Extreme unfortunate typo. At ADF. Meant AFP. Apologies unintended offence, to any.

Howard did increase fees for the High Court, said too many frivoulous cases going there.

The Bennet case was about the right to speak out
“directed Mr Bennett to cease talking to the media. When Mr Bennett continued to do so, charges were laid and his salary reduced.”

“refused to allow him to speak to the media about this penalty or the charges.”.

“Mr Bennett complained to HREOC alleging interference with legitimate trade union activities and denial of his right to express opinions on political matters. HREOC declined to investigate”.

Bennet won his High Court case on the “frivolous” matter of a persons right to free speech without fear of prosecution, but Howard has drafted legislation to take away this right.

Stories we know only too well. Howard started early by increasing fees to go to the High Court. I have looked for back up info lately on this, but no luck. Felt anything but relaxed and comfortable at the time.

David Marr wrote on the silencing of critics by Howard,

“Since 1996, Howard has cowed his critics, muffled the press, intimidated the ABC, gagged scientists, silenced non-government organisations, neutered Canberra’s mandarins, curtailed parliamentary scrutiny, censored the arts, banned books, criminalised protest and prosecuted whistleblowers.”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/careful-he-might-hear-you/2007/06/01/1180205513603.html?page=fullpage

“The Paris watchdog, the Canberra press gallery, the Australian branch of the Commonwealth Press Union and the journalists’ union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, all concur: the Government is squeezing public debate. As evidence, they most frequently cite four cases:

¡The long pursuit of journalists Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey for refusing to divulge the source of a story which leaves them [as this essay went to press] awaiting sentencing for contempt of court.

¡The chilling effect of bans on reporting contained in federal anti-terrorism laws passed since 11 September 2001, particularly the five-year prison sentences for reporting the detention without trial of suspects and witnesses.

¡Difficulties placed in the way of reporting on refugees and asylum seekers who reach Australia by boat.

¡The failure of freedom of information laws, which the High Court last year confirmed gives federal ministers virtually a free hand to withhold documents from the public. Calls for reform of the FoI laws by the press, NGOs, lawyers’ groups and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have all been ignored.”

A public servant had to go to the High Court to defend his right to voice his opinion on government policy, after the government lost the case Howard prepared legislation to make it an offence for a oublic servant to speak out on ANY government policy.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/RN/2003-04/04rn31.pdf

There are countless stories of staff being sacked because they stood up for fellow workers or criticised policy of businesses.

There was also the recent story of Aid Watch, a charity that monitored government foreign aid. When it revealed that Howard and co had overstated foregin aid by 25% it had its charitable staus immediatley revoked for getting “political”. No such revocation for the “Exclusive Brethren” or Pell when they get political in supporting Howard’s policies, instead they get $175 million in funding to put more priests in their schools.

Weren’t they the only paper in the country to support the “Joh for PM” campaign? Or was the Courier Mail involved as well?

Thanks for the heads-up but I’m not going to let the facts get in the way of a good story

1. The Not Leaders Debate.

Smirk knows only how to smirk, shout/pout, or do his gravitas bit. One is nauseating, the other unattractive, the third sonambulistic or conducive to me too ism.

I have seen considerable recent research proving that worms are readily susceptible to hypnosis. Tax and bracket detail? What thrills could be in store!

I suspect He of the Never Never PM will despatch to Labor any wavering innocent who chances by the TV set. Even we are at risk of glazing over, particularly if the debate exceeds ten minutes.

Maybe he could give Milne the nod to pull the feed when it looks grim.

Johnny would be too honourable to do it for him, I expect.

2. Andrew Robb. World Yesterday. Fire in belly? Pain in arse.

I am sure my computer has had a spyware or cookie installed as a number
of posts have suddenly disappeared just as I try to submit them.

Far be it from me to disparage a good conspiracy theory, but I’d suggest
the competency of a particular criminal monopoly be the first suspect
in these particular circumstances.

Did not prior to the decade, entertain serious suspicion at a personal level.

Things often ‘happen’ with my phone, which is a bothersome mystery.