greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 3:46pm:



Not assumed, by me

Not said, by me

Not implied, by me



Try that when I actually make that mistake you dolt.

I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It  - Volataire


Anne Ally M.P. needs to put down the Koran for a few minutes and Google Voltaire perhaps she might step out of the bounds of her Burqa and enlighten herself as to just what Voltaire was talking about

red baron wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 4:39pm:


Ban them.

red baron wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 4:39pm:


Mr Baron.  What Section of the Constitution?

Yes naysayers you are correct, however the Federal Court has held that there is 'an implied right to Freedom of Speech'  Read on:-

This suggests a capacity for interaction to occur between the rights of the public afforded under the principle of open justice and the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and HOW THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION ON GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL MATTER MAY REQUIRE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN JUSTICE

Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium 2007 – Sydney
Sunday 7 October 2007


Steven Rares*
     

It is just over 10 years since former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange made his most significant contribution to Australian law – allowing the High Court of Australia to expound that the Constitution contained an implication of freedom of communication on government and political matters.  This enables the people to exercise free and informed choice as electors (Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation ).  But, does it affect the principles, or operation, of open justice?  What can the public, and in particular, the media now see of any documentary material used in court?  With more and more written and electronic material being used in court proceedings, what rights do persons who are not parties to the case being heard have to access this material?


1.      Today I want to discuss two concepts which are fundamental to the way we are governed.  The first is the principle of open justice.  That principle requires that justice should be administered in public, transparently and openly, and that every member of society has the right not only to see what takes place in open court but to make fair and accurate reports of it, to discuss it and to comment on it.
2.      The second principle has been the subject of more recent exposition but is rooted in similarly fundamental values.  It is the freedom from legislative or executive control of citizens’ rights to discuss matters concerning government and politics.  In 1997 the High Court of Australia identified this as an implication in the Constitution of the Commonwealth which constrained the making of laws or the use of executive power to inhibit citizens from being able to participate in the parliamentary democracy and mechanism for changing the Constitution by referendum for which the Constitution itself provided.  If there are to be elections or referenda, the electors must be able to discuss freely matters of government and politics which fall within the spectrum of issues about which they may wish to cast their vote.
3.      Courts, too, are institutions of government in a democratic society.  Each of the three arms of government, the Parliament, the executive and the judiciary, has a role in making and changing the laws under which citizens live.  The Constitution defuses the power of each arm of government by distributing various responsibilities and functions among them.
4.      The Parliament is given the power to enact legislation which, subject to its constitutional competence, determines public and private legal rights, obligations, duties and discretions.
5.      The executive has the traditional function of enforcing the law although it can exercise powers delegated to it by the legislature to make regulations within limits.  Moreover, the executive carries out tasks confided to it by laws made by the Parliament.  These include the exercise of powers that affect citizens and non-citizens in their ordinary lives and activities such as the granting of licenses, permissions, concessions, pensions, the collection of revenues and the prosecution and confinement of offenders.
6.      The judicial branch has the function of declaring the law and applying it to the facts of particular cases.  In a constitutional democracy such as ours, it is the role of the courts to determine whether, ultimately, the Parliament or the executive have acted within the constitutional bounds of their powers.  But judicial decisions can have political consequences.  One only has to remember the controversy that emerged from the decision of the High Court in Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2)  to appreciate that by declaring the law judicial decisions can have profound political impacts.  Political and governmental reactions follow from decisions of the courts.  Talk back radio and the tabloid press comment daily on the adequacy, or more usually the perceived inadequacy, of sentences imposed by magistrates and judges.  Frequently, they assert the need for ‘… the government to do something about it’.
7.      Members of the community are entitled to agitate to change the law declared by the courts through the legal means afforded them by the Constitution.  They may do this not only by discussing matters of government and politics and seeking to influence elections or politicians, but also by promoting a referendum to vest in or remove from the Parliament of the Commonwealth some legislative power under the mechanism in s 128 of the Constitution.  Part of the debate on such a question may involve discussion about the judicial reasoning process which led to various judges determining the law which is sought to be changed, modified or addressed by a referendum. There is an open question whether discussion about the judicial reasoning process itself is protected by the implied constitutional freedom, as the diversity of views expressed by McHugh and Kirby JJ in APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW)  shows .
8.

Valkie wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 5:50am:


I will donate towards Valkie's ticket out of Australia.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 6:13pm:
I'd certainly give you some money so you'd piss off back to India.