The legal loophole that leaves our society condemned to repeat its mistakes forever

Article 1 of the Genocide Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide makes all signatories liable for not taking actions to prevent genocide. Parties confirm that “genocide whether committed in peacetime or war is a crime under the international law which they undertake to prevent and punish.”

Despite the clear confirmation and intention contained withing the convention there is no direct mention about whether suppressing information about genocide is illegal. Although in Article VIII it is mentioned that a contracting party can call upon the UN for prevention and suppression of acts of genocide it is highly ineffective.

The ineffective nature of this clause is made clear through today's present circumstances because in the tumultuous political arena in which we all live what single nation is willing to lose their current stake hold for a potentially worse diplomatic position than before?

Obviously none. Hence all countries will maintain silence in order to retain their diplomatic relations with each other.

While some may believe that the mere omission of a genocide such as that witnessed in Turkey during and after the Armenian Genocide (reference point Geoffrey Robertson, An Inconvenient Genocide) is not a criminal endeavor, it is criminal to the extent that it is similar top proclaiming that the genocide never occurred. Should the genocide never have occurred according to global history then individuals would still feel at liberty to segregate and persecute portions of the community in order to create a Utopian society.

Education on such events are vital for the development of the general populace's understanding of human treatment around the world and how this treatment does not differ in peace time or war time. While some inhumane treatment may appear to be unlawful through commonsense in many instances inhumane treatment has been disguised under war or political actions.

For example, recently Donald Trump an American presidential candidate declared that all Muslims were to barred from entering the country. In previous eras patriotism and national security would preside over any discrimination regardless of how it may segregate or be unfairly based. The change in behavior towards the statement by Donald Trump can be linked to increased publications and education on genocides such as Rwanda and the Holocaust. Both situations have made clear the need to minimize the discriminative power politicians have over countries.

Therefore why do we allow the failure to education about genocide to be an undetected crime against humanity?

As a major loophole in the already loose foundations of international law the act of omitting or denying genocide rears its ugly head. In some countries such as Turkey the denial of genocide (in this circumstance the Armenian Genocide) is so severe that even historians can't quantify an approximate number of victims.

In fact the perversion of history has extended so far that it has poisoned the Turkish legal system. Under Article 301 the Turkish Penal Code any citizen found to insult Turkey by acknowledging the Armenian Genocide can be imprisoned or otherwise punished. This blatant condemnation of human sympathisers only further proves the long lasting and damaging influence of denying the existence of genocide. Case law from around Turkey, and other similarly governed countries, suggests that the penal code application is more subjective than legally objective leaving a lot of room to question Turkey's ability to fend off attacks on its human rights. Clearly genocide denial has long running influence that can lead to a devastated nation and global community all fighting to retain the right to an education that prevents the loss of respect for human life regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it -George  

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.

The public are holding the judiciary accountable for not pandering to public opinion

Dr Ian Freckleton QC grilled a DPP solicitor today. The aggressive interview was challenging a claim that the police had agreed with his decision not to oppose bail for Mr Monis. Mr Monis was the Gunman, who was involved heavily in the Sydney, Lindt Café siege. His granted bail has fired up a hostile inquest from the Police about whether or not there was a case against Mr Monis that could put him in prison. Currently the main issue featured in the inquest is that Mr Monis has been allowed bail by the inquest. This has caught the eye of the media and in turn incensed the opinion of the public.

The nature of the court system is one that experiences severe delays. The relevance to this case may appear trivial but it is clear that if there is any doubt surrounding the case the court should allow time for the prosecution and defence to gather and build their argument. Under Dietrich every person is allowed legal representation. Additionally that representation must be of reasonable standard. Hence, if Mr Monis is charged by the court when he can later prove that his legal representation was not sufficient it could delay the course of justice for years rather than months. So while the public may be out raged by the supposed release of a criminal, the judiciary are not negligent in their actions. The common person must understand the golden handcuffs of law. While the law is our only objective means of justifying punishment it can also be manipulated to delay retribution for wrongs done to society and its members.

Additionally the court must enforce the principle of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle applies heavily to the rule of law. For those who are not familiar with the term, the rule of law is a legal doctrine. The doctrine notes that any person regardless of their previous history, their criminal offence or their social status must be treated in the same manner by the law as any reasonable person would be treated.

It sounds a lot like common sense, but an emotionally charged case like the Sydney Lindt café is evidentially when this principle can be discarded easily. Many of you, as I often do, are wondering if gunmen like Mr Monis should be treated in the same manner as we’d treat the reasonable person.

After all, he did begin a terrorist attack on Australian territory, with clear malice of forethought. He took his gun to our citizens without care for their future, past or wellbeing. He did not think of their families or those who would be forever traumatised by his actions.  

However, it is when we consider his actions and the public reaction that we realise we must uphold the rule of law. No democratic country can be proud of itself unless it has a strong reckoning of democratic and fair processes. These processes must remain even at the public’s outcry. For it is not the role of the judiciary to appeal to the public. It is the role of the magistracy to ascertain whether there is sufficient purpose for prosecution and reason for detainment.

It becomes evident therefore that if the court at its impartial discretion has made the decision that there is reason to provide Mr Monis with bail then he must be allowed bail. Unlawful detainment regardless of the public opinion directly opposes the rule of law and overrides the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus protects against illegal confinement. This doctrine is a vital piece in the balancing act between the power of the state and the freedom of the people. This circumstance could easily be flipped on its head, in which public condemnation occurs without reasonable doubt and creates a modern witch hunt.

Often in our society we are quick to judge however limited the facts. I was privy to a conversation recently on Oscar Pistorius. It is a popular opinion in Australia that this man murdered his girlfriend with malice of forethought and is unremorseful for his actions.

I was surprised to find that those I was speaking with took limited note of the sociocultural surroundings and his personal position in society. While I am of course aware of the issues surrounding his story, I can also see plausible reasoning for the accidental death of his girlfriend.

Those who know about South Africa know of the constant risk of home invasion. It is a common story in South Africa even in gated communities. Just last week Australia received news of a massacre inside a very safe gated community. The fact of the matter is that Mr Pistorius is a wealthy white man living with his girlfriend in South Africa. It is possible when he heard the noise that he did assume it was a home invasion. Given his disability he may have been more alert and wary of his capabilities hence his actions may be a reflection of his fear. Moreover, with an automatic gun five bullets, for me, creates reasonable doubt as to whether it was premeditated.

Australia these days – indeed America and Europe as well – seem keen to judge and less so to consider. So we must ask the question should our judges, who are currently impartial juries of fact, adopt the emotionally charged thinking-process of the general populace or should they continue with their pure application of the law when determining guilt and innocence?

It is clear that while the judiciary is intended to be impartial they have great power over the type of individuals that are released into the community. Should it not be that those in the judiciary make such decisions with the mindset of the common person in the community?

In answer I shall refer you back to what I said before, the rule of law is the basis of our democratic society. The moment that we become overrun by emotion our ability to examine situations objectively and provide democratic and reasonable punishment lessens. Hence, while I will never recommend that we restrict our conversations I encourage us all to remain cautious about condemning those in the judiciary.

Indeed, the legislative whom we have elected as an element of direct democracy in Australia, must be held accountable for any decision they make that is not in public favour. Because the legislative and the executive are irrevocably intertwined we rely intensely on the judiciary for our democratic values to be upheld when public opinion cannot be trusted to be fair.

Therefore, while socially it remains acceptable to question the decisions of the legislature we cannot condemn the application of law by the judiciary unless there is a fault of legal application.