scandalising the judiciary'A woman has exactly the same chance of receiving a fair trial in Australia as if she was tried by terrorists, absolutely nil.'
Although perfectly correct given the exclusively male encumbency of the seven member bench of the High Court of Australia, such a statement constitutes contempt with its author liable to indefinite imprisonment for scandalising the judiciary consistent with the approach a terrorist tribunal might take.
While civil disobedience remains the most accessible medium to counter this blatantly sexist blight on women's rights, elements of the judiciary are calling for laws to allow criticism of the courts.
In a lecture at Monash University reported by Fergus Shiel in the Sydney Morning Herald, chairman of the Judicial Conference of Australia and Federal Court judge Justice Ronald Sackville says he agrees with the Law Reform Commission that criticism of the Courts, whether factual or unfounded, did not significantly impair public confidence in the judiciary.
Justice Sackville explained that "[i]t is difficult to deny that contempt for scandalising the court bears the hallmarks of a doctrine designed to provide special protection for courts against harm that is more imaginary than real".
"The existing constraints on the freedom to criticise courts have been informed by an assumption that the judiciary cannot respond to ill-informed or malicious criticism about particular decisions or the conduct of individual judges," he says. "The time has come for that assumption to be re-evaluated."
There can be no other conclusion from a rational mind than that the High Court of Australia in its present form should be held in the most absolute and utter contempt and scandalised irretrievably over its unilateral support for the terrorist-like delivery of justice meted out with despicable disregard for the intelligence and intellect of women.
This author would relish the opportunity to explain face to face to these deranged clowns who dress in frocks to give legitimacy to the adjudication of matters involving women, that their immediate removal and absence thereafter from any involvement with the judiciary in perpetuity is the only reasonable outcome of their contemptible and demeaning behaviour.
As the apex of the 'third branch of government' the High Court is aiding and abetting the enemy in the war on terror to a greater degree than any other institution in Australia.
The absence of a women's jurisdiction brands the encumbents of this bench as brainless, sexist pigs snorting their vile indulgence whilst wallowing in the trough of imaginary justice, the enemy of all women and all decent, honest Australians.
With the Parliament a willing accomplice to this abyssmal deprecation of women, the essential remedy remains a republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by an executive of elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.
September 1, 2005