Bracks splits with PM on sedition. According to The Oz, Beattie is doing the same.

Bracksy has apparently woken up to the fact that, lo!, sedition laws will threaten free speech. Of course they'll threaten free speech, Mr Bracks. That's the bloody point of them. What on earth did you think they were for?

One rather wonders whether he and the other State premiers actually read the laws the PM 'encouraged' them to pass, and everything else that's about to become law. It's bad enough when you see Barnaby Joyce looking absolutely bewildered over (doubtless intentional) loopholes in the law, but for senior politicians of another party in another level of government?

Credulity in politicians isn't something I really enjoy. It's much too unnerving.

US refuses to rule out torture

So, remind me what we're supposed to be fighting for in the war on terrrrr, as Bush calls it? Democratic principles? Apparently not. Human rights? Not for much longer, if ever. I thought the prohibition of torture was a jus cogens norm under international law. Sanctimonious moral high ground post-WWII? Nooo...

Protecting financial and economic interests? By George, I think I've got it!

Never mind that we're talking about other humans here. Yes, they are undoubtedly unpleasant. But if you're going to claim that 'They shouldn't do x y and z to US/UK/AU citizens because "it's wrong"', then logically you're stuffed. You can't assert a universal statement, claim it's true, and then seek an exception.

I don't know what is supposed to characterise the Western way of life that is under thread. Or at least, I can't identify any good bits that haven't been gradually destroyed by governments. (And no, Mr Ruddock, if you're reading this. That doesn't mean I agree with The Other Side.)

It doesn't seem to involve any consideration for the value of human life. And even Singer wouldn't go as far as Bush seems to want to go. Aside from anything else, there's no demonstrated utility in torture. One, it decays what little values are left of so-called civilised nations, which are supposedly anti-torture. Two, it is not proven as helpful in getting good information. Either people will go mad, or they will spout out a load of false information in order to get the torture to stop. Or they will keep schtum and say nothing. After that, what now? Going after their families, like the Gestapo?

We went through all these issues sixty years ago. People still alive lived through this, and a load of other appalling events in the latter half of the 20th century, right across the world. WWII and the UN were supposed to change everything, and yet probably nothing ever changed. How depressing.

Oh well.

Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan

McHUGH J: What you have in your favour, I suppose, is Parliament has put a majority of representatives of the industry in charge of it.

MR WALKER: Yes.

McHUGH J: It rather looks like lunatics being in charge of the asylum. That is probably a point in your favour, although on one view it might be a point against you.

MR WALKER: I am just wondering what kind of asylum the Bar Association is, your Honour.

HAYNE J: Do not go there, Mr Walker.

MR WALKER: No.

McHUGH J: Some people are unkind enough to say it is a trade union and does not act in the public interest.

MR WALKER: Yes, they are very unkind.

Finally, off to another jurisdiction and a link to an excellent article by Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. How you too can...Lose your appeal.

Lying rodents and assorted meats

So, there've been some arrests after the hysterical terror alert of last week. (Was it really only last week? A week is a long time in politics, blah blah blah.)

Now some would see this as vindicating the rodent's ZOMG, TERRORISTS panic. He said the laws were necessary, and oh look, they've arrested some vaguely foreign looking fellows. Johnny must've been right.

But given this was Mr 'ZOMG, THEY THREW THEIR CHILDREN OVERBOARD' Howard, I'm unrepentant. He says we can trust him by his record, which is a bloody good excuse to dispute everything he says. Especially if it coincides with the introduction of other new laws, or a rather poor result in the polls.

Politicians are there to induce cynicism. They lie. They're a pack of section 52s, and they can't even answer a question from Tony Jones.

'Is it true that [insert potential scandal here], though, Mr [insert coalition politician name here]?'

'I haven't been advised on that, Tony.'

Jesus wept. They may think they're protecting themselves from the wrath of the voters by avoiding a straight answer, but it actually makes them look incompetent. You haven't been advised on that? What have you been advised on? What do all your staffers do? Do you mean to say that after the millions (billions?) of tax dollars sluiced through Parliament House you don't know what the bloody hell you're doing?

It doesn't exactly engender confidence that the government's awake and dealing with The Issues.

Oh well. Bollocks to seriousness.

Have some meaty, meat-themed High Court quotations instead.

ABC v Lenah Game Meats
GLEESON CJ: Have you not seen the pictures of those judges going to court at the opening of law term services? Every time there is a broadcast about judges they show us kneeling down, standing up, praying, singing?

MR McELWAINE: Yes.

KIRBY J: They still show the Chief Justice as the Chief Justice of New South Wales.

GLEESON CJ: Yes. They have all got the footage. So the question is whether the brush-tail possums are going to get the same treatment.

Blackadder v Ramsey Butchering Services

KIRBY J: There seems to have been a bit of bloody-mindedness on both sides of this case.

MR ROTHMAN: Your Honour, I will not cavil with your Honour’s view.

KIRBY J: Do not go there.

...

MR ROTHMAN: As unusual as the position that I find myself in, your Honour, I - - -

HAYNE J: There is a knife waiting in the napkin somewhere, Mr Rothman.

MR ROTHMAN: I am sure that is right, your Honour, I am sure that is right. I do not cavil with anything your Honour has said. I merely start from the injunction that - - -

HAYNE J: Let us take what his Honour has said and let us look at the knife that then the napkin might contain.

MR ROTHMAN: I have not appreciated what the knife might be, your Honour, but I merely - - -

HAYNE J: Namely, did the Commission do it?

...

MR ROTHMAN: We say that contract law has moved on from those who - - -

KIRBY J: Only stand and wait.

MR ROTHMAN: - - - yes – only stand and wait.

KIRBY J: Or are butlers to English Law Lords.

MR ROTHMAN: Yes, your Honour. Lord Justice Asquith’s judgment is a - - -

KIRBY J: Bad times since judges lost their butlers.

CALLINAN J: My wife would have been interested in that.

MR ROTHMAN: Indeed, your Honour, I am only surprised that we have not taken it up at the Bar but, nevertheless, the - - -

KIRBY J: Well, you are more likely to be able to afford it than we are.

MR ROTHMAN: Yes, your Honour. I am not going there.