Jonathan Swift, privy to a murder? Could the author of Gulliver’s Travels, the champion of the Irish people and the man widely considered the greatest ever prose writer in the English language, have been party to the purposeful killing of another human being, his own printer? This is what I am asserting in an aspect of my research which has grown from my 2015 thesis, which was concerned with Swift’s dealings with the Dublin print industry in the 1720’s. It seems a preposterous notion. Evidence that has never been seen in almost three hundred years? Of a murder that implicates a writer who has been universally revered from before his death in 1745 through to and including today? This evidence, in my view, has been on the face of the record all this time.Continue reading in Tinteán: a magazine for Irish Australia.
With an introduction by Professor Dianne Hall. Zoom presentation accessible here.
Video presentation accessible here.
Farewell, we bid thee, piece of turf three metres by one,
As thou travelleth up the Hume, the truck that transports thee, we cannot outrun.
For as long as the sun has risen in the east, thou hast glistened with morning dew,
Now, as thou truckest, may thou receive the care that is thy due.
May thou be tended with waters and fertilisers, to ease thy weary load,
And heaven help the driver should he fail to avoid any bump in the road.
Oh turf, oh turf, our Melbourne soil, thou art so good, so great!
The more for having tolerated imposter feet from interstate.
And though the quest thou now pursueth be imbued with virtue and grace,
Forsooth, to remind the northern people of their rightful place,
Knowest as thou leavest, your departure is a killer,
With holes in Melbourne hearts that cannot be fixed with poly filler,
And though your holy house be made only of bricks and mortar,
We worship thee, and it, forever as we oughta.
The appointment process to the UK Supreme Court has set an important precedent this year, not once, not twice or even three times, but on four occasions. There had been calls for greater diversity on the bench including from that Court’s own recently retired President, Lady Hale, who said that the people of Britain need to be able to recognise themselves in their judges rather than seeing them as “beings from another planet”. But the four vacancies that have arisen in 2020 have been filled by four more beings from that other planet, Lords Hamblen, Leggatt, Burrows and Stephens, all born in the UK and educated at traditional British institutions. Continue reading “The dangers of a woke High Court – Australia must follow Britain’s lead”
In ‘The Revolution will not be televised’, written in 1970 and recorded the following year, Gil Scott-Heron envisions the African-American uprising. ‘You will not be able to stay home, brother, you will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out, you will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip out for beer during commercials, because the revolution will not be televised.’ Now celebrated as a forerunner of rap and hip-hop, the song’s call-to-arms refrain is delivered with power, rhythm and classic African-American cool, ‘the revolution will not be televised.’ Fifty years on the revolution is being televised and black people can watch at home because for the most part it is being conducted on their behalf by white people. Continue reading “The revolution is being televised”
How good is this break from football? I say that as someone who has followed the game since the age of three and who still thinks it is one of the best spectator sports in the world. But of all the incidental benefits that have stemmed from the coronavirus, is there any more valuable than this hiatus from football? Not for mine. I hope common sense prevails at the AFL and it lasts the whole year, although I know there is as much chance of that as there is of the Adelaide Crows being given an earnt home grand final at Adelaide Oval.
The lockdown has reminded us of a time when football was in its proper place. Anyone on the wrong side of fifty can remember it well. Life was more about neighbourhood. If you needed bread or milk or wanted to buy the paper you walked or rode to the deli. People worked five-and-a-half days a week to earn an honest keep, most often in a trade or profession that they stayed in for life, and football was a Saturday afternoon entertainment. The game was an important part of the week and was looked forward to, but the players too held Monday-to-Friday jobs, the kind that kept the wheels of the community turning. Continue reading “The clear sky of these football-free days”
We are approaching a period in which four of the seven judges on the High Court will have to retire. Two reach the mandatory retirement age within the next twelve months, another in October 2022, then the Chief Justice herself in January 2024. Not since the latter half of the 1990’s has there been a period of such turnover. At that time it had been anticipated that John Doyle, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, would be appointed. Doyle was widely considered to be one of the best legal minds the country has ever produced and was seen as a future Chief Justice, not simply a puisne, of the Court, but the five vacancies in those years went to three from New South Wales, one from Victoria and one from Queensland.
The High Court has always lacked diversity from a federalism point of view. Of the 53 judges from its inception in 1903 through to today, six have come from Western Australia, eight from Queensland, and of the remainder the scoreboard currently reads Victoria 13, New South Wales 26.
But how will the progressives’ version of diversity affect the Court over the next four years? Will the appointment process withstand the creep of identity politics? According to the Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia the appointment process has been dogged by this issue for years already. “Two enduring controversies concern the proper place of ‘merit’ in deciding on candidates for appointment, and the need for the appointment process to produce a more diverse Court that reflects or represents the society from which it is drawn.” The Court has indeed ticked two boxes on the diversity checklist in recent times. Five women have been appointed, including the present Chief Justice Susan Keifel, and Michael Kirby, who served from 1996 to 2009, had a male spouse. But nonetheless, when primary schools around the country take their Grade Six class on a trip to Canberra with the obligatory visit to the High Court, the teacher still no doubt issues a trigger warning before ushering them in to see that the seven faces on the bench are all white anglo.
The Australian legal profession is hypocritical on this front. On the one hand it adheres to ancient British traditions of common law and procedure and revels in the pomp of wigs, gowns and Latin maxims, whilst on the other it has publicly aligned itself with the progressive movement and its crusade for the dismantling of western civilisation. This hypocrisy was seen in 2017 when the Law Council of Australia supported the yes campaign in the marriage plebiscite, as well as in July 2019 when two retired Chief Justices, Gleeson and French, supported the creation of an indigenous chamber in the federal Parliament. It is seen also in this affirmative action with regard to the personnel of the judiciary. Former Justice, Michael McHugh, has said that “when a court is socially and culturally homogenous, it is less likely to command public confidence in the impartiality of the institution.” It could equally be said that, if it is perceived that the appointment process is making concessions to identity politics, the Court will lose public confidence. But, led by people including former Chief Justice Gibbs, the argument persists that the make-up of the Court needs to be, not representative of Australian society at large, but reflective of it. The appointment process needs to ensure, the argument goes, that in balancing the merits of competing candidates, priority is to be given to this requirement of reflecting the broader population.
Of the four upcoming appointments, one would need to reflect Australia’s indigenous people. Maybe Noel Pearson’s reward is nigh. He did study at the University of Sydney, after all, although competition might come from people such as Tony McAvoy SC, or Bruce Pascoe, provided some legal qualifications can be found in his record. Then, if land ownership is a criterion, we should have a judge of Chinese origin, which would be welcomed by the Asian Australian Lawyers Association whose objectives include “to promote and facilitate Asian cultural diversity in the senior ranks of the legal profession”. Similarly, the Australian Muslim Legal Network, which advocates “a Muslim perspective on law reform and civil liberties issues.” To reflect the trans community a stand-out would be Catherine McGregor, who speaks with more assurance on constitutional matters than most law professors even though she is still currently completing her Juris Doctor at ANU. Then, if the judiciary is to reflect new Australian citizens, we should have a kiwi judge, or a Sudanese judge, or a Lebanese judge, or all of the above, for if we are genuine in proceeding along a path of creating a judiciary that is reflective of society we cannot stop until every identity group in the country considers itself mirrored in at least one judge. Given that there are seven judges on the High Court we would need to decide which seven identity groups are the most deserving of reflection. Alternatively, successive appointments could be tied to a rota of identity groups. Or we could expand the number of judges in order to accommodate them all. One identity group that would need to be excluded is the elderly. This is due to a constitutional amendment in 1977 declaring that judges must retire at 70, the very age when people in a profession such as law are coming into their full powers. But we would otherwise have a potpourri of identities for our children to behold on their school trips to Canberra, with all of these judges administering the law within the time-honoured British traditions that we inherited, although, if this diversity argument is taken to its logical conclusion, those traditions, too, will have to be reconsidered.
Let the High Court games begin. Whichever identity group they belong to, may the best legal minds get the four jobs, but if they are not there already, history suggests they would do well to relocate quickly to New South Wales or, next best bet, Victoria.
Now that the “shocking” new evidence in the Sky News documentary MH370: The Untold Story has been revealed, I write to report a disappearance. Of the various theories and leads that have been advanced since the tragedy on 8 March 2014, there is one that has gone missing, never sighted by any investigating team including, now, Sky News. I refer to an early lead offered by an Australian scientific exploration company which was presented in good faith but which, irrespective of its merits, fell prey to cancel culture.
To read further go to The Spectator Australia.
In his new book, The Brothers York: An English Tragedy, Thomas Penn patches over an important detail relating to Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483. Penn describes Edward as having been the legitimate son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and his wife Lady Cecily Neville. However, Edward’s legitimacy was a point of contention even in his own time and evidence discovered in 2003 goes a long way to proving, firstly, that Edward could not have been fathered by Richard, and secondly, that if the monarchical line had followed its true genealogical path through Edward’s younger brother, George, it leads eventually to rural Australia. Continue reading “My kingdom for a horse in Australia”