The fault in our democracies

Safe to say coffee won't be going
near my laptop again!

Hello everyone, sorry for the long break in posting. It was supposed to be a short break – but following some computer problems, it quickly turned into a longer one. – Long story short I managed to spill coffee on my laptop…and didn’t that just ruin my love of coffee? 

There have been a lot of interesting things going on in my absence including but not limited to, the rise of Donald Trump, the Medicare scandal and most famously the Brexit decision. There are a lot of legal issues associated with them, but the most common thread between all of them is misinformation causing a false overall decision.

It is the general rule that you cannot intentionally misinform the public without some consequence for your mistake. We witness this most commonly through media shows like today tonight or consumer affairs, which publicly shame businesses for misinforming the public producing a false or unfair result. A couple of years ago a juice company Ribena was rebuked after its ‘black current health drink’, promoted to children and their families, was shown to be incredibly unhealthy. The drink deliberately misled parents to believe that it was safe to consume regularly when in actuality it could have harmful effects on health if regularly consumed without a healthy diet and regular exercise.

I am sure there are much more examples of penalties for companies that misinform the public. 

The law may seem boring, but it is important
for maintaining an equitable society

However, despite penalties existing for businesses, a cone of immunity surrounds the political arena and its delegates. It is fair to say that the most watched democracies; namely the USA and the UK have been the largest culprits of these political scandals. Obviously, there must be some level of inducement made by political parties to promote their message. However, surely it must stop short of behavior that would be unacceptable anywhere else, like lying or harassment. I would like to pick this topic up later as I feel there are many more sides to this argument.

This situation does bring up the question of freedom of speech. When electing politicians, you would think that you would want to give them the freedom to speak openly. However, this privilege is

clearly being abused, especially in America where the constraints on freedom of speech are so minimal that you could just about defame anyone as long as you have the money to defend yourself. Which is probably why Donald Trump has not been sued for making inappropriate and defamatory public statements such as;

‘Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.'

‘Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out.'

‘It does not matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful, piece of ass.'

‘If I were running ‘The View’ I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”

‘The only card [Hilary Cinton] has is the woman’s card. She’s got nothing else to offer and, frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.’

In all of these quotes, Trump either directly defames a famous person or an entire industry. If you do some research, you will find that Trump has managed to escape liability for all of these statements almost entirely.

A lot of what Trump says makes me think of
'Let them eat cake' - Marie Antoinette

I say almost because the one point at which Trump has suffered and I am sure you will all agree is his personal brand. A personal brand is a term usually referring to a person’s professional reputation and transferring it into a market value. Every person has a personal brand, and you may use it when applying for a job, writing an article or networking at a professional event. Merely mentioning ‘Trump’ can end an entire conversation. His reputation is so socially damaged that some would suggest that it was irreparable.

Terrifyingly, America has continued to support this political figure, despite multiple outrageous and inappropriate statements. Some propose that he is only popular because it is a way of people protesting against the weak leadership shown by other candidates indicating the public’s disillusionment with the overall political system. The landside backing of Barack Obama supports this theory– who, although had a high level of integrity, showed strong leadership and distinction in his policies. This can sway public opinion significantly.

It concerns me that this bears a striking similarity to the Brexit result. I will not give my opinion on the final result because I would prefer to perform an analysis of the actual events leading up to it.  The Brexit was fraught with both misinformation and public confusion. The high level of disillusion in Britain with the decisions of the European Union in the past and the lack of democratic influence that they had over Brussels led to uncertainty about the actual consequences of the decision.

Some individuals were able to inform themselves about the role of the European Union and investigated in depth the effects that the British leaving the European Union would have. Yet the majority of people relied upon the media and its coverage of politicians to determine who they would vote for. Similar as to what occurred in Australia during the Medicare Scandal of 2016, one issue led the decision because of media sensationalism.

Immigration.

Immigration is a contentious problem that has advantages and disadvantages on both sides. It would be unreasonable to suggest that migration does not come with difficulties. Every culture from Africa to Britain has its quirks and melding one culture with another will undoubtedly cause conflict. Therefore, finding cultures that are similar are imperative for positive migration with minimal conflict.

Some may suggest that the geographical location of European countries infers a cultural similarity. However, such a suggestion is outdated and ridiculous. Russians and Britains are not similar despite sharing a continent. Same as Norway and Germany are not similar despite sharing a border. Australians and Britains have a culture that is relatively similar despite a geographical distance. The same is true for Canadians and Australians.

History and culture are part of who we are
and should not be ignored when seeking a
new homeland

The history shared by the countries has created a similar culture that allows for the blending of the three of them to be as simple as possible. Therefore, thought needs to be given to the culture and habits of the country to which migrants are traveling. It is terrifying enough to move countries, and I am sure that anyone who has visited other countries knows the relief of coming to a country which bears similarity to its own. It is not racist or insensitive to suggest that the common characteristics of cultures should be matched to another country for refugee migration but a practical consideration for better immigration.

However, it does leave open the issue of diversity. Diversity encourages the development of thought and broader value appreciation. In fact, Australia has benefited from the integration of cultures like the Italian, Greek and Vietnamese. This migration did not come without issues and occurred in numbers that were carefully monitored by the Australian government.

It does not take much research to discover the racist rebuke of Australia towards the influx of migrants. It was not long ago that Australia sported a ‘white Australia’ policy, which operated to prevent the flow of undesired migrants into the country.

While the application of the policy was culturally insensitive and disappointing in reality, the theory is sound. The original idea behind it was that Australia would apply a selective process to determine the characteristics of entrants into the country that would suit the ideology of Australian culture. This process preserves the idiosyncrasies that make up a diverse culture while ensuring that there was a thread of commonality that maintained the national image of Australia.

It was the same concern that drove the disillusionment of the British people. In a belief that their national image was under threat with the influx of unknown and potentially radically different migrants a reactive protest resulted in Britain leaving the European Union.

The concern, however, is that the people of Britain did not understand the true nature or impact of their vote. A false understanding was promoted to the public at mass by political parties such as the Independence Party – with political member Boris Johnson.

The ex-Mayor of London was so confident in his false promotions that he drove around on a bright red bus proclaiming that leaving the European Union would give the NHS 350 Million pounds extra a week. Unsurprisingly, this was later denied to be true by Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage is a British Political, who is the leader of the Independence Party.

One would assume that the head of the independence party would have prevented the overzealous Boris Johnson from spreading misinformation. However, it appears that in this battle, it was more about getting votes for their party than actually informing the public.

This cruel tactic may sound familiar to Australians who recently found themselves at the mercy of the Labor party. Bill Shorten, the leader of the Labor Party, pitched a claim to the public that the Liberal Party had plans to privatize Medicare.

Researching is a serious business ;)

As a country that has prided itself on the provision of healthcare to all in need, it is understandable why the public reacted so violently to the claim. Similar to the Brexit this was not the only issue at hand, as the economic future of Australia was also important. Through media tactics, the Medicare scare quickly took hold in the minds of most Australians preventing other relevant discussions from taking place.

What is evident in all three situations is that there is fast becoming a culture of sensationalism in politics. Democracies will always run the risk of erring too closely to an ‘American Idol’ type contest, where popularity determines the winner and not political sense. It is evident that currently, the media is taking a front seat in driving politics away from an objective debate to a reality television style throw down.

It would be inappropriate to ban the media from participating in election campaigns. Freedom of speech is perpetuated by the press and should never be lost. It was a right that democracies around the globe fought for by the people. They did not fight for the right to spread misinformation and I am shocked to see this occurring around the globe.

I would love to hear your ideas about how we can prevent media sensationalism in the future so please if you enjoyed or disagree with me - please let me know! You can get in contact with me through email, twitter, instagram or tumblr.

Congratulations Australia!

This past month has been full of changes, including the leadership spill – which I’m sure every Australian followed on twitter! Along with the appointment of a new Prime Minister Australia appears to have received an attitude change. Two surprising appointments of a female minister and an indigenous minister has arisen from the appointment of Prime Minister Turnbull. Additionally Tony McAvoy must be congratulated as he is appointed to the Queen’s Counsel.

It is with great pride as a young Australian lawyer that I can write about Wiri man Tony McAvoy. He was appointed as a silk on Thursday as the first indigenous member of the Queen’s Counsel. This appointment is a position of great honour and responsibility. His role in inspiring young lawyers (especially indigenous lawyers) will be insurmountable.

The term ‘silk’ is legal jargon that refers to a silk gown worn by the members of the Queen’s Counsel. It is a great honor to be elected to the Queen’s Counsel because these individuals are selected purely on their level of merit rather than their years of experience. Although briefly Australia removed the use of the phrase ‘Queen’s Counsel’ and instead QC’s were called ‘Senior Counsel’ it was restored in March 2014 to Queen’s Counsel.

During an interview with Lawyers Weekly  Mr McAvoy explained that he had an innocent start to the profession as it arose from a holiday job in the Aboriginal Legal Service. He went from strength to strength in the legal field and were recommended by Doyles Guide of Leading Native Title Barristers Australia, 2015.

Still Mr McAvoy remains grounded as he speaks of his win for the Quandamooka People of North Stradbroke Island. This claim was a sixteen-year long legal fight for the indigenous people to have their ongoing connection with the land and traditions acknowledged. The claim extended over 43 square kilometres, which is a significant acknowledgement of the traditional custodianship of their land.

Additionally Malcolm Turnbull announced Ken Wyatt as a front bencher in Australia’s federal parliament. Frontbencher is the term used to describe where ministers and shadow ministers sit in government. It is a significant role that involves being allocated a major area of responsibility.

Mr Wyatt’s responsibility will be as an assistant healthminister. Mr Wyatt is a man with Nyoongar, Yamatji and Wongi heritage who can draw on experience to support the health needs of indigenous Australians. Health is a very prominent portfolio, and Mr Wyatt’s previous experience makes him an apt choice for the pressured portfolio of health.

Mr McAvoy and Mr Wyatt are taking groundbreaking steps for Australians, as no other indigenous Australian has yet reached the recognition that they have achieved this week. Hopefully, there will be more indigenous Australians to follow and many more young indigenous Australians inspired.

Female leadership has also been uplifted in the appointment of a woman defence minister, Marise Payne. Marise Payne is a Senator for New South Wales. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Mrs Payne had been called the best choice for the job, and Australia Defence Association Executive Director Neil James commented that she was an excellent option.

Despite concerns that the defence minister position had too many changes, Turnbull insisted on hiring Mrs Payne. He believes that she is the best choice for the party. SBS reporters commented that Turnbull, while making history, was not interested in tokenistic appointments but remained focused on building a team of hard working ministers.

The historic appointment of these three people to positions of responsibility is hopefully a sign that Australia’s conservatism is becoming a practice of the past. Just as leading Australian Human Rights Barrister Geoffrey Robertson promotes in his essay collection Dreaming Too Loud, Australia’s time for acknowledging indigenous rights is well overdue. To bring new leadership into our government is a move that should be celebrated. While it is only one indigenous minister and one female minister appointed to these prominent roles it is still a step in the direction of true racial and gender equality.

Good luck to all of you students reading my blog who are beginning your exams. I will soon be posting a blog post about designing ‘vision study board.’ These boards are fun DIYs that help you keep up the productivity through the long weeks of exam preparation. These DIYs can be altered to match any field of work including lawyers with a creative flair, looking to organise the coming weeks.

Lots of love,

The Underage Lawyer

Has the Royal Commission been compromised? One man's personal decision creates political chaos.

Dyson Heydon has captured the fancy of Australians.

There are allegations against Justice Heydon claiming that his impartiality is compromised because he agreed to give a speech at a liberal dinner party. Despite these accusations, Heydon is refusing to stand down from his position on the Royal Commission. He is determined to remain on the commission as its head.

Heydon claims that he was not aware of the extent of the political connection that the Sir Barfield Barwick address had. It should be noted, that he has subsequently withdrawn his acceptance as he has not yet given the speech.

The belief that the Sir Barwick event was not connected to the liberal party is not unreasonable. Barwick was a QC and Chief Justice of Australia for 17 years making him the longest standing chief justice in history. Therefore, Justice Heydon as an esteemed retired judge of the High Court was a reasonable choice to appear at the address.

However, Barwick was a member of the House of Representatives and a part of the Liberal party. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a judge of Heydon’s caliber should have realized the possible compromise to his impartiality. Especially when he is involved in a delicate political matter as an acting head of a royal commission. It seems only reasonable that he should exercise great caution when interacting with any part of the political arena.

On the other hand how accountable can a speech make an individual? The act of speaking on a topic at a memorial dinner to commemorate the longest running chief justice in history has now constituted extreme bias that can compromise an entire Royal Commission. The calls for Heydon to withdraw the claim that this single event alone has completely jeopardized the impartiality of the entire commission. My concern is that speech at a respectful event, acknowledging the successes of a great legal mind, is not a pro-liberal placard. Somehow, the head of this Royal Commission who has made a life out of separating his personal life from his working life is being made out to have lost all credibility. The credibility is lost in the eyes of the media and political affiliates because in his own time he merely made an agreement to give a speech at a commemorative dinner.

This begs the question, are we interfering too much in peoples’ private lives?

In today's’ 24/7 society have we lost the ability to remove work related responsibilities and personas from a personal life?

We may argue that giving a speech as a retired justice of the high court has a sufficient connection with his work to constitute it as not his personal life but duties connected to work. However, I would reply that a speech, at whatever venue, does not indirectly or directly express support of those behind the veil of the event. If the primary intention of the event is to provide support, such as at a rally, then the speech itself would also exhibit that primary purpose. An even such as the one agreed to by Justice Heydon was an event that proposed to have the main purpose of recognizing the great legal career of Sir Barwick. It has been treated by the media as a liberal love-fest and not a mere commemorative dinner party.

It is hard to reach an objective conclusion given the nature of the media sensationalism surrounding this issue. I would hazard the suggestion, however, that the intentions of Heydon were as he claims, given that there were mixed intentions of the event that were not immediately apparent. Additionally the finding of evidence by the Royal Commission are not the sole discoveries of Heydon but a collective effort. Hence, the Commission cannot be sabotaged by his presence at dinner.

Justice Heydon, agreeing last year to give a speech on August 29^th has no significant influence on the findings or any implications of the evidence. Assuming that our legal system is not corrupt. A single person offering an oration, while he may hold great authority in the provision and presentation of the conclusions of a Royal Commission can still not suppress findings grounded in sound evidence.

As I have mentioned, I am hesitant to give any final form of an opinion. The media has been infamous for neglecting information in vital cases for years. I will instead return to my earlier comments on the value and separation of personal and work life. I am of the opinion that there are parts of an individual’s personal life that should affect the manner in which a person is regarded during their work life.

However, these actions are easily restricted to crimes of a significant nature such as sexual offenses, fraud or grievous bodily harm. A speech given to a group of officials commemorating the honorary Barwick as a retired member of the judiciary appears to be of a more domestic and personal nature than criminal. While the decision to give the speech is controversial, it is still the choice of Heydon to do so. I was unable to find whether he was paid for his time but assuming not there would be no personal benefit to Heydon.

Hence, it appears that while the judge may not have exercised the caution appropriate for the head of a Royal Commission, his right to give a speech at a commemorative event should not be removed. The speech while held at an event connected to the Liberal Party was not the primary intention of the event. Moreover, the royal commissioner has not sacrificed the integrity of the evidence found by the commission. This means that little argument can be made against the findings of the commission despite his actions.