Interesting that he immediately selected Catholics, and not another religion where gay murder is almost standard.
You dont see too many gay people hanging in Catholic countries. But then criticising a Catholic is OK
"High Court Justice Michael Kirby declares, without the benefit of any evidence:
Yes, but the Americans, with all respects, have become obsessed with September 11.
That is not an event that occurred in this country, and I think we have to keep our eye on the threats to Australia.
He then declared that more people died every day from the disease AIDS than died in September 11.
Five things to explain whay Kirby should be not of the High Court, but for the high jump:
First, it’s surely the threats to Australians, rather than just to Australia, that we must must watch closely? After all, Australians also died in that September 11 attack, and around 100 more have died in the bombings in Bali. Is Kirby seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t bother “to keep our eye on the threats” overseas? What a dangerously outmoded view.
Second, isn’t the success of America in resisting terrorist attacks a matter for us as well? Don’t we also have a mutual responsibility as allies to ensure threats against each others’ citizens are dealt with? Or is Kirby suggesting that al Qaida members shouldn’t worry us too much if they attack only Americans? Kirby’s seeming notion of Australia being insulated from the wider war with Islamist terrorists is bizarre.
Third, yes, more people die of AIDS than died in September 11. So is Kirby saying we should not fight terrorism as well as AIDS? Let’s extend Kirby’s absolutist argument: More people in Australia die of heart attacks than AIDS, so we should .... what, stop obsessing with AIDS? But I’m sure Kirby would at least be grateful that if President George Bush has “obsessed” about one health issue it is indeed AIDS in Africa, as Bob Geldoff and Bono have generously acknowledged.
Fourth, Kirby asserts as fact - and as a judge sitting on a case - that America is “obsessed” with September 11, by which I gather he means unduly and unseemly so. On what evidence has he decided that? Or is this just his gut feeling, a mere impression, some idle notion he gained from some casual reading and conversation, or from having to take his shoes off at some airport? Exactly what are his qualifications to judge US national security threats and the reaction to them?
Fifth, Kirby made this assertion during the appeal by “Jihad” Jack Thomas against his control order, imposed by a court which had heard Thomas had trained with and received money from al Qaida. Clearly Kirby’s dismissive view that al Qaida’s September 11 attacks were “not an event that occured in this country”, that Americans were “obsessed” by those attacks, and that we’d do better to keep an eye on threats right here, would inform his judgment on this matter. Which indicates to me that Kirby will be deciding on an important case with a judgment critically affected by a silly, short-sighted assumption that is not backed up by any evidence presented to his court.
It’s time this judge was persuaded to retire. He already holds the record as the High Court judge whose peers disagree most often his minority views. I suspect most Australians would, too. His ideological frolic has run its taxpayer-funded course. The issues he deals with are too serious for this kind of idle whimsy.
UPDATE
Reader John Mc confirms that no High Court judges is more likely to write judgments that are contradicted by his peers.
Interestingly, in his time on the High Court Kirby J has had a dissent rate of 48%. This is the highest dissent rate recorded in respect of High Court Judges.
That’s an astonishing rate that suggests his judgments are informed more than others’ by quixotic personal views.
