Shutdown

I suppose it is the same the world over. Politicians look after themselves and the hoi polloi can figuratively go jump.

The USA has entered 'a shutdown'. Non essential Federal employees will be without pay until Congress reaches agreement on a funding bill currently the subject of dispute. News reports indicate that the military (or sections of it) are amongst tens of thousands who face a parlous financial situation. But not the Politicians. Members of Congress continue to be paid.

How not to succeed with the law

My friend A gave a textbook demonstration this week of how not to behave when stopped by a policeman.

She was pulled over for driving an unregistered car by a policeman with his sirens blaring and horns honking (according to A).

Her first response was to be excused as she had a hairdresser's appointment. Always a likely winning argument you wouldn't think.

Her second response was 'to say things (to him) that she probably shouldn't have' not knowing that she was being recorded.

Her third response was to plead ignorance. An argument that even I know from Movies 101 doesn't succeed.

Growing up gay

WARNING: If you prefer not to read about illegal activities, please skip this post

Last night the ABC screened 'Our Gay Wedding: The Musical'. Two gay men planned and carried out their wedding as a musical. The wedding occurred on the first day that same sex couples could legally marry in Britain. Pretty well everyone involved in the wedding from the Registrar and the grooms, through to the relatives and friends attending participated musically in the ceremony (and some did so less musically). Parts of the ceremony were cheesy but there were plenty of moving, wonderful moments such as when both grooms' mothers sang a duet expressing honestly their feelings about discovering and coming to terms with their son's sexuality.

I was taken with information displayed on a big screen during the ceremony which informed both the progress made in removing discrimination against homosexuals but also the many areas where discrimination, indeed persecution, against homosexuals still prevails. It brought back memories of my own passage through a gay adolescence to adulthood.

My experience would be familiar to many gay Australians now aged in their sixties and older.

It is as recently as 1984 that homosexuality was decriminalised in my state of New South Wales. I was thirty-five years of age at the time. Prior to then it was illegal for me to engage my sexuality. Considering that I began sexual activity at the early age of twelve that constitutes twenty-three years of illegal activity simply responding to the sex drive that nature gave me.

At any stage in those twenty-three years I could have been arrested, prosecuted and gaoled. Indeed I was arrested once. I say arrested but I'm not sure of the technical status. Perhaps detained by police for questioning might be the correct legal status but either way to me it seemed like an arrest.

I was only twelve when I was arrested. I hadn't engaged in sex, nor touched, nor even spoken to the other person when I was detained. The other person was a plainclothes policeman. It was an act of entrapment. After lingering at a public urinal he gestured for me to follow him outside where we were approached by another man who also was a plainclothes policeman. They identified themselves as police and ordered me into their car. They drove me to a police station for questioning.

No adult relative relative, indeed no independent adult at all, was present during the questioning. They instructed me to complete a statement 'helpfully' suggesting forms of words at points when I felt incapable of expressing myself. The completed statement was a factually correct account but using language that was not my habit to employ and that my parents had never heard me express before nor indeed afterwards.

You can imagine the shock my parents felt when I was brought home unannounced by two policeman who handed them a copy of 'my' statement, alien language and all, to read. I presume the matter was referred to a Magistrate or some such legal arbitrator. As I hadn't actually been observed by the policemen to engage in sexual activity I assume my offence was soliciting or perhaps it was loitering with intent. I was required to attend a Psychiatric assessment to determine the level of my mental health.

I concede that I was in the habit of engaging in what then was illegal sexual activity. However consider the actions of the police that day. Entrapment, detaining and interviewing a minor without any independent adult and/or legal representative present, and 'assistance' given in completing 'my' statement. I think the last used to be referred to as 'verballing'.

Six years later when I applied for my first full time job, with a Government authority no less, I was in fear that the obligatory police checks would reveal that I had a criminal record. To my relief that was not the case.

There are homosexuals around the world nowadays facing far worse treatment than I experienced. It was good to be reminded of that fact whilst rejoicing for the newly married couple in their more enlightened time and place.

In Australia, we have progressed but marriage equality is still not on the agenda.

Capital punishment

Two young Australians face execution in Indonesia within the next few days. They are convicted drug traffickers. The Australian Parliament and prominent Australians have pleaded for the death sentences to be commuted. Indonesia's President has not heeded any of these pleas and appears immovable on the matter.

By all accounts the two Australians have turned their lives around in the many years they have spent in prison awaiting their sentence to be carried out. Their reform has been one of the arguments pleaded in their favour. Some in Australia, especially amongst those who have lost loved ones to drug usage, support the intended executions.

I can understand that view but I am not in favour of capital punishment. I wish that the Indonesian President would agree to commute the sentences. There seems no hope of that.

I am glad that our Governments - of both persuasions - have pleaded on behalf of these and other Australians who face execution. Perhaps if our Governments would use diplomatic channels constantly to argue against all executions - and not just those where Australians are involved - we might see countries which practice capital punishment changing their policies over time. Otherwise why should any country show clemency to Australians when they execute their own nationals with impunity?

Meanwhile in the main game......

(Sydney Morning Herald)

His performance as Premier of New South Wales is a matter of personal opinion but whether you feel he is one of the best or one of the worst Premiers of New South Wales no-one I know has ever suggested he has acted corruptly or is a shady character.

I feel for Barry O'Farrell. Giving misleading or false evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption is a criminal offence and so he has resigned after failing to remember - assuming that he isn't lying that it was a memory failure - that he received the gift of a $3,000 bottle of wine. Why he didn't at least register the gift at the time remains a mystery.

The Opposition Leader, John Robertson, is still in his position even though he has previously admitted failing to report the offer a $3,000,000 bribe. But that wasn't a matter investigated by the ICAC.

Meanwhile the main players in the current and previous investigation by the ICAC into alleged corruption involving millions of dollars continue to go about their daily business smiling sickeningly in the public's face and wearing their allegedly corrupt behaviour almost as a badge of honour.

Justice, like politics, sometimes seems very dirty to me.

12 Years A Slave

This year's Academy Award winning Best Picture, '12 Years A Slave', is based on the experiences of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) a free man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery.

The film opens with Northup already in servitude. A short flashback sequence then provides images of his family life as a free man and in general terms how he was kidnapped. From that point the film focusses intently on life as a slave.

I had held off seeing this film, released in Australia some time ago, because I felt the material would be harrowing to view and that's how it transpired. Director, Steve McQueen, has crafted a stunning film that relentlessly reveals the shocking abuse inflicted on those in servitude. The images, shocking enough in themselves, are made all the more powerful, book ended as they are by static images that are almost portrait and landscape works of art in appearance. It is as though McQueen is daring the audience to watch whilst the camera lingers for uncomfortably long periods on the sickening behaviour.

Ejiofor retains an almost saintly dignity throughout in a performance commendably devoid of excess theatrics but I found the pick of the performers to be Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o and Paul Dano. The only discordant aspect in casting is that of Brad Pitt in a short but key cameo near the end which smacks of celebrity tokenism.

Whilst the events depicted in the film date back to the 19th Century I could not help but reflect on current day injustices - some sadly not too far from home - where humanity remains badly lacking.

This film is not an entertainment but it is an important reality check on past and present instances of discrimination, abuse and intolerance. The lessons of history which we never seem to learn.
★★★★

Fiddle-dee-dum, fiddle-dee-dee

This is Barry O'Farrell, the Premier of New South Wales. I generally don't like to ridicule people by posting odd looking pictures of them but, really, politicians just ask for it sometimes.

Mr O'Farrell led his party into Government a couple years back after decades in the wilderness of the Opposition benches. He did so with a thumping big majority. He deserves credit for that achievement which his numerous predecessors failed to achieve even if the constituency was so desperate to remove the other party from power that we may well have elected Kermit the Frog had been the only choice.

Anyway, Mr Farrell has that huge majority and he had the goodwill of the constituency to effect change and improvements but he has proved a huge disappointment. He would rather send a matter to a committee for endless consideration than make an actual decision. He seems afraid to make any decision that might not be popular. He has made the mistake of trying to be all things to all people.

At the moment he has a problem with one of his Ministers who had to be helped out of the Parliament the other evening when it appeared he was too drunk to participate. Now, this is not the first time a Member of Parliament has been found to be drunk in the house. Most have survived to continue their prosperous public careers.

This situation may prove different. The Minister has since been accused of making many interstate trips, at taxpayer expense, apparently to attend major sporting events. This may have been understandable if the minister's responsibilities were for sport or a related field but they are not. It seems the Minister has been rorting public funds. Significantly, said Minister is the Minister for Finance!

So what has this to do with Mr O'Farrell? Well, he is the Premier of the State. He is the leader of the Government of which the recalcitrant Minister is a member. Asked today, what Ministerial responsibilities apply in this situation Mr O'Farrell stated that he didn't know - an astonishing admission for the State's leader - and that a reason why did not know is that he, himself, has never been a Minister - a rather silly excuse in the circumstances.

Politicians are only human but, gee, they can be very stupid - even at the highest levels.

Line of discrimination

Somewhere in all this lot is a line of succession

Prime Minister Gillard is conducting a 'presser' at the moment. Don't you love modern jargon? For as long as I can remember there have been 'press conferences'. Now, in just a few months, 'press conferences' have become 'pressers'. Is it Twitter that has done this to us? With its 140 characters limit per message I suspect so. Journalists now compress all manner of messages.

Anyway, getting back to Ms Gillard's 'presser'. She is pleased to announce the Council of Australian Governments has acted to remove the discrimination that a first born male has precedence over an older born female in the line of succession to the British throne (and as a consequence also to the 'Australian throne'). Well, bully for that.

Not that I disagree with ending this gender discrimination. What a shame though that our Prime minister isn't equally as eager to remove discrimination based on sexual orientation. Marriage equality anybody?

Husbands

Husbands is a web based mini 'mini-series'. The first series of eleven episodes (to date) lasts less than thirty five minutes in total. I think it is funny and clever and like all good comedy it contains within it's over the top surface a core of serious references.

The link takes you to all eleven episodes.

The law, privacy, media and federation

Australia is a Federation of six states and several territories. The Commonwealth of Australia, by that I mean all of us, are subject to federal law and then there is the separate law laid down by each of the states and territories which impacts on the residents of those states and territories as well as on the rest of us when we happen to be passing through.

Actually this is dangerous territory (no pun intended) for me as I have no legal training whatsoever so perhaps I should cease this legal comment here and leave the topic for experts like Marcellous.

So why have I raised it? Well I have just spent the weekend in the state of Queensland and whilst there I have viewed news bulletins on the aftermath of a terrible fire in a nursing home in my home state of New South Wales (NSW). A number of residents in that home have lost their life following the fire. A man has been charged in connection with that fire and the news reports in Queensland not only name that man but show uncensored photos and moving images of him and even interviews he conducted with the media before the Police commenced their investigation.

This evening I returned home (NSW) and the news reports here have the accused man's features pixelated. I know, or perhaps I should say I understand, the reason for this is to help ensure any legal proceedings are not contaminated especially should any parties to a trial (witnesses and jury members?) form opinions or in the case of witnesses present recollections that knowingly or subliminally are affected by these public reports.

I'm a NSW resident and so could always be summoned to appear in a jury sometime. I'm not volunteering mind you. So what protects the fairness of the proceedings if I were to called to jury duty in that matter? Perhaps potential jurors are questioned as to their foreknowledge or opinions about the matter in question? Perhaps I would be excused (or is that recused?) because I happened to view television reports in another state. I don't know. But, to restate, I'm not volunteering anyway.

What about cases that arise in the border areas between states? Residents there often have access to the same television networks from both of the adjoining states and would see the same reports uncensored from one side of the border and censored from the other side.

Of course, potentially undermining it all is the internet. Anyone with even moderate computing skills can research issues from many sources whether they be local or (for want of a better term) foreign. Come to think of it I remember now that cases have recently been aborted or jurors excused/recused(?) after it became known they researched the internet for information about an issue in which they had been sitting in judgement.

It's all a bit difficult isn't it?

OMG, he's a....

The New Yorker 18 April 2001

The Lincoln Lawyer

I first saw Matthew McConaughey as the novice lawyer in the film version of John Grisham's 'A Time To Kill' when he was the healthy looking honest good guy battling the system and the bad guys. Now, fifteen years later, a comparatively emaciated looking McConaughey is back in the justice game as 'The Lincoln Lawyer'.

Not knowing anything about this story I assumed that the title could be a reference to McConaughey being as honest as the President of the same name or else that he was a lawyer from some regional backwater like Lincoln Nebraska (with apologies to any Nebraskans who might trip into this blog).

Both theories evaporated in the opening scenes which clearly establish that this is a big city lawyer who sails very close to the wind. He pursues his work from the back seat of his chauffeur driven Lincoln car. McConaughey is engaged to defend rich, young and arrogant Ryan Phillippe who is accused of assaulting a prostitute. Phillippe vigorously asserts his innocence and the ever sceptical McConaughey has his doubts. When he stumbles across links with an earlier case the story takes off with more twists and turns than the old stretch of the Pacific Highway at Buladelah.

I really enjoyed this tale of investigation and courtroom drama although those of tender hearts should be warned that the story dips into some steamy and violent aspects of life. The twists are numerous and the film passes through at least one false ending. Some in the audience raced for the exits at that point and I too thought the film was at its end. I wonder if those who departed at that point will ever learn that the film had about fifteen minutes and at least two more twists to go?

The last twist was probably one too many; a somewhat melodramatic and faintly ridiculous event but otherwise this is a better than average tale of justice 21st century style.

Witness for the Defence

I have unexpectedly found myself to be a potential witness for the Defence.

Two individuals are suing the state of New South Wales for wrongful arrest and other grounds dating back to 1999. My name has come to the notice of the Defence Barrister upon discovery of notes I wrote in 1999 and 2000 for my then employer following meetings with these individuals to hear their plans for an enterprise which subsequently was thought to involve fraudulent activity.

The first I was aware of this legal action was around 9.30am on Tuesday and less than four hours later I was in the Barrister's Chambers being questioned for an hour about my recollection of events twelve years previous. Unlike what I see in the movies in such situations where witnesses seem to have the most astonishing memory of events long gone, the most common answer I had for the Barrister was 'I don't recall'. During this questioning I started to wish I had Marcellous by my side for guidance.

I doubt, should I be required to appear in court, that I will provide as stunning a witness as Marlene Dietrich but then again she was a witness for the Prosecution and her evidence was concoted by Agatha Christie.

Just an ordinary man...

Former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, has beaten a traffic charge. Two policemen charged that Mr Keating drove through a red light whilst Mr Keating argued that the light was not red.

Magistrate Carolyn Barkell found reasonable doubt and dismissed the allegation. From media reporting it appears the reasonable doubt was that two policemen said he did it and Mr Keating said that he did not.

Mr Keating said afterwards, ''I think it's important that ordinary people in the community, having received an infringement notice for an offence they didn't commit, basically understand that the system isn't weighed against them and they are entitled to have the courage of their convictions. And I hope some social good will flow from today's outcome.''

Maybe I am cynical but would the ordinary person receive the same benefit of doubt for their word against that of two policemen or was Magistrate Barkell just a teensy weensy bit influenced that the ordinary man in this case was a former Prime Minister?

Storm damage

Enough said.

White Ribbon Day

Today is White Ribbon Day, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Good parents/Bad parents

A couple (father and mother) have been fined for neglecting their children.

Leaving aside debate whether the punishment in this instance is sufficient for the offence the case shows yet again the innate suitability of heterosexual parent couples that gay parenting could not possibly provide.

When have we read of gay parent couples behaving in this way?

Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes

Today's post by Andrew brought back memories for me of the day I attended a lecture by Jane Elliott renowned for her exercises in exposing the effects of prejudice and bigotry.

As I entered the auditorium for her presentation she appeared in the foyer and took my companion, Rs, aside briefly. Rs, a workmate, was a very tall, fair haired and blue eyed man. When we sat down in the auditorium Rs informed me that Ms Elliott had invited him to come up on stage when asked during the session.

When that moment came Rs was called up along with a much shorter, dark haired woman of African origin. Ms Elliott engaged them in gentle banter then asked them to face each other and to identify differences between themselves. In turn the two identified the obvious differences; height, gender, hair and eye colour but no matter how much Ms Elliott pressed neither mentioned the racial difference.

It was a fascinating demonstration of how political correctness can be taken to extremes. Ms Elliott's entire presentation was brilliant and if you have never done so it is well worth seeing the documentary in which she divides her class into two groups, the blued eyed group who have all the privileges and the brown eyed group who are downtrodden. Then the two groups exchange places. It is a real eye-opener (pardon the pun).

Get the message?

Thanks to Sean amongst others for identifying this.

Two Dollar Millionaire

A man in Sydney is facing fraud charges.

It is alleged that he had a large number of slightly damaged Australian two dollar coins. It is alleged that he was feeding the coins into a vending machine and then pressing the 'refund' button to retrieve undamaged coins. What exactly is the fraud that would have been committed?

Well it seems that damaged Australian coins are sent overseas for disposal and no longer regarded as legal tender. Seemingly this man is alleged to have brought the damaged coins back into Australia and regardless of their status as 'damaged' they apparently were in sufficiently good enough state to be accepted by the vending machine as legal. It is alleged he had 9,000 of the coins.

I find this all quite curious.