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.
3 comments:
So you support her advice of handing over $350k to a wife murderer?
do you know the reasons for this? Of course not.
To Anonymous: the amount of compensation sounded high to me, but many lawyers did not think it extraordinary. The recommendation, for that is all it was, could have been reasonably responded to by noting that the commonwealth would take other advice on compensation, or simply not pay compensation at the rate recommended.
The advice in no way warranted the vicious ridicule and personal attack on the women who made it.
Post a Comment