4 ms·

It's interesting how transparently self contradictory the document is. Clause 5 simply says: > The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to > Au

by zmmmmm 12y ago

It's interesting how transparently self contradictory the document is. Clause 5 simply says: > The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to > Australia's international relation... In other words, the entire purpose is political. However this was obviously insufficient grounds, so the next clause says: > These orders are made on the grounds that they are: > > necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to > the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by > other reasonably available means; and necessary to prevent > prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to > national security. So suddenly it is about "justice" and "national security". So the suppression order to suppress corruption is corrupt itself, and doesn't really even try to hide it, safe in the knowledge that it, itself, is supressed.

jacques_chester 12y ago
The law is a mechanism, not a policy. Her Honour made the order according to law in her best judgement. You might not agree with the Commonwealth seeking the order, you might not agree with her reasoning. But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. "Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil"? There are tons of corrupt judges in most countries, including a huge percentage of judgdes that function in favor of this or that political party. It's utterly naive to think that a judge that rules in favor of a multinational / government etc because of interests (from being appointed by said government to direct bribery), is so uncommon as to be a "Hollywood-villain judge". For tons of openly blatant cases (some proven in court, and some bringing down whole governments), study the history of places like Southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, etc. (It's not that it's uncommon in the west -- they just do it with more finesse and hide it better. Or, sometimes not, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal ).
  - sjy 12y ago
    It's also naive to think that the terms of the order are "contradictory" and indicate a failed attempt by the judge to clothe political action in legal terms. The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's democratically-elected parliament. It specifically requires the judge to identify the "purpose"[1] and "grounds"[2] for issuing a suppression order. [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o2013203/s13.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o2013203/s18.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201...
    - zmmmmm 12y ago
      So reference [1] says: > in the case of a proceeding suppression order or an order under section 26(1), must specify the applicable ground or grounds "applicable" would seem to be the operative word here. The problem is that the grounds are not applicable to the stated purpose. You would have to concoct quite an elaborate story to rationalise that saving some foreign politicians from embarrassment is supportable on grounds of national security.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's democratically-elected parliament. It's also naive to think "democratically-elected parliament" means much. Democratic control in modern democracies is a joke, a one in 4 or 5 years opportunity to vote a mere yes/no for tons of issues a party stands for.
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    All the examples you gave were in countries with important historical, cultural, legal and political differences from Australia.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      Greed is greed, and interests are interests, everywhere. You can find the same things in the US and UK and Germany (actually one of the examples I gave was from the US).
- zmmmmm 12y ago
  I wasn't disputing the reasoning, or claiming something about the judge. My point is about the consistency of the document itself. It says a) we're doing this for political reasons, and then b) and the grounds are these other completely different things. Whatever Her Honour's reasons are, is it OK for me to expect her to express them in a cogent and consistent manner in the order and not a blatantly inconsistent and unsound manner?
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    See sjy's reply for more details on the separation of reasoning and grounds.
- caf 12y ago
  If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works. That's true in general, but how does that apply in the specific case of judicial decisions kept secret?
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Holy fuck are you naive. Judges are people and are as biased as anybody, heck likely more so since they are commonly assumed to be above others. You assume that she has made the the order according to her best judgement - what makes you assume this?

by zmmmmm 12y ago

jacques_chester 12y ago

The law is a mechanism, not a policy. Her Honour made the order according to law in her best judgement. You might not agree with the Commonwealth seeking the order, you might not agree with her reasoning. But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works.

coldtea 12y ago
>But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. "Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil"? There are tons of corrupt judges in most countries, including a huge percentage of judgdes that function in favor of this or that political party. It's utterly naive to think that a judge that rules in favor of a multinational / government etc because of interests (from being appointed by said government to direct bribery), is so uncommon as to be a "Hollywood-villain judge". For tons of openly blatant cases (some proven in court, and some bringing down whole governments), study the history of places like Southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, etc. (It's not that it's uncommon in the west -- they just do it with more finesse and hide it better. Or, sometimes not, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal ).
- sjy 12y ago
  It's also naive to think that the terms of the order are "contradictory" and indicate a failed attempt by the judge to clothe political action in legal terms. The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's democratically-elected parliament. It specifically requires the judge to identify the "purpose"[1] and "grounds"[2] for issuing a suppression order. [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o2013203/s13.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o2013203/s18.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201...
  - zmmmmm 12y ago
    So reference [1] says: > in the case of a proceeding suppression order or an order under section 26(1), must specify the applicable ground or grounds "applicable" would seem to be the operative word here. The problem is that the grounds are not applicable to the stated purpose. You would have to concoct quite an elaborate story to rationalise that saving some foreign politicians from embarrassment is supportable on grounds of national security.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's democratically-elected parliament. It's also naive to think "democratically-elected parliament" means much. Democratic control in modern democracies is a joke, a one in 4 or 5 years opportunity to vote a mere yes/no for tons of issues a party stands for.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  All the examples you gave were in countries with important historical, cultural, legal and political differences from Australia.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    Greed is greed, and interests are interests, everywhere. You can find the same things in the US and UK and Germany (actually one of the examples I gave was from the US).
zmmmmm 12y ago
I wasn't disputing the reasoning, or claiming something about the judge. My point is about the consistency of the document itself. It says a) we're doing this for political reasons, and then b) and the grounds are these other completely different things. Whatever Her Honour's reasons are, is it OK for me to expect her to express them in a cogent and consistent manner in the order and not a blatantly inconsistent and unsound manner?
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  See sjy's reply for more details on the separation of reasoning and grounds.
caf 12y ago
If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works. That's true in general, but how does that apply in the specific case of judicial decisions kept secret?
tomjen3 12y ago
Holy fuck are you naive. Judges are people and are as biased as anybody, heck likely more so since they are commonly assumed to be above others. You assume that she has made the the order according to her best judgement - what makes you assume this?