Tim: I've just subscribed after reading your posts for about a year. You write with intelligence, with compassion and given my time back in Australia (after years abroad - and in Japan) - and having lived through Rudd Gillard Rudd - then Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison - on into the current ALP government - I think I have developed a pretty fair idea of what is going on in the politics of Australia - and I am not at all happy. Your analysis of Justice Michael Lee's judgement on the Lehrmann case accords with how I wish our system of justice worked. Not hidden, with heart - and with a clear understanding of human nature and how it works. I have over many years been an admirer of the Code Napoléon system of justice - the desire to arrive at the truth (shown in the recent award-winning film The Fall - which I saw last year in Salt Lake City) not the ugly adversarial system we have inherited via our British establishment. I see it being demonstrated in a recent series on ABC TV - Murder in Provence (set in and around Aix-en-Provence). No demeaning of witnesses - no Answer - Yes or No - when we all understand shades of grey. These are asides. At last a judge who seems to understand human nature! Thank-you Tim.
Your note # 11 is spot on I reckon. My initial reaction was that Reynolds would withdraw her case after Justice Lee's judgement, but those subtle points he raises and you note actually energise Reynolds' claims. Or perhaps there is a legal staffer who can show otherwise. I do sincerely hope so.
On point Kerryn Goldsworthy, a total agree - never in my life have I heard a man articulate so incredibly well - more than once - the fluid & dynamic state of a woman who has been assaulted - or even just felt assault was imminent. And actually giving those states validity. To me, this was the most astonishing - and encouraging thing I heard from Justice Lee.
An excellent piece Tim. Your commentary on media literacy and participatory democracy are highlights. I can’t imagine too many citizens assemblies being allowed by LNP or Labor because it prevents them from controlling the outcome which is what they are both obsessed with.
Channel 7 has shown itself to be the defenders and promoters of individuals who lose high profile defamation lawsuits, with the implications for the losers being serious labels that warrant thorough investigations (labels which I will not repeat in case of the weaponised defamation law in Australia). What a disgraceful ‘News’ organisation. The fact the PM went to open it’s offices last year shows a willingness to ally with odious media barons for favourable coverage. Instead of breaking up the monopoly, the PM celebrates the concentration of our media market that seeks daily to undermine the legitimacy of any party to the left of Genghis Khan.
Tim: I've just subscribed after reading your posts for about a year. You write with intelligence, with compassion and given my time back in Australia (after years abroad - and in Japan) - and having lived through Rudd Gillard Rudd - then Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison - on into the current ALP government - I think I have developed a pretty fair idea of what is going on in the politics of Australia - and I am not at all happy. Your analysis of Justice Michael Lee's judgement on the Lehrmann case accords with how I wish our system of justice worked. Not hidden, with heart - and with a clear understanding of human nature and how it works. I have over many years been an admirer of the Code Napoléon system of justice - the desire to arrive at the truth (shown in the recent award-winning film The Fall - which I saw last year in Salt Lake City) not the ugly adversarial system we have inherited via our British establishment. I see it being demonstrated in a recent series on ABC TV - Murder in Provence (set in and around Aix-en-Provence). No demeaning of witnesses - no Answer - Yes or No - when we all understand shades of grey. These are asides. At last a judge who seems to understand human nature! Thank-you Tim.
Your note # 11 is spot on I reckon. My initial reaction was that Reynolds would withdraw her case after Justice Lee's judgement, but those subtle points he raises and you note actually energise Reynolds' claims. Or perhaps there is a legal staffer who can show otherwise. I do sincerely hope so.
On point Kerryn Goldsworthy, a total agree - never in my life have I heard a man articulate so incredibly well - more than once - the fluid & dynamic state of a woman who has been assaulted - or even just felt assault was imminent. And actually giving those states validity. To me, this was the most astonishing - and encouraging thing I heard from Justice Lee.
An excellent piece Tim. Your commentary on media literacy and participatory democracy are highlights. I can’t imagine too many citizens assemblies being allowed by LNP or Labor because it prevents them from controlling the outcome which is what they are both obsessed with.
Channel 7 has shown itself to be the defenders and promoters of individuals who lose high profile defamation lawsuits, with the implications for the losers being serious labels that warrant thorough investigations (labels which I will not repeat in case of the weaponised defamation law in Australia). What a disgraceful ‘News’ organisation. The fact the PM went to open it’s offices last year shows a willingness to ally with odious media barons for favourable coverage. Instead of breaking up the monopoly, the PM celebrates the concentration of our media market that seeks daily to undermine the legitimacy of any party to the left of Genghis Khan.
This response by Margaret Simons is interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-trial-verdict-brittany-higgins-rape-allegation-spotlight-channel-ten-ntwnfb