Mirko “If you have a choice between a fiercely loyal colleague and one that is brimming with integrity you should always choose the former – moral rules can be rote learned, but commitment is ingrained” Bagaric, has posted another rehash of a previously published “op-ed” on his web-site.
This Bagaric’s post is on legal and constitutional issues, rather than “practial” moral philosophy, so I think it might be best for someone with a lot more knowledge of the Law than I have to look this one over:
In commenting on the propriety of laws which are designed to protect public safety, the [Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson] states that ‘the law sets boundaries on that power. The law limits the capacity of the government to respond to threats to the public’ and that the courts declare these limits.
This grossly overstates the role of courts – at least Australia – in securing the balance between the common good and individual rights. Properly understood, the law is in fact the means by which the government sets the balance between public safety and individual rights. The law facilitates the government in this important task. It does not restrict it to any meaningful extent.
The High Court’s role in curtailing laws which are designed to protect the community is minimal in the extreme. That’s why, in a democracy without a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights, it would almost certainly be lawful for parliament to declare that all blue eyed babies are to be killed.
At least he didn’t say “brown-eyed” – that might be considered a tad racist. Still, when you put it together with his stated position on individual rights versus the common good, it doesn’t make a pretty picture.
Sooner or later – and I hope it’s the former – this bloke is going to slip up big-time. When he does, there will be great rejoicing – at least on my part. And I might well slip in a bit of “see that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you all along, if only people would listen” as well.
Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor of the Department of Psychology at the University of Manitoba, has written a fascinating study of Right Wing Authoritarians, which notes one of their characteristics as often being blind obedience and loyalty in the face of overwhelming evidence of skullduggery.
I guess this is the Great Divide. What Mirko Bagaric would see as ‘normal’ and even admirable, us non-Right Wing Authoritarian types see as dangerous and delusional.
Sara Robinson at Orcinus has a series on authoritarian mindset within religious groups especially which is also worth reading. It relates to the Thompson/Calley dichotomy I brought up in my My Lai post as well – follow the rules/orders/cronies or do what’s right?
Cracks In The Wall, Part I: Defining the Authoritarian Personality
Part II: Listening to the Leavers
and Part III: Escape Ladders
Does anyone have a handle on statistics for Right Wing Fundies in Australia? I notice Sara Robinson quoting a stat for the States of between a quarter and a third there.
Recently Mirko the ex-cop Bagmanaric has previously written in favour of torture.
Since then parliament passed a law that says in part…
Seditious Intention
Section 24 defined a seditious intention as [a]n intention to effect any of the following purposes:
( snipped)
(g) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth;
So all we have to do is get Ol Mirky to republish his pro-torture screed and …BINGO!
A slam dunk sedition conviction for this vicious, terroristic criminal sadist, Mirko Bagaric and a great day for humanist democracy and the rule of law.
It is clear that Bagaric rejoices in the weakened condition of the judicial branch in Australia in the absence of an entrenched Bill of Rights.
Bagaric’s gloating partisanship for executive tyranny is deplorable.
However, the point he makes about the division of power under the Australian Constitution is largely correct.
There are very few constitutional bulwarks against federal executive power in the Australian Constitution, so long as the executive has a workable parliamentary majority and the Governor General is tame.
And the 2006 Corporate Powers decision vastly expanded the scope of action of the Federal Government.
Of course, High Court Judges can decide what they like in individual cases. But without a clear-cut statement of positive prohibitions on the scope of the authority of executive government, judicial gestures in defiance of executive government simply make executive governments more determined to appoint tame judges.
Good stuff. I only got a little way through the first article and I came across this: “High-SDO personalities tend to emerge very early in life (which suggests at least some genetic predisposition): you probably remember a few from your own sandbox days, and almost certainly have known a few who’ve made your adult life a living hell as well. ”
And I thought: “How about someone who wanted to be Prime Minister at age 10?”
“someone who wanted to be Prime Minister at age 10..â€?
Probably my doh!, but is that someone besides Wayne Swan?
Latest from the OzPolitics blog feed:
Was the title of this a reference to me, Gummo?
Mirko is correct when he raises the spectre of the hypothetical Herodian rule being constitutionally valid under Australian law. The judiciary has some capacity to discourage executive tyranny (as last year’s Court of Appeal decision re Jack Thomas illustrated) but that capacity is limited given our lack of a Bill of Rights.
Ken.
As far a Bagaric is concerned executive tyranny is no spectre, it’s a glittering promise.
He loves tyranny.