Radical High Court Divides Australia by Race, IPA – The Institute of Public Affairs
“The decision of the High Court today to exclude a specific group from the scope of the constitutional aliens power is the most radical instance of judicial activism in Australian history,” said Morgan Begg, research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Today the High Court handed down its decision in Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thomas v Commonwealth of Australia  HCA 3. A majority of the justices decided that non-citizens who were descended from Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders did not fall within the scope of the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with regards to “aliens”.
“The High Court has created a new class of citizenship based according to identity which offends the basic moral principle of racial equality,” said Mr Begg.
“This decision has led to the absurd position that a person can be a non-citizen but not subject to Australia’s migration laws.” Read on…
America’s constitutional arrangements came under a severe attack with the concocted charges that led to President Trump’s impeachment. Professor Emeritus Garrett Ward Sheldon of the University of Virginia shows how well America’s system of government with roots in Western Civilization going back to Aristotle dealt with it.Professor Sheldon explains how deeply James Madison’s Christian/Biblical understanding of man and his weaknesses influenced the writing of the American Constitution.
Even all the powers of a concentrated, entrenched establishment, corrupted political institutions, and monopolized media and education systems could not defeat the Madisonian constitutional system.
As irritating as the last three years of political turmoil have been (especially the bizarre and idiotic impeachment fiasco), Americans can rejoice that the Madisonian constitutional system of “checks and balances” has proven its wisdom once again.
This system of divided and overlapping powers in branches and levels of government (unitary executive, bicameral legislature, and a judicial branch; along with national-state federalism) is the wonder and envy of the world: other countries right now cannot believe how the United States managed this crucial political battle without a bloody revolution or merciless dictatorship, but relatively peaceably and rationally.
This American system of “separation of powers” provides that if one branch of government, representing some major interest or “faction” tries to force its will over all the rest of society, there will be push-back, as “ambition checks ambition” and balance is restored.
Bruce Pascoe’s history of the Aboriginals before European settlement is the way the story should be. His DARK EMU is the story that best fits the times and the prevailing ‘moral’ mood. Cardinal Pell is in jail convicted of child sexual abuse because that’s the way the story should be. That’s the story that suits the mood and the feelings of his accusers. The established and observable detail makes no difference in both cases. Those established and observable details just give one particular scenario of what is alleged true and just. It is a narrative that has no privilege.
One may ask where this madness comes from. Well, the immediate source is the academic precinct where the purveyors of Marxism and postmodernism tell their students what to say and think. More remote is the dialectic of Hegel whose metaphysics has a line back to the Greek Heraclitus. The idea is that reality is in constant flux, constant change. In Marx’s materialist dialectic reality is conflictual.
Hegel, and Marx following him, proposed that the world is not only in flux but constantly evolving. The social ‘truths’ of Marx’s superstructure are generated by the production relations and economic base. If the base is bad, so are the ‘truths’. Capitalism, a market economy for most of us, is a very bad base. In time, we will evolve (perhaps with some violent help) away from that badness.
Of course, few people who swallow the Marxist and postmodernist scenarios will be ready to defend their social creed with chapter and verse of their Scripture. No, most have only a vague idea of the theoretical tangle. But they have a concrete-solid mentality and they feel the vibe. That’s the important thing.
That’s why Louise Milligan does not reply to criticism of her poisonous book about Cardinal Pell. Nor does she answer the heavy criticism of the court case and the appeal by legal academics and professionals around the world. We’re all just a pack of unfeeling monsters who sympathise with clerical paedophiles rather than the victims – heartless people who don’t feel the prescribed vibe.
The same holds for Bruce Pascoe who refuses to explain why he calls himself indigenous when the records shows no Aboriginal origin. Indeed, the records show, as does his pink complexion, that his ancestors come from the British Isles.
All this explains why Australia finds itself in 2019 dumbed-down and degraded. We are in an age of unreason.
Big George Brandis, the Attorney-General in the Turnbull government, sobbed when denouncing Pauline Hanson’s Burka stunt in the Senate. The stunt was wearing a full identity-crushing Islamic cover to make a point the majority of Australians would agree with. In a similar spirit, Sydney University’s Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence could not suppress a sob when speaking about the concocted report about rape and sexual harassment on Australia’s campuses. Bettina Arndt, for one, demolished that delusional report. Yesterday we were treated to sobs from WA’s Health Minister Roger Cook over the success of the government’s suicide bill.
My message to those estrogen-soaked male politicians: Get a grip and stop drinking soy milk. It’s embarrassing.
Chris S Friel working from the other side of the world has done outstanding work on the Cardinal Pell Affair. He has produced a series of sharp compelling analyses of all the important features of Cardinal’s conviction for the sexual abuse of a minor. Friel’s work will be in the frontline of any research serious investigators undertake in scrutinising of one of the most shocking sets of circumstances in Australia’s history.
On the eve of The High Court of Australia’s decision about allowing an appeal, Friel has posted an extremely useful summary of the work he has done. One can access it on the Academia website. I have reproduced it on my primary website.
This article appeared in a September issue of Spectator Australia. The author has kindly allowed me to post it here.
On Monday morning (16 September), voting began to elect the new ‘First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria‘. This ‘voice for Aboriginal communities’ seeks to represent all ‘self-identifying’ Victorian aboriginals in a process which will establish a ‘treaty or treaties’ with the Victorian State Government.
The election will decide 21 of 32 ‘gender-balanced’ seats on the new Assembly, with the remaining 11 set aside for a kind of aboriginal House of Lords, appointed (or ‘self-determined’) by a network of ‘Traditional Owner Groups’ or ‘Aboriginal Corporations‘.
The Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) has produced a video about a First Persons Assembly (as in Victoria) and a separate representative body for Australians of Aboriginal Ancestry written into the constitution. The IPA must be commended for injecting some sanity into the political discourse about people of Aboriginal Ancestry and their needs.
A reading by Gerard Charles Wilson at the Savage Club celebrating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta on 15th June 1215.
In the eighth
chapter of his Abridgment of English
History, Edmund Burke provides us with an account of King John’s reign. He
records that it was near the end of John’s reign that the barons forced him to
place the royal seal on provisions and undertakings that form the document call
Magna Carta, Latin for Great Charter. The Abridgment
of English History is a little known and almost entirely disregarded work
of Burke’s. He began it in 1757 as a commission from publisher Robert Dodsley.
It was one of the projects taken up when he abandoned the law to devote himself
to a literary career. He never completed the planned series of books. Indeed, chapter
eight is the final full chapter. The eight chapters plus a fragment of chapter
nine, ‘An Essay Towards An History Of The Laws Of England’, appeared after his
The reader should take the ‘abridgment’ seriously. Burke is not engaged in writing a mere short history of England. Through the sometimes sparse historical details, the reader finds a concentration on the effect of the different settled arrangements (like custom and tradition) on the development of the law governing the English people. The contrast, though nowhere near as explicit in his later writings, is between law as developed out of the concrete circumstances of a people being a people and law as the product of abstract speculation. The fragment of chapter nine confirms this analysis.