Morgan, which ended its recent poor run at the federal level with a 53.5-46.5 result on the eve of the election, has produced the first post-election poll on voting intention. It shows Labor enjoying a honeymoon boost to 58.5-41.5, with a primary vote lead of 49 per cent to 36.5 per cent. Newspoll will presumably return to the fold in the new year.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Morgan: 58.5-41.5
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
1,031 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 » Show All
Kina are you for real.
I don’t know where mm has been for the last 11.5 years but I do know that each of the next 10 or so years will be the longest and hardest to bear years in his lifetime.
This Rape case is one of the most sickening decisions in Australian history
but Marky wants to play politics with it.
Fortunately as PM he sent a message to Judges generally on behalf of Aussies
(except the ‘Marky’ liberals) that the decision is unacceptable to the people
198 Fulvio Sammut Good nick name.
Ferny at 131, I’m a bit non-plussed as to why you would take this line. I don’t wish to derail this thread, and more particularly, p*ss William off to the point he bans me, but, for goodness sake, and surely this has something to do with firstly, how a political leader relates to major socio-political-economic events which effect the polity, and secondly, no, bugger it. I’ve got to go back to work tomorrow, despite the allure of poll bludger. William, I love you, and wish you’d just give us a prod when you wanted another fund injection, so I didn’t have to guess. I’m just addicted.
marky marky at 196, peace brother.
ViggoP at 194.
Thanks for that. Did not read article in full before I steamed ahead.
Quite a difference from the unqualified meat and wedge we were accustomed to.
Me playing politics, all you Labor ( inc me) who can’t criticise the party and who take the party line on everything. Didn’t Howard use to comment on things he should not have and now Rudd does it but that’s okay. Hypocrites or what.
Mind you, this has been a little quite in here lately. So maybe a little stirring won’t go a stray.
Viggo – ‘Reprehensible’ is a very strong word. The concern is simply that it is dangerous to pass comment based solely on media reports. The PM really should have delayed comment until he was briefed on the matter. This case has many oddities that I’ve mentioned above and uninformed comment is not helpful to anyone. Nuff said.
See ya tomorrow sometime.
mm you are as much a labor man as the Mad Monk. I just don’t believe you.
3205 bugger, prod, love and injection – all in the one post Harry? I`d be very surprised if William doesn`t ban you outright. Give you a right Cerdicking he should.
Marky has decided already what kind of PM Rudd will make, after just a week. Don’t worry about Kina Marky, are you for real?
Socrates at 200, that’s all very well, but it’s probably our furniture he’s shipping!
I expect the PM and EVERYONE in any Public or business position to speak their
disgust at this decision
The reason Judges have got away with such disgusting decisions in the past
is due to the disgraceful ‘Marky’ attitude….do not criticise Judges
!0 guys admit to raping a 10 year old but the Judicial system will handle it you say
Ferny Glover lets clarify to all those short sighted bloggers, the case was in OCTOBER nearly two months ago and the media shockies get on it now and so does Rudd, right. Put simply why not then and if Rudd was sincere about it why not then to, or is he playing politics and being a populist.
Get it folks OCTOBER and not last week, no doubt Rudd read about it and heard about it in the Media.
Socrates 200
‘Kirribilli Removals Just saw your truck’
Onya, KR. And so late into the work day.
Dedication. Or AWA?
Jen,
The legal solution in every case is for the DPP to lodge an appeal if he or she believes the sentence is unjust.
The solution is not for the red-neck media to pass their own judgment. They can achieve no judicial solution. Either you abide by the legal process available or the law is stomped on by people jumping in with ill-measured responses to a problem they know little about.
All you know is that a 10 year old girl was raped. This does not automatically mean that the accused must suffer any mandatory minimum penalty. The sentencing act requires the court to take into account factors such as general deterrence (deterring others), specific deterrence (deterring these particualr offenders), the potential for rehabilititation, the gravity of the offence and the affect the crime has had on the offender, denunciation of the offence, protection of the community and the offender’s anticedents.
The press fails to report these factors so how can anyone relying solely on the press reports have any hope of knowing what the court took into account in arriving at its sentence. If all you know is that a 10 year old girl is raped, then of course you expect a custodial sentence, because that is a typical outcome in a rape case.
The judge said that it is likely that the girl consented to the conduct. It is trite to say that a 10 year old can not give legal consent. That is not the point. The issue is whether the girl gave consent to the assault in fact, not in law. If the act was done against her will, it would be an aggravating feature of the crime. If it was done with her willing participation, that would be a mitigating factor that the court is entitled to take into account. I do not see the problem with that. Same thing happens in euthanasia cases. If I kill a terminally ill relative with his consent I would be treated quite different to if I had killed someone in a bank robbery. People have long insisted that judges need to take into account the victims of crime, and here we see the judge has taken into account the actions of the victim in arriving at what the judge sees is an appropriate sentence.
If the sentence is outrageous the DPP should appeal. Rudd should tell the press that the matter is in the hands of the DPP and it would be inappropriate for him to interfere in that process.
Hang on, isn’t everything at K House paid for by us? Those two should have been given the Archangel Gabriel treatment.
It doesn’t matter when Rudd heard about it. I heard about it for the first time in the last 48 hours and I am disgusted with the decision. I am pleased that the PM has voiced his disgust at the decision as well. Spin it any way you like mm but Rudd is correct in his comments and he will be supported by the vast majority of ordinary Australians.
Steve and Ron i for one am disgusted by Rape and Voilence, and do not agree with it and if the facts in this case are their then this outrages me, but do we know the facts.
My argument is not about the case it is about a Prime Minister who has jump on the media circus wheel and be a nothing, something which many of you do not get, or wish to think about.
Gary- you must work for the Labor Party because you never say anything against it. Obviously another stick in the mud.
mm says the case was in October so why is Rudd commenting now
Howard was PM in October and if he’d known about it he would have CORRECTLY said he Howard was appalled. So Markey Howard & Rudd did not know then.
you have an indefensible argument
CW at 197: Nope, just stretching my legs here for a while, but thanks for the tip, will have a look.
Calm down people about Rudd’s response. It’s pretty straightforward. You cannot agree if you are ten years old. End of story. Any of the lawyers posting here about the need for caution about the judge’s conclusions, and so forth, just bear in mind you cannot consent when you are ten. Sorry, William fo being off topic, but this is just stupid.
Now i get it Steve the media is the place that provides you all your knowledge and facts and helps bring together all your thoughts into one. A media as shown on media watch which rarely researchs information and rarely tells you all the facts.
Grievance Report.
My neighbour has had his bore water running on his greenest of lawns for two and a half hours.
The footpath is soaked, the road is soaked, the gutter is running.
Kelly, according to the news, the Qld Attorney-General has stated he will appeal the decision. I’m left wondering why it took the media’s belated outcry to prompt this course of action outside the normal appeal period.
The moral crusaders are out tonight.
Comment by serial idiot Dario deleted.
mm says he’s Labor
Rudd would not want his vote for politicising such a tragic case
As for ‘Kelly’ trying to spin some justification for the Judges decision & I quote:
“The issue is whether the girl gave consent to the assault in fact, not in law”
Hello, a 10 year old does not give consent either in fact or in Law
and I reckon 99% of Aussies agree with me
226
marky marky
No you are wrong, you don’t get it at all. I don’t expect you would get it even if you were to try really hard. I still don’t believe you. You’ve never voted Labor in your life.
A ten year old can consent to anything at all. The law says that a 10 year old can not give legal consent anything almost anything at all. But in fact a ten year old can consent to letting her brother ride her bike. Not hard to imagine. Consent is a basic concept. Legal consent is a creation of the law. Lawyers don’t have any problem with the concept. Others seem to. That is why you should not have people who are not judges passing judgment in these sorts of cases. They have no idea what they are talking about.
Crikey 228
Are you in Adelaide like moi? If so, stay angry at bore-water users. It is not even close to sustainable. I saw one hydraulic assessment at a recent conference (engineering sustainability) I attended that estimated that bore water extractions in Adelaide exceeded inflows by a factor of three. It is liquid mining, and liek too much of South australia’s finances, borrowing from the future to pay off a bankrupt past.
agree with you Steve K
lets just forget him …there is a child who deserves better than what some blogers serve up
I don’t think this argument about who does or doesn’t “get it” is going to lead us very far.
Kelly says
That is why you should not have people who are not judges passing judgment in these sorts of cases. They have no idea what they are talking about.
WE THE PEOPLE DO KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOLICITOR/JUDGE
YOU DO NOT
179
Chris B Says:
December 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
42 Gippslander Bairnsdale Hospital or Gippsland Base at Sale?
PS Drove past a Dyers truck today.
Bairnsdale hospital. I was wearing a Kevin07 T-shirt when admitted, and was surprised by the generally positive reponse, particularly among the medical staff.
On the Queensland rape case, my first reaction is that anything journalists write sounds very authoritative, unless you happen to know something of the facts. The treatment of the “children overboard” affair is a case in point.
that stated, if the judge did actually say that a ten year old girl can give consent, then I join with Rudd’s disgust. He had to make a comment, and if it turns out that the judge has been misrepresented, I expect he will apologise. For ,folks, I think we at last have a decent man as our PM! (perhaps not quite as saintly as President Bartlett, but quite good enough for us)
Yes, Socrates, I am in Adelaide. Suburban Brighton.
I have referred to this shameful waste, in earlier threads.
And the failure of the Government to do anything about it, apart from forcing producers in the Vale to justify their use.
Apparently, this bore water matter has been a long time subject of ‘consideration.’
Steve K, if i have never voted Labor why do i usually criticise right wingers and their actions. I comment on things which amount to political process and what occurs unlike many on this blog who are straight down the line politically. I am have been to Labor conferences previously and attended Labor meetings at the old Labor headquarters at the back of Trades Hall in Melbourne. Steve continue on with the line though it is a good one. But if you wish to think otherwise fine, but put simply many bloggers see thinks black everytime regarding labor politics and can never have some independant radical streak and that unfortunately to you labor bloggers who absolutely detest me spruiking quacky angst against the party this is what i have.
On “a current Affair” the just retired Vic Supreme Court Judge was asked
why a 24 year old got 2 years for raping an 89 year old woman
HIS ANSWER to the Reporter: you do not understand. The facts vary in each case
This case is a repeat with the appologists for the Legal fraternity defending the
Judge
The big issues and all the facts behind them Ron are always on A Current Affair.
Crikey
If you want to run a story on it, check the proceedings of the SSEE07 engineerign sustainability conference in Perth in October 30 – November 2. One speaker (can’t remember name) gave a paper on hydraulic planning in Salisbury Council. To be fair Salisbury is not at fault; they were at least looking at the issue. Bus IMO SA govts (both sides) have a lot to answer for on past planning failures.
Not to mention acountability. The attitude that we don’t need a corruption commissioner runs deep and poisons public administration. Consider the collapse of the State bank. Three states sent major financial insititutions bankrup then (SA, VIC, WA) but only one sent nobody to jail after frauds costing millions. Us.
I agree Grace. These are immensely fraught situations, and immensely difficult to untangle. They are also very difficult to comment on without raising a whole heap of hackles, and I admire your courage in responding as you have. I also don’t envy the Judge concerned. Given the inspiration you provide I’ll stick my own head up for other people’s target practice, too!
Rudd, I suspect, knows next to nothing about the complexities of such things. He is making judgements based on his own cultural position and on the political impact of the event.
I know nothing whatsoever about the details of this particular case beyond the coverage provided by today’s news bulletins. I do, however, think that certain things need to be acknowledged, whether we like them or not. (I should preface the following by saying that I am, by profession, an anthropologist who has worked in Aboriginal communities for much of the last 30 years)
Firstly, the “age of consent” is not, ethically or legally , some sort of immutable thing that has some sort of “universal” or “natural law” recognition. There are substantial variations “in law” in different states of Australia. In Victoria , for example, apparently “it is a defence if the younger party was aged 10 years or older and the defendant was not more than 2 years older than the younger party”. Similar provisions apply in the ACT. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania).
“16″ is a very common age for permissible sexual intercourse in western anglo-saxon communities these days (and there are no doubt some good intellectual arguments behind this) , but it was not always so, even in Anglo-Australia (where the marriage age was 12 until the late 1800’s) , and it is a significantly older age than one finds in most “traditional” societies in this region (or than in the Anglo-European world in the 1800’s and earlier).
In traditional Aboriginal communities first intercourse for girls generally occurred (and still occurs) at or close to puberty, rather than at any predetermined age. Whether this is “right” or “wrong” goes beyond the questions I am trying to address here, but it is certainly a pertinent fact in the situation.
The current situation is being portrayed by some sections of the media (and given sustenance by Rudd) as ‘violent rape” and yet the same media is suggesting that no actual violence was involved.
It is also being called “gang rape”. There is, in fact, substantial literature dealing with communal sexual intercourse in Aboriginal communities at the time of first intercourse for women in many areas, including north Queensland. I’d suggest that anyone who doubts this has a look at Catherine and Ron Berndt’s ‘Three Faces of Love” (Nelson, West Melbourne, 1976) , or, for the Queensland situation, the work of W.E. Roth in the late 1890’s, or just about any standard Australian anthropological text which mentions Indigenous sexual life. This was not seen by these communities as aberrant behaviour , but simply as the right way for such things to occur.
I stress, I am not raising this to say such things are “right” or “wrong” from my own perspective. I am simply saying that such situations are far more complex than either the media portrayal, or Rudd’s reaction, allow for, and to condemn the judge concerned, or even those involved, “on first principles” is, I think, very short sighted.
Nor am I suggesting that whatever happened in the Aurukun situation was necessarily “traditional”. It seems that some of the men involved were themselves minors, and it is unlikely that this would have been the case in days gone by. Paradoxically, perhaps, age parity (seen as a defence in the laws of some Australian states in such circumstances as mentioned above) would probably have been seen as quite wrong in a traditional context, where a young man’s early sexual partners would often have been substantially older than they were themselves, and where boys in their mid teens would generally not have had any legitimate “rights” of this kind. Equally, it is very unlikely that the community would traditionally have sanctioned sexual activity in a situation where a girl had not yet reached puberty. Whether this was the case in the present situation is not apparent, but she was clearly younger than one would generally have expected in days gone by.
In short, based on the information made available through the media, it is simply not possible to genuinely work out the “rights and wrongs”
Ultimately, though, it seems to me that there has been a very rapid “rush to judgement”, both by the media and by Rudd, in this case. Difficult, complex, situations like this one need to be thought about cooly. Presumably the judge had an opportunity to do just this. We’ve seen politicians jumping in far too vigorously attacking the courts in Australia in recent years. I’d feel much happier if they had a look at the particular Judge’s reasons and the underlying circumstances of the case before they did so!
Thank you, Crikey, for noticing what i think is going to be the most amazing set of policy challenges the world has ever seen. Could be a bummer, could be an upper, but is usually a mix of good, bad and indifferent. So it goes.
“Bailey found two more votes”
This intriguing story in the Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bailey-finds-crucial-votes/2007/12/10/1197135341065.html
So a candidate keeps “finding” votes and she is the one complaining? Can someone please explain what tehtime limits are to me, and how it can come to be that the candidates are the ones who find the votes? Is this odd? Is there any pattern on the proportion of late postal votes and the seats where the Libs have caught up? This seems fishy to me, or am I just ignnorant of the process?
Rod thankyou for summing up something so elegantly and beautifully, i could not have done so well. You have described the complexies of this case and stated the problems of it, thankyou.
I think “found” is the past participle, not the active past tense.
Ron, it’s not a matter of ‘defending the judge’. We’re all appalled by attacks on children. But there is some reason why the DPP did not recommend that the judge impose a custodial sentence. We can’t know this reason unless we check the facts. I’ll need to read the judgment rather than relying on press reports.
Rod, I greatly appreciated the anthropological overview.
Kelly at 219, I cannot fault your logic or your application of proper sentencing principles.
But the issue here is not logic or legal principles.
The portrayal, as promulgated in the media, and to this distilled extent a factual portrayal, is that a child of 10 years was raped by a number of males in an aboriginal environment.
This at a time when sexual abuse, alcohol dependency and aboriginality have been interwoven into a toxic, malignant bundle for political purposes by our unlamented former administration, without regard for the welfare or amelioration of anyone’s plight, least of all 10 year old girls, alcoholics or the aboriginal communities.
The story is therefore topical, salacious (to those sick enough to consider it so), appealing to RedNecks, comforting to rascists, deprecating of lawyers and the legal system, and supportive of the stereotypical image of non-WASPs so ingrained in many Australians.
In short, it has all the ingredients of a newspaper selling yarn.
So why are you surprised Kelly? You obviously don’t live in Western Australia where the daily newspaper serve up an endless flow of such bilgewater as it’s version of unquestioned reality.
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 » Show All