January 4, 2013 · 13:55

Just and Unjust alike?

We have all heard the utter unacceptable act against a young woman in India. She did not survive the events!

Now for most people from the most just person to the most unjust dealer of narcotics, we all seem to have two things in common. We all hate sex offenders and we hate offenders against children even more. These two events give way to feelings, that we as a people have hope. No matter how we feel about weapons, about drugs and about adult entertainment. We have a genetic drive to protect children and most of us see a woman as respected, admired and desired (not regarded as to be raped and beaten).

There are two issues with this highway of events as they happened the last few months (involving several rape cases).

First of all, most people all reacted in anger when we were told on the news (in my case BBC News) that a woman was raped on Nov 13th and that nothing was registered by the police until November 27th. The New York Times (Jan 3rd 02:00) mentioned in their article that in a similar case the police had done nothing for over 5 weeks. However when reading the Huffington post, they reported that the police allowed time for the families via elders to broker a deal. The even more unsettling part is that the elders tried to marry her to one of the attackers or the pressure on the family to accept a monetary settlement. Now for me the question becomes, how usual is this? I do not proclaim to have inside knowledge into Indian/Hindu affairs. So when reading this, I wonder whether the news was correctly portrayed, and if it was a correct/legal way to set things straight in India. (and no matter how legal, I still find it utterly disgusting that a woman would be treated in this way)

Now, let me be clear. Rape is NEVER EVER an accepted thing, and change as pushed for at present is a good thing in my mind.

I always believed in equal rights, and taking into consideration that out of 1 billion, 500 million people are unjustly treated is a big wrong, however, in my mind, it also means that criminals should be properly represented, or my idea of justice is just a farce at best. So, when I saw the news made mention of an event, that the Indian order of advocates made a move to not represent these criminals, I stood up in disbelief. Now, I will admit that I am not overly against capital punishment (especially against that group), but no matter what. They do deserve representation. They deserve decent defence, if only to make sure that we as a people do not turn into a quick lynch mob. There are rules of processing, rules of evidence, and as such, any party deserves correct representation, so that the law can be kept high, and it keeps the courtroom as a proper place for processing the criminals and the innocent alike.

Now, secondly, the need for a better system, so that the rights of women are correctly addressed is always a must, and it seems that the Indian way of life should be making a change for the better for everyone, not just men. My current concern is that these acts of violence against women are too common, and as such, India as a Commonwealth nation, should have been addressing these issues a long time ago. Why was it not?

Now to get back to the issue at hand, the honourable Sanjay Kumar from the Saket District bar council was quoted stating “We have decided that no lawyer will stand up to defend the rape accused as it would be immoral to defend the case”. Is this not the whole issue? How can justice be an actual issue, when only one side is represented?

In addition, there is an interesting part that became visible to me today. Out of the 228650 cases of violence in 2012, 89% of these cases were against women. THIS IS SHOCKING!

The fact that this is coming out now, to the extent it does. When we read about rights left, right and centre, this remained so undisclosed? Why is there not a lot MORE visibility of this injustice? I do not remember an overly visible amount of reports on this until last week. So, who were reporters representing? Big business perhaps?

However, I do still belief that both parties should be represented. ABC reported that “A panel to recommend changes to the criminal law dealing with sexual crimes was set up last week.” This is only the first week of January and over 650 cases of rape are already reported. I find it more shocking that it took a heinous act of such size for the Indian government, as well as the international press to take notice of this level of injustice.

It is my belief that the Indian government should face visible public scrutiny and that the current Prime minister Mr. Manmohan Singh, should answer the following issues:

1. Why are women’s rights so trampled on in India, a Commonwealth nation no less!

2. Why is due process not correctly attended to? No matter how immoral, if we belief in commonwealth justice (common law), then both parties should be represented. If only to make sure that correct due process is adhered to, and that the law is properly applied. I understand the disgust of the honourable Mr. Kumar, but they do not set policy, and a refusal to represent a party is a change of jurisprudential policy, and it is interesting that current information implies that the government did not respond to the statement by Mr. Kumar. Why not?

3. We seem to go the great lengths to avoid Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and several other nations as business partners as human rights are trampled on. How is this any different? And if we accept that, why is India not on the list? Because many industrialised nations use them for cheap labour? Their moral values seem highly sanctimonious to me.

My biggest fear is that in the end too many men will walk away, as they will at some point shout the defence that no proper defence was allowed for them, which must be prevented at any cost, as it allows for even more injustice.

As for all these so called upset captains of industry. Perhaps you all should consider another solution. In stead of outsourcing TO India, i say that we start pulling out of India. In this day and age of recessions, that should have a very visible consequence in India, and that might be a clear signal for change. When this level of violence against women (89%) is tolerated by western worlds by doing business with these people we clearly have more problems then we admit to. I will not pretend to have all the answers, or even have some of the answers. However, it is clear that a lot more needs to be done, it should be done correctly and it should happen very very soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , ,

January 2, 2013 · 00:16

PM and the freedom of the press

People might wonder why I keep my eyes on the things happening in Britain. I for one still believe that whatever happens there will impact us, especially in legal terms, development and evolution.

So when I initially read about Murdoch and phone tapping, I was less concerned with his paper here (the Daily telegraph for one), and more with the acts and power base of Fairfax. I have seen how too many people just jump to attention when Fairfax calls. From my point of view they have way too much power, and too many people are really eager to be on the ‘good’ list of Fairfax. This is not an accusation that they are doing anything wrong, more about the willingness of others to be in the good graces of some of these corporations.

From my personal view it would be less about what government thinks and does, and more about how our futures have been too strongly in the hands of companies like Telstra and Fairfax.

So when I read about the British PM commenting on the Leveson report and on ‘his’ fears in regards to freedom of speech, I had to wonder about certain parts connecting to these thoughts. Now most people currently use the Leveson report as a Hype and mention this reports mainly towards the events of Murdoch (which started this all), however, the words of the PM struck a chord in me and not a good one.

I will state here, that (just making sure you do not consider me an authority on this):

  1. I have not completely read it yet (this work is larger than the Hobbit and the Lord of the rings put together).
  2. I am still trying to see the wisdom of certain parts as I did not yet pass Media law as a subject (but I hope to get the option next semester).
  3. It is an UK report and little old me is on the Largest island of the British Empire also known as Australia (I am claiming artistic freedom of comparison in naming it an Island).

 

Lord Justice Leveson clearly mentions again and again, the need for the freedom of the Press (and him being in favor of it), so the fear of PM Cameron seems unwarranted.

There is the question that this view was given in light that in general politicians are slightly too deep in the pockets of the press to further THEIR visibility in regards of their political careers. (I am not implying ANYTHING illegal here, as their visibility does depend on publication of their views, all good and legal).

What I do fear is that most of all this is too often and too visibly NOT about accountability. This report does mentions accountability of government, however there is at present (read as far as I got) too little about accountability of the press. There is some mention of its history by Sir David Calcutt QC (page 205). Volume 2 in part F does mention this failing, although there it is in regards to policies. This in itself is questionable in my view. If a person is not accountable for actions and he works under policies that do not set rules of accountability, or have clear lines of oversight, making sure that ethics are correctly checked, enforced or demanded, what remains?

How can those press organisations be regarded as possible employers? How can a situation evolve as quoted from Vol.2 page 538 where senior management were ‘shielded from anything that was going on there’.

 

If we consider this to be intentional acts of non-accountability, are the issues involving the press not about their freedom, but the essential need for their accountability?

From my point, especially the British press has moved from reporting events to the unadulterated abuse of the wealthy and famous at their expense for the benefit of more money (labelled as entertainment). I’ll be honest. I do enjoy a jab at those on pedestals too high for their own good just like anyone else (with a little moderation), but the press has overdone it for too long, and at the harmful expense of too many.

When we consider this in regards (especially) to glossy magazines, should we not consider criminal prosecution?

Consider this:

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder, and it has been linked to egocentrism.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM IV-TR), defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B). So if this is known, is the over abundant exposure of these people not criminal?

The UN charter defines Principles for the protection of persons with mental illness in their charter since 1991. So is the press hiding behind the freedom of the press in light of a criminal act?

I agree that my view is exaggerated; however, it seems that everyone is supposed to be held to some minimum level of standard. To deviate from this for one group is called discrimination, whether this is positive or negative. So why is the press discriminated for in light of their acts, as they get away with something that is nothing short of character murder.

Not unlike the Lord Justice, I am all for the freedom of press. How else will we know what is going on?

However, I am also in favor of accountability to be introduced to the press. This is not a bad thing. It forces a higher level of quality in published works. That also means that only those versed in journalism, ethics and linguistic skills call themselves Journalists (this excludes the large groups of people with a mobile phone, a Facebook account and only those two to propel happenings into misrepresented accounts of events to be published under the label of some form of ‘Contributor/Announcer’.

(to be continued soon)

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

December 13, 2012 · 00:13

Results to be listened to

Tuesday was an interesting day to say the least. Awaiting my grades I decided to spend the day in court, watching proceedings. I could not get into the second court as it was a closed court, so I went into court 5. There I saw the proceedings of a case that included narcotics, the Netherlands (my native nation) and wiretaps.

The interesting part is the issue on infrastructure on evidence of wiretaps (I will not set you to sleep with conversations of wiretaps themselves, as the issue in play is actually a lot more interesting).

If we consider the track of such evidence, like the capturing of the conversation, the collecting and transcribing of this evidence, and then to make available this evidence to prosecution and defence is the actual topic.

The fact that several warrants are needed for one phone number is one thing. Getting this all managed afterwards is more than ridiculous (and the real ball buster). From what I understood, in one specific case it would take 6 full weeks for one person to prepare these files and reports. This comes down to almost 300 man hours. This is just one case and it is just a small pinch of the entire captured data for that case. The Dutch representative was in a state of extreme avoidance to give direct timings to get this all sorted (for several valid reasons).

For me with decades of IT experience takes a look at this from another side. How could ANY system be set into function with this ESSENTIAL need properly addressed before the software was used? Even further, how could such systems be replaced without the proper alignment of passed cases (we are talking many hundreds of thousands of tapped phone calls).No matter HOW this would have been addressed, this as ANY system will be replaced at some point. This is to be expected as infrastructures change and grow. Consider that the Justice system should need an available solution spanning not mere years, but in access of a decade as a case goes from court to appeal and further. (The Bell group case took 13 years).

I can understand that there are reservations of such systems. However, at times they are valid, and at times they would be essential. One should make sure that these systems are properly addressed by parties needed, before forced to commit thousands of man hours to oblige the need of information to both the Crown and defence. A request that, especially in today’s options of automation should be done in 10% of that needed time, with perhaps some additional valid time to burn needed discs (some expected manual labour required).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , ,

June 19, 2012 · 18:41

The accountability act – 2015

This is not about what is wrong, what raises questions on current legislation (actually, we all do that all the time). No, is about the future. I must admit that when I dream, I dream the big satisfying dreams. So, let there be no confusion. When I was young (roughly 30 years, 6 months and 19 days ago), not unlike other men, I dreamt of Heather Locklear, and now, I dream of becoming a Law lord. Both are equally unattainable, yet either is extremely satisfying to the mind.

So why this flashback?

I always believed that any nation, any true ground breaking thoughts they spawn comes from a dreamer. At times this is a real visionary Like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Lord Baden Powell or Justice Gummow. At times this is a person with a good thought that makes a real difference to many.

So what is my thought?

I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others.

My worry is that too many in and out of government are driven towards this goal. Not to the goal of getting much, or the goal of getting more. But the goal of obtaining beyond reasonable proportion AND at the expense of many others, this is when we should stop and wonder the why! This is not about a business making a profit, or having good business sense. This is about an inflated situation, where a collapsed firm get’s a bailout, and then the ruling body walks off with a golden handshake of golden parachutes so large, that their feet never touch the ground. How could it even be tolerated for a company running under losses to give out these huge ‘extras’ to fat cats?

So this is where the dreamer in me woke up and thought of the following act:

The Accountability act – 2015

Why 2015? Well an act like this does not grow out of a goose feather and ink jar over night. If we think of a law that could make a real change, and would be a real stop to some of the acts of greed, then it will take time and a lot of effort too.

There is also the additional thought that this is not something against rich people. This is not about going after the rich. If someone like Zuckerberg (the guy behind Facebook) comes with a totally new approach, then those billions are his. This is not against those making and building something new. This is also NOT against the bank executive who walks out with a fat check after he made the bank real millions. This is about stopping those walking out with non-existing virtual profits, turned into real money, and leaving others behind to clean the mess.

Perhaps that one person did work really hard; perhaps he did get fantastic results. However, his co workers/bosses had their own choices and they lost the company annual profit. So alas he get’s nothing. I know it is not fair to those individuals, but these companies cannot continue in their current format, and nothing is being done about it. No results are achieved, so I personally feel that a legal side is required to slow down the outrageous growth of greed.

Why now? Well most people in London would have seen the rampant growth of landlords and how for two months they want their places available for games time, driving prices through the roof. We might not be able to stop all of these disproportionate acts. However, if we can stem the tide and make it a lot less rewarding, then there is a real option to protect a large number of victims that fall prey to these bad acts of greed. Because, the 8 weeks of Olympics are nothing compared to the months of damage for those suddenly shafted into nowhere, and at that point, these landlords will wash their hands of any responsibility. This is only an example, but in these last few weeks, one of the clearer examples.

This act might even stop the movement of these badly designed plans, especially in the financial sector. Consider that one executive tries these high risk options, which causes the loss of millions. For one, his co-workers will not react kindly to the loss of THEIR bonuses, and it would force corporations to rethink such high risk schemes, especially when no profit means no bonus and no golden handshake. It might just invite a little bit more of common sense to these greed driven board rooms.

I know I don’t have all the answers, and perhaps these thoughts are not the ones driving us forward. There is however something to be said of the exercise to try and stem the existence of one of the most unstoppable sins we know.

2 Comments

Filed under Law

Tagged as

September 15, 2011 · 04:23

Beginning the journey

Welcome to my new blog.

This blog is all about 10 points, or at least that’s the initial main reason.

To be eligable for the Justice Brennan leadership award, 100 points are required. 10% (10 points for non-mathematicians) of the needed points can be obtained with a blog.

The booklet states: “Maintaining a reflective blog with at least seven different entries, posted across a span of several months to reveal a developing perspective, each entry being at least 350 words in length (10 points)”.

So that is the main resaon this particular blog got started. It is actualy my second blog. During my postgrad in IT, the requirement was that for one subject, a blog was maintained. This is also the reason why I choose WordPress. It was the easiest one.

So here I am, starting my blog.

Not sure when the first ‘real’ blog entry will be, as I have to reflect on things, and this week is all about surviving midterm of my very first semester as a student of Law at the UTS.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law