Look, it's like shooting fish in a barrel to go to Catallaxy and find dumb and ludicrous commentary by academics who post to a dumb and ludicrous audience (sorry, but sheesh), yet I must point to Professor Stagflation's odd post today in which he doesn't actually disagree with Gillian Triggs, but attempts to have a go at her anyway.
Is it beyond his intellectual grasp that her unelected status and security in the position is what lets her speak forthrightly in criticism of the government on the matter of human rights?
And in what sense are any of her rulings or commentary even potentially a "threat to democracy", given that (as far as I know) she can only recommend actions? If she has no power to enforce anything, why should be in an elected position?
The Abbott government's personal pursuit of Triggs, aided and heartily endorsed by the Murdoch press, and lapped up by Sinclair Davidson's drooling audience, is one of the most disgusting and vile features of any Australian government in living memory.