folks to be assisted in breaking through the mental ‘block’ of the false Left vs Right ideological paradigm. Once one is able (or has been enabled) to shrug off those intellectual chains and view everything in simple terms of True versus False, then everything changes. I find myself in strident agreement … and disagreement … with folks/ideas from right across the political spectrum. Every issue considered in isolation.

      • Team Oyeniyi September 3, 2011 at 10:34 am #

        “I find myself in strident agreement … and disagreement … with folks/ideas from right across the political spectrum. Every issue considered in isolation.” Me too!

        There are some things my own party espouses right now that make me despair, yet I equally disagree with the other party on yet other topics.

  10. Frances Makarova September 3, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Julia Gillard said “I’m not going anywhere…..” Unfortunately she is taking Australia with her.

    • JMD September 3, 2011 at 11:41 am #

      If she has to say “I’m not going anywhere…..”, it means she’ll be gone within months, as will the carbon ‘tax’.

      Shame our problems are then only just beginning.

      • The Blissful Ignoramus September 3, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

        Indeed JMD. What a shame the root issues can’t be … rooted out … first. Still, any progress is still progress.

  11. bushbunny September 3, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    Actually in today’s ‘Weekend Australian’ Tony Abbott has approached her or him with the view of supporting a move to off shore processing in Narau. They said they will vote against the Greens with ALP if they were to go ahead with this. This will give Julia breathing space to contemplate while the Thomson affair is unravels and also admit the opposition were right from the beginning.

  12. JMD September 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    Something you will find interesting TBI;

    I can’t vouch for its accuracy though.

  13. JMD September 5, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    Ha! Haven’t we heard this story many times before?

    She’s done for.

  14. bushbunny September 5, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    I almost started to feel sorry for her until I heard that the EU Commissioner wishes to have
    Australia link with their ‘hot air’ carbon trading scheme. She’s ignorant of the fact that the World Bank announced on 1st June or July (available on Internet) that it was crashing (again?) and if there wasn’t more investment the world would plummet into catastrophic temperature rises.(Even announcing higher degrees than even the fraudulent IPCC) Now from my research over the years, the trading scheme for the EU
    has done not one bit of good to curb carbon emissions. Gillard thinks it has? Permits are given away in Italy. I suggested once in the media that why should Australia join the rats from the SS.Climategate, and bolster this failing (sinking) scheme. I don’t know who advises her, but must be the same ones as Tony Windsor who is actually driving the climate change con. I’ve lost complete confidence in him now, unfortunately.

    I believe there will be a Climate Fool’s Day in October, and people are invited to meet at
    Westminster to complain about the Climate change act, or rather abandon it. Shame we didn’t have something like that here.

    Yes JMD – as one politician suggested to me,’ they are dead’ and I added ‘But they won’t lay down!’ LOL

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: