* There is no place on the planet where useful idiots will not go to push their pathetic agenda
From Andrew Bolt:
A bizarre alliance is to be formed at an ”interfaith conference” in Melbourne, featuring the usual far-Left urgers and radical clerics.
There you will find Michael Kirby, the High Court judge, giving the keynote address, while a message will be be read out from former Iranian president and cleric Mohammad Khatami, a late no-show, no doubt chosen in solidarity against a looming attack on his country’s illegal nuclear weapons plants.
Or put it this way. The keynote address will be given by a prominent gay activist. The other address will be given by the former president of a country which does this to gays like Kirby:
(always on the wrong side of the tracks: Just as it once did with the dangers of Stalinism and Hitlerism, the New York Times is doing its best to whitewash the threat of Islam)
Happy interfaithing, guys, as you chat over how to reconcile those two positions. But, silly me: you’ll focus instead on that which unites you, right? Like – let me guess – the wicked US?
*Â The selection of Kirby to become a Judge in our High Court was a political decision.
A typical socialist action to purposefully damage Australian culture.
In other News:
“We own all the petrol.”Â “We.”Â Not “the Muslims.”Â Not “the Arabs.”Â Not “Saudi Arabia” nor any other entity. But – “WE!”
Andrew BoltÂ â€“ Saturday, January 31, 09 (03:32 pm)
A new book analysing the career of the Left’s favorite judge, High Court Justice Michael Kirby, gives plenty of reason to suspect this is a man who let his political biases overwhelm his duty to administer the law:
By 2007, some 48 per cent of his decisions rendered Kirby in the minority on the court, a rate that increased after 2007. Some might see this as a marker of Kirby’s libertarian stance on certain issues. Others might argue it was the result of occasionally, though not always, being too keen to achieve a particular outcome; perhaps his desire for the goal overwhelmed the brilliance and rigour of research and analysis.
Which seems to me a polite way of saying he made stuff up to suit his agenda. No wonder the Left loved him, little caring that democracy demands that unelected judges administer the people’s laws, not impose their own. And no wonder that this attention seeker left many fellow judges cold:Â
His former High Court colleague Mary Gaudron recently… suggested Kirby was not the first person fellow judges would tap to write the lead opinion when it came to the weighty task of publishing reasons for judgement. Gaudron was intimating something about the man himself, perhaps making an observation about his brittle relationship with some High Court colleagues in latter years.
Yet as some contributors note in Appealing to the Future, for all Kirby’s rigorous research into cases he tackled, occasionally his train of reasoning jumped the tracks. Ian Freckelton writes that Kirby occasionally fell back on “diffuse and nebulous sources such as common sense, common experience or intuition”. He says: “It tends to happen when he feels either constrained by a pre-existing rule, precedent and legislation, or is particularly troubled by an identified injustice.”
Again, another polite way to say that he tried to make up his own laws when the voters’ laws didn’t suit him.