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.