Damn right the public don't understand 'justice'

Apparently Queensland's Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey, has stepped forward to complain that the public didn't understand the 'mitigating circumstances' mentioned by the judges who granted the appeal of Brisbane's bikeway rapist, Luke Colless. Sure the Courier Mail, to its discredit, did not publish these mitigating circumstances (Fairfax did) in announcing the cut to Colless' sentence, but even the drooling masses who comment on the CM website have sufficient olfactory capability to know a giant stinking pile of bullshit when they smell one.

The so-called 'mitigating circumstances' have since been published by the Courier Mail.

One of what the judges referred to as 'substantial mitigating circumstances' was:

The applicant’s cooperation with the authorities from an early stage, including his confession to the crimes, saving an even more substantial police investigation

What rubbish. That stinkhole committed his crimes over a period of years. It's not like he turned himself in. Rather, when he was finally caught he confessed. Probably after being told that the police had a bunch of evidence that would convict him anyway.

The second 'substantial' mitigating circumstance was Colless' alleged 'genuine remorse'. I beg your pardon? Is there an infallible test now that determines whether the remorse expressed by someone for a crime is genuine?

Sickos who commit crimes like this shouldn't be allowed to get a huge discount just for saying "I are very very sorry" when they're caught. As it is, the new sentence works out to just over a year for each of his attacks, compared with a little over two years for each attack under the previous sentence. I don't believe in bulk discounts for rapists or anyone else who perpetrates an act of violence on another person. Too bad our judges don't feel the same.

Oh and another of these so-called mitigating circumstances shouldn't go without mention either: the totally baseless assumption that the rapes committed by Colless are somehow less serious because he didn't use his penis- exactly what evidence do the judges have to prove that this ought to be counted as a 'mitigating circumstance'? They just pulled it out of their arses:

A rape accomplished digitally may generally be seen as somewhat less grave than a rape accomplished by penile penetration. See R v Wark [2008] QCA 172. That is because it may be less invasive, would not carry a risk of pregnancy, and would ordinarily carry substantially reduced risk of infection.

What utter bullshit. Rape is not illegal because it carries a risk of pregnancy and infection. It's illegal because it is a violation of a person's right not to have sexual contact of any kind against their will and because it is extremely traumatic to be the victim of such a violation. Deliberately trying to inflict an infection on someone is a separate crime altogether, but if 'risk of' infection were the main thing wrong with rape then we'd see a lot more people in jail for deliberately sneezing, coughing or spitting on someone. Rape is something entirely different, something those numbskulls on the bench seem to be completely oblivious to.

Thumbs down, despite the schadenfreude value of the Larrikin case...

Mini mercenaries Larrikin Music have won their copyright claim against Men At Work for the use of the riff from Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree in the song Down Under. The company, which bought the copyright to the 1934 song in 1990, more than 10 years after the Men At Work song was released, bought the rights for a paltry sum. As much as I like to see big music companies getting a taste of their own medicine (which they most certainly are in this case), I think it's pathetic that a company should stand to profit from something that was never part of a body of work owned by them in the first place. And Down Under is by no means a rip-off version of Kookaburra, it is a unique work. This particular decision is a real shame.

ETA: Jeremy at An Onymous Lefty has a good post on this issue.

Sweet common sense: iiNet prevails over scummy entertainment companies

As clear-cut and bloody obvious it should have been from the beginning, the undue influence wielded in our systems of justice and politics in Australia by entertainment industry leviathans made the decision handed down today in the case against small ISP iiNet no sure thing. Those scumbags went after small fry in the hope of setting a precedent that could be used against every ISP and internet user in Australia. iiNet made a habit of forwarding the entertainment companies' notices of infringement to the police, and the companies didn't try and sue the police. Instead they went after the smallest possible target that could provide the largest possible outcome. And lost.

Sucked in to them, and may common sense in this area of the law continue to prevail. I'll profess my surprise that the justice system in Australia hasn't yet been bought by the huge companies who brought this case, and hopefully we won't see that happen at all.

Armed librarians a figment of entertainment behemoths' imagination

Nice try by the dickhead lawyers for the dickhead entertainment industry companies suing iiNet, but the case they’re attempting to use as a precedent falls flat at the first hurdle.

Once upon a time (that would be in 1975), someone sued the university of NSW for allowing students to use books and allowing them to use photocopiers, thus ‘authorising’ them to breach copyright laws. Now, that decision in and of itself was a load of bunk, if you ask me, but the decision meant that every university has to stick up little notices near the photocopiers in its libraries saying, essentially, “don’t breach copyright laws”.

iiNet effectively do the same thing in their terms of service, saying that the service should not be used for any purpose that constitutes copyright infringement. Funnily enough, the lawyers for the ‘coalition’ of entertainment companies recognise that but then say because iiNet failed to personally heavy every individual who they (the entertainment companies) believed was breaching copyright laws, they are tacitly authorising the alleged breach by not cutting that person off from their service. That’s like saying because university libraries don’t have a librarian armed with a baseball bat standing guard at every single photocopier ready to beat the shit out of anyone they think might be in breach of the laws (in the absence of any court ruling that they had indeed done so, mind), that universities to this day ‘authorise’ people to make unauthorised copies of copyright material. Clearly there is nothing in the law (so far, touch wood) to suggest that this is in fact the case. If it’s that obvious to me, it should be so bloody obvious to a judge that no lawyer would humiliate themselves by attempting to draw such a pathetic and false parallel. But if there’s one thing the powerful companies behind this lawsuit have, it’s hubris in spades. I hope to god our justice system is strong enough to ensure that hubris is unfounded.

I don't like the way you talk

I hadn't heard about these proposed new 'move on' laws that allow police to force people to move from an area if they are slurring their words.

Aside from the fact that these laws are typically designed to be (mis)used against homeless and indigenous people, I'm wondering how long it's going to be until the police humiliate themselves by using these laws to force someone with a disability to move on- a car-accident victim, or someone who has suffered impairment of their speech as a result of stroke, or tongue cancer, say?

Way to go, NSW...

In A Crowded Theatre

The Age

It's strange that our terror laws, enacted to protect life and limb against violent fanatics bent on the destruction of life and limb, are used on doctors who give sim cards to their cousins. Mentally disturbed fire-bugs who kill at least 84 people will instead have to be caught and prosecuted under normal laws, if they are ever caught at all. The final toll will almost certainly be higher than the Bali bombings. Fire bugs are elusive prey and it's difficult to collect evidence against them, exactly the reasons we're told we need special laws to catch terrorists. What a strange set of priorities we have as a society.

UPDATE
Apparently the arsonists could be charged with murder, but only if it's proved they showed reckless criminal intent. WTF?

Judged by what you read?

Imagine if all the lefty bloggers who read and critique the writings of wankers like Andrew Bolt were deemed to believe every word he had ever said, just by virtue of having read his rantings. That appears to be part of the basis for the 'terror' trial currently underway in NSW. Oh, and apparently reading articles by John Pilger might get you into hot water if you're a muslim:

...among the so-called extremist material found during a police raid on Mr Hasan's home was an article by journalist John Pilger that said if people got their news only from the TV they would have no idea of the roots of the Middle East conflict.

Also, get a load of this: the prosecution has attempted to manipulate the jury (which is easy to do, because juries are made up of your average idiots) by accusing the defendants of possessing 'ammunition' and 'chemicals', including dangerous 'hexamine tablets'. Hexamine tablets? You can buy them at Bunnings or the frigging supermarket. They're otherwise known as firestarters- something you might use at a barbeque. Doesn't sound so scary when you put it that way, does it?

Radio jock gets pissy, cop mates help out

So... there's this dickhead shock-jock (aren't they all?) who works at 2GB who goes by the name of Chris Smith. Some poor git who's forced to listen to this moron's drivel, day in, day out ("Alan Jones without the brains"- ouch!) decides to prank him with a bunch of fake emails. This gets turned into radio fodder by Smith. After all, his brains, if he had any, dribbled out his nose a long time ago, so it's great if your work consists of sitting in a chair and ranting against some anonymous emailer and you don't have to put a modicum of thought or effort into it. Kind of like if I got paid to sit on my arse and rant about all the anonymous nutbags who post comments on 'controversial' threads pertaining to abortion or racism, and about as worthwhile.

Anyway, Smith decides one day- apparently without good reason- to have his good mate the NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, to hunt down his taunters and make their lives miserable. Smith claims he feels threatened by them.

So the NSW police, who've apparently got a lot of time on their hands since they solved every crime that ever happened in the state waaaaay back, hunted down the two sods- Brent Balinski and Serkan Ozturk- and had them sacked.

Chris Smith, while claiming to feel 'threatened', is mouthing off about committing acts of violence (nothing new for him, apparently):

"If they came within 20 metres of me I'd have had a great deal of satisfaction punching their lights out."

Tool. I'm sure Commissioner Scipione will have a crack team of police onto Smith for his repeated threats of violence any day now. Isn't it nice when you've got mates in high places?

I think someone at the SMH had fun writing that piece.

The financial burden of official hatred

Jeremy of An Onymous Lefty quite rightly asks of the following story (via Crikey) "Where are the newspapers? Why is this not a front page story?"

Why not indeed? It is a disgrace that Australia imprisons people who are fleeing untenable hardship under murderous governments. It is beyond comprehension that a country that supposes itself to collectively possess even an ounce of humanity would bill those refugees for the privilege of being imprisoned.

Crikey revealed yesterday that the Department of Immigration was billing former detainees for their stay in custody at Baxter Detention Centre, and at exorbitant rates. Hope you enjoyed that delightful 16 months we imposed on you - here's a bill for $161,684! And sixty cents!

Kasian Wililo was ordered to repay his debt within 30 days.

Why is this continuing under the Rudd government? Australia's greatest shame over the past decade has been its treatment of refugees, why have John Howard's policies been allowed to live on past their father's political death?

Why would we want to place such a burden on people who came here with nothing?

QLD 12 year-old required judge's permission for abortion

I would really like to know- what is it about Queensland law that meant that this case had to go before a judge?

IN a landmark case a Supreme Court judge has given permission for state government doctors to abort the pregnancy of a 12-year-old girl.

[...]

The girl had told her carers she wanted the termination and her parents had both consented. However, it was considered their consent was beyond their powers and a judge's declaration was needed.

Obviously there is something very wrong when Queensland law requires the order of a judge before a pregnant 12 year old, with parents who agree with her desire to terminate the pregnancy, is allowed to have an abortion. That's nuts.

Singapore cracks down on FEER

The happy oppressor: hereditary PM Lee Hsien Loong

Singapore's government is at it again- using their pet judges in a legal system wholly geared to punish anyone who dares to express opposition to the Singapore government's policies to once again sue someone for defamation over a perceived slight.

This time they've gone after the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER). The FEER is a fine publication- as a kid I used to read it when it was a magazine. Last time I read it it had gone to a more no-frills journal-style publication, but still as insightful as ever.

The FEER has frequently reported on the Singapore government's misunderstanding of the concept of democracy. This time it's editor Hugo Restall who's in trouble, alongside the magazine itself, for the supposed defamation of the Lee hereditary dynasty:

The Straits Times reported that lawyers for the Lees had said the article at the centre of the case was "calculated to disparage both leaders by suggesting they were corrupt and unfit for office, and would sue and suppress those who questioned them as the questions would expose their corruption".

Hilarious. Prime Minister Lee Hsein Loong proved the FEER right by responding in exactly the corrupt and oppressive manner that the article and opposition politician Chee Soon Juan predicted. I suppose dictators aren't known for possessing a keen sense of irony, and the behaviour of Singapore's government, democratic in name though it is, definitely skews toward the dictatorial.

Singaporean leaders have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages in defamation cases against critics and foreign publications, which they have said are necessary to protect their reputations from unfounded attacks.

The BBC neglects to mention that after Singaporean leaders sue their opponents into bankruptcy and poverty, they may then jail them for being unable to pay their fines. It suits the Lees and their cohort very well.

Australia needs to take a stand

It probably is about time Kevin Rudd did something that John Howard refused to, and underline Australia's opposition to the death penalty. John Howard was happy to play the hypocrite, supporting the execution of the Bali bombers while claiming to oppose the death penalty whenever it was being applied to an Australian. If Kevin Rudd is so concerned for the sanctity of life that he's willing to protect embryos from scientific research in the name of protecting human life, he should be willing to solidify Australia's position against the death penalty in all cases.

The NSW MP Chris Hayes has lodged a notice of motion in Parliament calling on the Government to take a number of steps, including passing laws making it illegal for states and territories to reintroduce the death penalty. The current legal position means states and territories could reintroduce it, should they wish.

This would incorporate Australia's obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty, into domestic legislation.

Such a move, advocates believe, would send a clearer message internationally on Australia's position, and strengthen its arguments for Australians on death row overseas to be spared.

Queensland 'provocation' defence disgrace

Dr Heather Douglas:
'Provocation as a defence to assault should be abolished in Queensland'

A few months ago, I brought up the topic of Queensland's 'provocation' defence to murder or violent acts. I thought Australia had long ago rid itself of such backward laws, but Queensland 'The Smart State' is happy to remain medieval. At the time I posted, back in May, it was in the news thanks to the defence being successfully used by Garry John Mills, who murdered his wife:

In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, reduced his sentence to nine years and did not record a serious violent offender classification.

It means Mills will be eligible for parole after 4½ years instead of the previous eight years.

The topic has again been raised, this time by a University of Queensland law lecturer, Dr Heather Douglas, who notes that it is among excuses commonly used as a legal defence by perpetrators of domestic violence.

I can see a place for a defence of 'provocation', and that is in the cases of people like Catherine Smith, people who are the victims of extreme domestic violence, not of some verbal barb from a partner. Queensland law currently gives a discount to murderers with a short fuse. People who will take another person's life on the back of some verbal insult. How can it be that this is not a priority for the Bligh government or Springborg's LNP opposition?

Genoa in the Guardian

Speaking of fascist Italy, read this report in the Guardian. I defy anyone to fail to be shocked by what can happen in a civilised country in the 21st century. Hell, even if you just read the first 3 paragraphs you'll have half an idea of what went on.

I vaguely remember the reporting of the G8 'riots' in Genoa in 2001, but nothing like this. And from the brief rundown in the article of what appeared in the media at the time I would say we were grossly misled.

Scary stuff.

US introduces death penalty for burglary

Joe Horn and his victims, burglars Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz.

Well, for black or Hispanic people who commit burglary, at least. ABC Newsradio played the recording of the 911 call that porcine redneck made before he shot two men who were robbing his neighbour's house. He murdered them. In cold blood. And a jury let him get away with it.

The New York Times article has quotes from the tape:

“I’m not going to let them get away with it,” he told the emergency operator. “I’m going to shoot.” He added, “I’m going to kill them.”

The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.

But this- this is scariest of all:

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”

So... someone steals a pie and runs off with it- that justifies some redneck shooting them dead? Or would it take something worth slightly more- maybe a box full of frozen pies? 5 boxes? 100 boxes? At what point does it become acceptable to take someone's life because they stole some stuff? America is fucking insane, and Texas has to be among the worst of the nutty southern states- although that's hard to say, as they're all pretty bad. The people who are saying that no African American or Hispanic person would have got away with murder in the way that Joe Horn did are totally on the mark. He got away with it because he was white. It's just hard to believe your eyes when you see shit like that.

Stunning example of animal cruelty goes unpunished

Another day, another horrific example of animal cruelty goes unpunished. This item has been sitting in my browser for the last week... The story of what the owner of Charlie, a maltese terrier, did to him made me feel physically ill, as I'm sure it did everyone who was involved with the case. It was horrific.

The penalty? A 12-month good behaviour bond.

Honestly, I have words for the magistrates and judges who don't take these crimes seriously- none of them are nice. I view such people with the same contempt that I have for the perpetrators. Penalties like this are practically an endorsement of the crime.

I hope Charlie finds a nice home.

Sharia law in Queensland

I think Queensland needs to get rid of the 'provocation' defence it has for murder. Or at least alter it. I've seen quite a few cases like this one in the news over the years of husbands claiming 'provocation' in the murder of their wife simply because she said something or slept with someone else. That's about as backward as Saudi Arabia's death penalty for adultery. In fact, it is as backward. It's pretty much the same thing. State-sanctioned approval of murder, where the approval comes in the form of a discount on your murder sentence. Gross.

Unknown offender bashes family's puppy to death

Worthless in the eyes of the law.

Someone bashes a family's puppy to death and leaves the corpse in the front yard.

Media talks breathlessly about how the offender, if caught, 'could face up to 5 years in prison'.

Offender laughs and gives the finger to the Australian public, citing previous weak-arse sentences.

Gets off scot-free.

Ok, it hasn't happened yet, but you know it's coming. "Puppy-killer complains that conviction for sick, disgusting, heinous crime is preventing him from getting a job. Judge agrees, scraps sentence".

Mark my words. Can you imagine, given the precedents set by previous sentences, just how many animals a person would have to maim, torture and kill in order to be handed the maximum sentence? I can just imagine this sicko's defence, let's call it the Shane Moore Defence: "Aww, Oi just wanted to bash it, Oi didn't know that bashin' it would kill it or nuffin."

Can you tell this makes me mad?

Kitten killer Shane Moore gets off scot-free

When I saw this story on the Courier Mail website regarding how kitten-killer and all around sick fuck Shane Moore has just had his conviction overturned, I couldn't resist leaving a comment.

The tradition of judges handing down sentences so weak for animal cruelty they could practically be considered to be condoning such acts continues unabated, then. And just as previous acts of cruelty that went under-punished were used as justification for this monster's light sentence, his own sentence will probably be used in turn by the next person to kick a kitten to death, or set it on fire or run it over. Why are these sickos allowed to get away with stuff like this when it's proven that they are much more likely to go on to commit similar offences against humans? Don't Australia's judges have a problem with this? Maybe it would be different if they didn't see themselves as being so distant from the communities they supposedly serve.

That bastard only spent 5 days in jail for what he did.

Guantanamo inmate becomes suicide bomber

Well... the US wrongfully imprisoned someone and fucked with his head to the extent that he felt a desire to enact some kind of vicious revenge. Is this really a surprise?

A spokesman for US military's Central Command told The Associated Press today that Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in an attack in Mosul.

US Navy Commander Scott Rye says authorities don't know the motive for the attack, which was reported last week by Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television. Iraqi security forces were apparently targeted.

The US transferred al-Ajmi to Kuwaiti custody from Guantanamo in 2005. A Kuwaiti court later acquitted him of terrorism charges.

The US uses Guantanamo to mentally, if not physically, destroy the people they imprison there. The only surprise is that something like this hasn't happened sooner.

UPDATE 09/05/2008:

From the SMH:

In portions of the recording translated by the American SITE Intelligence Group, a voice is heard decrying the conditions at Guantanamo as "deplorable" and urging others to fight.

"Whoever can join them and execute a suicide operation, let him do so. By God, it will be a mortal blow. The Americans complain much about it. By God, in Guantanamo, all their talk was about explosives and whether you make explosives. It is as if explosives were hell to them."

The suicide bombing is the first such attack in Iraq linked to a former Guantanamo detainee, although the Defence Intelligence Agency has estimated that as many as three dozen former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorist activities.

Human rights groups and lawyers for Guantanamo detainees have disputed that estimate, saying only a handful of former detainees have left custody and gone on to fight US forces.

How can they say 'returned to terrorist activities' when they clearly had no proof that they were participating in terrorist activities prior to being imprisoned?

Ajmi was held in Guantanamo until late 2005, when he was transferred to the custody of the Kuwaiti Government as part of a diplomatic arrangement. At hearings in Guantanamo he maintained his innocence and said he never fought with the Taliban or meant anyone any harm. In 2006 he was tried in a Kuwaiti court, with a group of other alleged terrorists, and acquitted.

Thomas Wilner, a Washington lawyer who represented Ajmi in seeking a habeas corpus hearing when he was held at Guantanamo Bay, said on Wednesday that Ajmi was young and not well-educated and he appeared deeply affected by his jailing there.