The legal system in Victoria has gone completely bonkers
The new Victorian charter of human rights clashes with the actions if the Victorian government. But that's OK, according to the Victorian government, because the rights are breached for the common good. Of course they, not you or anyone else get to decide what the common good is.
---quoting
According to other examples in the report, film classification laws were found to limit freedom of expression but were permissible for the protection of public morality and national security.
Issues were also raised with alcohol laws allowing people to be instantly banned from pubs or clubs for 24 hours for being drunk. But the Government deemed it necessary to achieve its aim of reducing drunkenness and violence.
Controversial rules aimed at preventing protests over channel deepening were found to limit people's rights to freedom of expression. In the Government's statement, the laws were justified on the basis that they allowed the dredging of Melbourne's main shipping channel to proceed and public safety to be enhanced.
------
That last one is a gas. How does dredgeing help public safety exactly? Presumably by increasing port traffic, thereby increasing tax revenues that the government will party spend on safety initiatives, but mostly on new unionist beurocrat appointments to oversee the smooth flowing of the new legislation.
Oh right. I was confused by a journalist again. They must mean the protesters endanger public safety. I guess that is true, we would not want hippies on the loose. But Labor could well approve of a union march against IR laws on the basis that it improves public safety. In that case most of the thugs in the state are kept busy for the afternoon and prevented from beating up their wives.
Getting off the track. The point is that surely a court should be deciding on the interpretation of two seemingly conflicting laws, not the legislature that makes those laws, or the executive the enacts them. Labor is just poo-pooing any clash between the two.
Surely this defeats the entire purpose of introducing the rights legislation in the first place. Why make a right into a law only to trample it? What is the point of a law if people can break it at will? The government are nominally governed by law. They should not be able to break or re-interpret the law as they see fit any more than you I can.
The rule of law curtailing the actions of the government is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. Labor fail to understand the very basics of democracy. Labor cannot be trusted with our rights.
This shambles is just another example of Labor clumsiness when it comes to the civil liberties. They are too herd-minded to handle the trade off bettween the 'common good' and the rights of the individual.
And Labor wants to introduce this model nationwide!!!
Thank heavens no-one can change the constitution without a referendum, accept activist lefty judges that is, who can change the way it is interpreted beyond recognition. These judicial idiots erode the primacy of written law at their peril and ours. their lucative jobs will lose their importance as they surrender power to the legislture and the executive, and we will lose our freedoms.
If the judges know what's good for them and us they will join again with the Liberal cause and fight for their central role in upholding the constitution and the laws of the land from clumsy do-gooding hoolums. It will make them a packet in the process. The 'human rights' legislation probably conflicts with the action of almost every law there is. They and the lawyers will be on what Tony Blair calls 'the gravy train of legal aid'.
