Suspending the rights of one man or class of accused was always the goal of #MeToo fascists.
- Artificial Indignation
- Recusant Christians in the Victorian Liberal Party need a Nick
- Addicting young people to a vice is a venerable business model
- Nazi salute panic is a canting one for luvvies to be propagating
- The face of European “values” still punchable but not as smug
- Historical milestone as IPCC publishes its 1000th final warning
- The Eagle Has Crash-Landed
- March 2023 (73)
- February 2023 (84)
- 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)
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- COVID hysteria
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- Hypocrisy of the left
- Innovation and technology
- Left-wing extremism
- Legal affairs
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Social media
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
The Cat Empire
ACT government rushes to amend Evidence Act ahead of second Bruce Lehrmann trial.
Next step in the agenda, appoint Lorena Bobbit to execute sentencing
Surely the big news is that Trump is running. (From what?) but CL has lost interest in US affairs.
It is no news that @yank is a progressive shill.
So if they can recycle Higgins testimony then they can recycle Lehrmann’s defence!
Just need to get the ‘right’ jurors to make the ‘right’ finding.
If there isn’t a vast majority of women on the jury, I will go hee.
Yeah, good point. Basically, Lehrmann is subject to the jeopardy of a jury’s perceptions but Higgins is not. This garbage bill, if enacted, will of course end up in the High Court – as will the case proper if Lehrmann is convicted.
Kambra man buns.
No word yet on contempt proceedings against Higgins for the rant on the courthouse step, or against the ACT government bureaucrat who stood next to her nodding agreement? I’m not holding my breath.
Yank, go start your own blog like the trampis has, if you want to dictate the topic. I’m guessing you won’t because it would be as exciting and well patronised as the Trampis blog ie less popular than a fart in an elevator
This was part of the injustice of the Pell trial. The prosecution used in the second trial a video replay of the chocolate-drop-eyed Choirboy’s testimony from the first, whereas the prosecution got a second crack (and thus the opportunity to refine its tactics) against the 24 witnesses who gave exculpatory evidence for Pell. As the High Court found, the prosecution still could not discredit their evidence, but its snarky wink-wink-nudge-nudge tactics obviously massaged the prejudices of the bigoted, brainwashed halfwits on the jury.
This whole affair is a farce and a travesty of justice from beginning to end.
The #MeTooers are out to get their man, by hook or by crook.
Nor has any action be taken against Mrs. Fitzsimian for her contempt of court.
Dang me, Dang me
they oughta take a rope and hang me
High from the highest tree
Justice, would you weep for me.
Buccaneer: I come here for the literates you experience. I’m missing the fluency and wit of the usual Trump tropes. Have you put yours under the bed? Or left them in a lift?
Why not take your Trump tropes to a relevant thread? This one has two fifths of three eighths of bugger all to do with Trump.
PS, what is a “literates you experience”?
BJ: go figure.
Hey man (?)
That is so deep, man (?).
Sorry, no speaka da babble speak.
I’ve said my piece on Trump in an appropriate thread, carrying on when you’ve been called out just marks you as a wanker, go start your own blog, CL even let’s the Trampis promote his feeble attempt here, I’m sure we’ll all go visit just to watch how crap it is.
Thanks folks. I can understand that even though Trump is a cancer it’s important to continue to promote cancer because it’s preferable to Democrats (and therefore Ukrainians, who clearly are closet Democrats). Go with God.
You wrote about reforming the Republican Party on another thread, without being specific about what you mean by “reform”(though getting rid of Trump was implicitly a major element). I responded that unless the blatant rorting of the electoral system by the DemonRats could be stopped, any reform of the Repubs would be useless.
Your comment at 1744 suggests you have a relaxed approach to DemonRat rorting. Is that true?
BJ: I’d like to have an independent election office like australia has with everything out front. When I engage in GOP reform it’s way deeper than the crooks like Trump. More like the new campaign finance laws of AZ.
This thread is about a new bill that is about to be introduced in the ACT which basically trashes the presumption of innocence. It’s the kind of bill that would have made Vasiliy Ulrikh happy. Quite an important topic, don’t you think? So what happens, the attention seeking, adolescent “yank” comes here and seeks to derail the thread. He’s throwing a tantrum because, like the toddler he is, HE wants to dictate the blog discussions.
Memo to yank…..eff off.
The very definition of an internet troll is someone who derails threads with off-topic, distractive comments, often inflammatory or controversial, usually with the intention of getting a rise out of others.
Yank is a perfect example.
Yank, as the name of the site indicates, I’m an Australian native. The rigging of a trial here is bigger news than Trump’s announcement. We’ll have lots of Trumpiness to discuss in the two years (!) to come before we know who the next President will be.
Also, at the moment – for want of time – it’s the most I can do to post some discussion opens. I should take the opportunity to say that I’m proud of this little site and its contributors and value the input of everyone.
You are (deliberately?) avoiding my point. How do you propose to stop the blatant electoral rorting by the DemonRats? Until you do that, nothing will change, and no Republican will become president.
Kristina Marie Kerscher Keneally
“Also, at the moment – for want of time – it’s the most I can do to post some discussion opens. I should take the opportunity to say that I’m proud of this little site and its contributors and value the input of everyone.”
We need to thank you C.L….for your superb site and commentary. You do a fantastic job. Thank you.
Totally agree Cassie.
Talk about Australian native. CL you should stay away from NQ.
Horatio Spencer Howe Wills was an Australian pastoralist, politician and newspaper owner. Born in Sydney in the British penal colony of New South Wales, Wills mother Sarah Harding, was a free settler, his father Edward Spencer Wills, a convict who was transported in 1799 for highway robbery, died five months before his birth.
He fathered nine children, including Tom Wills, Australia’s first great cricketer and founder of Australian rules football.
Wills worked as a printer and editor for Australia’s first newspaper, The Sydney Gazette, before founding his own journal, The Currency Lad, in 1832.
In 1861, Horatio moved north to Queensland, in the Nogoa region near Rockhampton. Less than three weeks later, Wills was murdered by aborigines, along with 18 of his employ at the Cullin-la-ringo massacre, 17 October 1861; the largest massacre of whites by Aboriginal people in Australian history.
We are fortunate to still have The Voice of The Currency Lad.
The impropriety of the case was said to be that of the behaviour of the jury during its deliberations. Perhaps the entire case with all witnesses and not just that of the accuser could simply be filmically replayed before a new trial jury. Virtual justice parodying justice.
“In 1861, Horatio moved north to Queensland, in the Nogoa region near Rockhampton. Less than three weeks later, Wills was murdered by aborigines, along with 18 of his employ at the Cullin-la-ringo massacre, 17 October 1861; the largest massacre of whites by Aboriginal people in Australian history.”
Thanks for that Jannie.
The Lehmann case is Pell redux. It will end up in the HC.
The ACT seem determined to repeat the Pell trial as closely as possible.
After testifying via CCTV in the first hung trial J was only seen on tape in the second, the dynamics are clearly different.
Yes it’s hard on the accuser to do it all again, but as she wants someone to go to prison she should be willing to pay the price, plus second time round she has the advantage of knowing about the embarrassing questions already.
And financially it costs her very little but the defence a great deal, Lerhmann is lucky to have a very generous pro bono team, Cardinal Pell was left penniless and also reliant on the generosity of others.
There are some tricky constitutional questions here.
However, at this point the question for Lehrmann is whether he should give evidence. The jury would then have a contrast between the relatively flat presentation of Higgins, and (assuming he can come across this way) a sincere and lively account by Lehrmann. He would also of course not appear to be afraid of a cross-examination.
Another question is whether the defence would seek to exclude Higgins’ direct attack on Lehrmann. It was not made in response to a question.
And it followed her imperious decision to do a runner from cross-examination and take a few days off. Clearly coached, she then returns and puts on a #MeToo performance for the jury. Now her mate the prosecutor – who is rabidly anti-Liberal, by the way – asks his mates in the legislature to pass a Brittany law to save her the trouble of testifying at all. This entire trial is a disgrace. Not only is it a patent, black lie to claim a jury can be finger-wagged into impartiality at this stage, the truth is the entire strategy of the prosecution is to convict the accused solely on the basis of wilfully stoked notoriety. There is no proof of any crime.
“This entire trial is a disgrace. “
Surely the punishment for Lehrmann must be ‘stoning’ on the steps of the ACT “Court House” when the all new improved jury pronounces his “guilty” verdict.
Lerhmann should not be under any pressure to testify, they already have his voluntary statement to police.
Nothing to add, didn’t happen.
This accuser is no shrinking violet.
Her backers are now seeking to shield her.
Expect the well-worn “doing this for all future complainants” to be trotted out, ad nauseam; her case is the least worthy one for this to ride on.
It has often been said that a jury must see and hear a witness give evidence so that they may assess her or his demeanour. Some modern judges warn against attaching too much weight to such assessment. On a word against word contest on a criminal trial however, where one must be lying,. it might be said tha
t it is unfair to an accused for the jury to be unable to see and hear the complainant. The constitutionality of this law could be attacked.
An argument that Higgins would be re-traumatised by giving evidence again might amount to contempt of court, inasmuch as it assumes she was raped. Maybe an MLA will employ it, but this would probably not protect further publication in say the media. OTOH, watch for this argument to be subtly implied.
There are already many grounds for appeal. Some weeks back, Janet Albrechtsen (a lawyer) related that several confreres in the profession had told her the judge’s continued insistence on giving the jury more time – when it was patently clear that reasonable doubt existed – was injudicious in a case with no real evidence.
No stoning then?
Where is the justice in Australia?
I missed the most obvious fairness. It is clear that Huggins has given diametrically inconsistent accounts on points of critical detail, such as to whether Lehrmann removed her knickers. Were she to be cross-exam8ned again, she might well contradict her earlier evidence.
The right to confront an accuser, and cross-examine, is stated in the ACT’S Human Rights Act. This law cannot override another later law, but where there is conflict a person aggrieved can seek a declaration from the Supreme Court that the right has been breached. The Legislative Assembly must then determine whether to revoke the law.
Just whether this avenue of redress would be followed is for his legal advisers. What it does suggest is this proposed law is deeply flawed. OTOH, if the trial is not delayed, a jury might well decide guilt on the “we hear you, we believe you” principle.
I just wonder how many times will they retry Lehrmann?
The whole thing is corrupt, of course, but that’s how Australia is now. We used to be a good country.
“I just wonder how many times will they retry Lehrmann?”
They’ll retry him until he’s found guilty. That’s what they’re doing here in NSW with Jarryd Hayne.
also see the ‘lawfare’ directed at Bernard Gaynor.