Comments on: Come on Ken, It's Your Turn This Week!

By: Katz

Katz — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:46:11 +0000

As far a Bagaric is concerned executive tyranny is no spectre, it’s a glittering promise.

He loves tyranny.

By: Kenneth Nguyen

Kenneth Nguyen — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:59:32 +0000

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.

By: Gummo Trotsky

Gummo Trotsky — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:00:16 +0000

Latest from the OzPolitics blog feed:

A person’s moral worth cannot be assessed by reference to one or two acts and no punishment is too severe for people who betray their mates.

By: BlindFreddy

BlindFreddy — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:07:49 +0000

“someone who wanted to be Prime Minister at age 10..â??

Probably my doh!, but is that someone besides Wayne Swan?

By: phil

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:09:08 +0000

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?”

By: Katz

Katz — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:58:33 +0000

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.

By: professor rat

professor rat — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:53:26 +0000

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.

By: Lloyd Morcom

Lloyd Morcom — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:47:54 +0000

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.

By: tigtog

tigtog — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 04:43:48 +0000

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

By: Lloyd Morcom

Lloyd Morcom — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:26:25 +0000

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.