-
Latest Posts
- People are “drumming up outrage, trying to start a culture war”
- Importing Mohammedans isn’t enough to replace Irish culture
- Nation that organised Ukrainian coup is outraged by a balloon
- The Romper Stomper Racket
- How The ABC Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Ukraine
- Constitutionally non-existent entity prints phony communiqué
- Blimp Crimps Shrimp
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- February 2023 (13)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- COVID
- COVID hysteria
- Culture
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- Freedom
- General
- History
- Hypocrisy of the left
- Innovation and technology
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- Whatever
-
The Cat Empire
Blogroll
-
Excellent news.
But the government does have “duty of care” to see that no Australian is living in poverty or less than ideal conditions owing to ruinous renewable energy costs.
This will just provide more impetus for the activist class to continue stacking the judiciary. Anyone that thinks this or any other unanimous overturning of a leftist shibboleth by jurists actually applying the law correctly will provide cause for reflection or change of tack is sadly mistaken.
The fact that the media can’t seem find their way to report on how shameless this action was both in the deliberate attempt to use the law to force government policy in a contested space and in the use of children to do so says a great deal about how that profession has also been captured by the activist set.
If the government had a duty of care for anything, Dan Andrews would be in jail.
This utter rot, so-called “duty of care” argument could be used by any activist or plaintiff to oppose just about anything he or she is not in favour of.
It seems that Justice Mordy Bromberg’s frolic of his own owed a lot to the minimalist way in which the Minister defended the case. As is made crystal clear in the Chief Justice’s reasons for judgment the Minister rolled over and made no real challenge to the climate change guff being argued. She enabled Mordy.
The CJ said: “by and large, the nature of the risks and the dangers from global warning, including the possible catastrophe that may engulf the world and humanity was not in dispute”
That is so typical of the Morrison government. No balls.
The CJ said: “by and large, the nature of the risks and the dangers from global warning, including the possible catastrophe that may engulf the world and humanity was not in dispute”
Thank God all our governments have State of Emergency legislation in place to handle this new possible catastrophe.
Mordy seems to get overturned more than any other justice. Weird that.
Having demonstrated he can read Andrew Bolt’s inner thoughts, and having decided that the wukkas and Toyota shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate for the wukkas to keep their jerbs, he obviously has a perfect window into the gestalt of the nation.
It will be easy to find an investigative journalist who will identify these teenagers’ financial supporters, political strategists and legal advisors.
Waiting……waiting……
When do deplorables get to rate any Australian judge?
The ‘legal system’ is a closed shop and if your not in it you don’t count.
Yes, a recent complaint I made (fraud) which was successful in court was overturned on appeal not because the defendant was innocent, in fact he said in his statement the judge said it was obvious the dude was up to no good, but quashed the conviction because he didn’t like the way the coppers write the charges.
The judge of course has ALP background.
It will be easy to find an investigative journalist who will identify these teenagers’ financial supporters, political strategists and legal advisors.
One of them is an archetypal silly old nun, Sister Brigid Arthur. Being a catholic is supposed to give you some kind of inoculation against modern stupidity. Looks like she got a placebo.
I bet taxpayers are funding this litigation through some government office.
Jo Nova makes some excellent points:
The whole case was silly beyond words. If the Environment Minister has a Duty of Care to stop a coal mine for fear of losses to these teens in future years, then surely the Treasurer also has a Duty of Care not to wreck the economy and put those same teens in debt on a frivolous pagan quest to stop floods, storms and droughts? Likewise, the Minister for Energy has a Duty of Care to make sure these students don’t grow up to live in a third world banana republic that can’t power factories to provide jobs or keep their quality of life as high as it was for their parents. Where does it end? With a dictator running a command economy, and gulags for the dissidents.