Surely You Jest, Kim

Kim Kardashian is “mortified” by the public’s reaction to her appearing topless in Kanye West’s video? A shamelessly tacky self promoter who in many people’s opinion contrived to “leak” her own sex tape is “mortified” by the public’s reaction to her getting her tits out?

Are you serious? Being American and not Jewish, she therefore has no sense of irony, so I can only draw the conclusion she IS serious.

It gets better:

“Her sisters Kourtney and Khloe¹ are also said to be stunned at their sibling's decision to bare her chest. They are thought to have questioned how it will affect Kim and Kanye's five-month-old daughter North when she's older.”

Of course, the entire family’s utter lack of class will not pose any problems for the child.

Kim Kardashian didn’t seem too mortified when the world was watching her sucking on a black man’s dick. Yes, she sued, but then took the cash. $5M of it. I wonder what Paris Hilton got for hers. Not a sausage, she claims. At least she put more effort into sucking a cock than Kimmy did.

Then Kimmy gave interviews about the tape. I find it very difficult to believe that in litigious modern America, if she were genuinely aggrieved, a family with that amount of money and legal contacts could not have made life very difficult for Ray J.

It makes me think the mother put her up to it. That woman is seriously fucked in the head. Effectively naming all her daughters after her, she seems to view them as extensions of herself. As far as I can tell, she constantly manipulates her daughters as some form of proxy attention seeking, although she seeks enough attention on her own. Who had the idea to make a show all about their family in the first place?

Wikipedia claims it was Ryan Seacrest, of American Idol fame. But why would he have thought of the Kardashians without some prompting? Keeping Up With The Kardashians was announced in August 2007, first aired in October and the sex tape appeared that February. The series would have taken some planning, even prior to filming and editing. When was the pitch to the studio made? Some time around February 2007, I’d suggest.

Read the synopsis of episode 4 of season 1: Kim’s Playboy shoot. Kris Jenner encourages her to do it and ends up in a shoot herself. Hmm …

Can we let Charles Manson out for a day? Tell him the letter K is evil.

¹ The fat one.

We Need To Clarify Manslaughter, Not Enact Unjust One Punch Death Laws

Reactionary law is usually rushed and rushed law is almost inevitably bad law.

Last year I wrote about the serious flaws in both the construction and practical implementation of Western Australia’s “one punch death” law. Its biggest problem is that by removing the “reasonably foreseeable” test, this law does not distinguish the wide range of culpability which exists in practice. This leads to injustice at both ends of the spectrum of severity as police apply the law in blanket fashion.

People who should be charged with manslaughter will instead be charged with assault occasioning death because of the much greater ease in securing a conviction. People involved in fair fights or possibly even defending themselves will be charged with the same offence. The police’s attitude will be to charge everyone and let the courts sort it out.

Now the NSW government wants to bring in a one punch death law, but with harsher penalties available. The tipping point was the light sentence handed down to Kieran Loveridge for the king hit manslaughter of teenager, Thomas Kelly.

My main point in this post is that we don’t need a new law, particularly one which will deal with circumstances which are already covered by existing law. What is required is proper clarification of the definition of manslaughter, including self defence and provocation, together with the ability to add circumstances of aggravation to the charge. The latter could deal with king hits, stomping, attacking a defenceless person and other acts which could reasonably be foreseen to result in grievous harm and possibly death.

In NSW, S18 of the Crimes Act deals with murder and manslaughter:

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

The problem with this current statute is: what do we mean by “punishable homicide”? This is what needs to be made clear. However, “one punch death” laws will not achieve this. In fact, having another law on the statute which largely overlaps and effectively competes with manslaughter will most likely cause confusion and injustice.

Not all homicides are punishable. Some are purely accidental. Some are in self defence.

Even amongst the set of all punishable homicides, there is a broad range of culpability, not taken into account by “one punch death” laws, as these typically remove the test of death or grievous injury being reasonably foreseeable.

The proposed law will not alter the treatment of situations where a person causes the death of another, but purely through accident or misadventure. These are not considered manslaughter now and would not be covered by a one punch death law, since no unlawful assault has occurred.

However, the proposed law may impinge on the right to self defence. Suppose a person is punched and punches their attacker to prevent being further assaulted. Suppose that the original attacker then falls, hits their head and dies. Most people would agree that this is not a punishable homicide.

But what if the police decide to lay an assault occasioning death charge on the grounds both parties were involved in a fight? It could easily happen. Even if the defendant successfully defends the charge by proving self defence (hence there was no unlawful assault in the first place), how much emotional and financial stress will they have suffered? What if a conviction carried a mandatory jail sentence, as is being proposed by some dim witted, reactionary MPs?

Even without an assault occasioning death law, the police could still lay a charge of manslaughter, however the large body of case law renders a manslaughter prosecution less likely.

It is crucially important that what constitutes self defence is made clear, including the right not to have to first retreat to establish it (which is dangerous). This is as much to prevent the police and DPP harassing innocent people with unfair charges in the first place as it is to prevent wrongful convictions.

Just as important is the clarification of mitigating circumstances, such as provocation. This is rendered even more so by the proposed law’s failure to countenance any mitigation, which is one of its chief injustices.

Suppose a person responded to a continued stream of harassment by snapping and punching their tormentor, who then fell, hit their head and died. Suppose the puncher had been subjected to a lengthy tirade of racial or other bigoted abuse. Now technically, they have committed an assault, which is strictly not self defence because they had not been physically attacked, so there is the distinct possibility the police would lay a charge of unlawful assault occasioning death. Perhaps the defendant could argue the assault was not unlawful because they held a reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger of being attacked and perhaps a jury would accept such a defence. But why should it have to come to this?

Under the current manslaughter law, such a situation could still lead to manslaughter charges if the police held some bias against the puncher. But with a decent lawyer, most juries would find them not guilty. However an unlawful assault occasioning death may be much harder to defend, particularly if the dead person’s friends lied in court. If there existed mandatory sentencing, someone would have been sent to jail for reacting to harassment and abuse in a way many of us would.

The unlawful assault occasioning death law is being proposed largely in reaction to recent “king hit” deaths. Let’s be clear what a king hit actually is: a punch when the victim is not looking and has no chance to defend themselves. It is not when someone shapes up to you and you hit them first and knock them down. That is self defence.

The way to deal with king hits or other gutless acts is to allow the addition of circumstances of aggravation to a manslaughter charge, which can then be taken into account during sentencing. This provides all the seriousness required to deal with such offences and sufficient scope for heavy sentences.

My main point here is that if:

1.      What constitutes self defence is made clear,

2.      Mitigating factors such as provocation are clearly set out,

3.      The “reasonably foreseeable” test is kept and misadventure better defined,

4.      Police and prosecutors are given the ability to add circumstances of aggravation,

Then the scope of NSW’s existing S18 b) manslaughter offence (and similar in other jurisdictions) is sufficient to deal with the complete range of deaths resulting from assaults. No blanket “assault occasioning death” law is required. We can concentrate on justice, as opposed to appeasement of the noisy, fearful and angry.

Transurban: Why Not Try Lowering The Toll On The Cross City Tunnel?

Transurban has paid $475 million for Royal Bank of Scotland’s $600 million of senior debt in the Cross City Tunnel. There is a clause which entitles RBS to a further $27.5M if traffic volumes markedly increase, but I think that’s unlikely to be exercised.

In September, the CCT went into receivership for the second time. RBS selling the entirety of the only secured debt at a 20% discount says there is no residual equity value. Thus, Transurban has decided to buy the Cross City Tunnel for about $475M, since their plan is clearly to convert the debt to if not 100% equity, then at least close to it.

Can they make this pay a worthwhile return?

Current estimates for daily traffic flows in the CCT are 36,000. A report with a May 2006 figure shows 34,000, so there hasn't been much improvement over the past 7 years. 36,000 per day at a toll price of $4.95 gives gross revenue of $65M p.a. Some of the 36,000 journeys will be into the harbour tunnel at $2.33 and some will be large vehicles at $9.89. One might balance the other. Then again, it might not. Let’s assume current gross revenue of $60 - 65M p.a.

What would be the CCT’s operating expenses?

More than you’d think if they called in the receivers over a $64M tax debt with a cash flow positive asset. It can’t have been all that positive. Certainly less than $5M p.a. if they couldn’t borrow to pay a one-off tax bill. The linked AFR article above says that RBC Capital estimates EBITDA in the range $25 - 35M, implying operating costs of about $30M p.a. The interest on the $600M is then probably around $35M p.a., although bills + 300 seems a little cheap for the risk of the debt.

Allowing for other expenses, that’s a return on equity of at most 7% for Transurban (assuming they convert the debt).

OK, so where to from there? How could Transurban get to an ROE of 10+%? Increase traffic flows by 40%?

Not with the rip off toll. Traffic flows haven’t increased in 8 years. Why would they start now? It’s the toll which is the problem. Too many people are willing to drive through the city to avoid paying $5. I do, unless the traffic is clearly heavy. I'll even drive down William & Riley Sts to the Harbour Tunnel to avoid the $2.33 toll most times.

Do the arithmetic: Even if you spend an extra 10 minutes in traffic to drive down William, Park & Druitt Sts and onto the Western Distributor, that’s $5 for 10 min work = $30 per hour after tax. Most people don’t earn that in their jobs, so it makes sense to avoid the toll, since the extra travel time is usually closer to 5 min than 10.

For me, avoiding the toll is as much about principle as a rational economic choice. Every dollar I save is a dollar these shifty pricks won't get. Had they priced the toll at a level I consider fair, I'd use their road.

That’s what you’re up against, Transurban. People hate feeling ripped off and many will spend time and effort avoiding it.

Here’s a thought: Why not do some proper behavioural economic research and cash flow modelling, not the dodgy figures consultants are paid to manufacture to meet management’s expectations?

Drivers want to use the tunnel, but not at any price. How about lowering the toll for a while, to say, $3, the same as the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel? Make the Harbour Tunnel exit $2. Do some serious market research, then if it’s positive, advertise the new tolls properly and see what happens.

Traffic flows would need to increase to 60,000 per day to achieve the same revenue, so it’s a risky experiment if it fails, because putting the toll back up to $5 could leave the CCT with less traffic than it had originally. Or you could be more conservative and set the toll at $3.50 and aim for 50,000 per day. The worst that could happen is a 3 month trial which fails to significantly increase traffic numbers and costs about $5M in lost revenue.

Is that worth the gamble? Or is 7% ROE a good enough return for risk for your shareholders?

Kieran Loveridge's Sentence Is Too Light, But It Was Never Going To Be 20 Years

I feel for Thomas Kelly’s parents, outraged that the turd who killed their son might be out of jail in a mere four years’ time. Had someone killed my son in similar circumstances, I’d expect a much harsher sentence, as would most parents.

But how long a sentence is reasonable for an 18 year old who kills someone with a gutless, blind-side king hit? 10 years? 15? 20?

Notwithstanding the apparently light punishment, there has been a significant amount of misreporting and misinformed commentary around the prosecution and sentencing in this matter.

Firstly, the DPP were almost certainly correct in downgrading the initial murder charge to manslaughter. Read S18 of the NSW Crimes Act carefully, including the definition of grievous bodily harm.

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

Could the prosecution convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that a single punch, albeit a king hit, was thrown at a person of approximately the same size and age with “reckless indifference to human life”, or that it was thrown with the intent of causing permanent or serious disfigurement?

That would depend significantly on the relative competence of the prosecution and defence, which is hardly justice. Despite Kieran Loveridge being a waste of DNA who will almost certainly be a net drain on society his whole life, I don’t think he is actually guilty of murder. My sense is that’s how a lot of jurors would see it.

At least a downgrading of the charges to manslaughter secured a conviction for a serious offence (probably the correct one), particularly given the guilty plea. The DPP reduced the risk to justice to a single factor: the judge. As it happened, Justice Stephen Campbell let the community down. However, that is not the fault of the DPP. Nor is it the fault of the government: a manslaughter conviction has always provided adequate scope for an appropriate sentence.

Thomas Kelly’s mother’s complaint that “her family had no rights or say at all” is precisely why the separation of the judiciary and government is so important.

In minor matters, victims have a de facto say by their willingness to pursue the matter and give evidence. In serious matters, victims and their families should have no say at all in the nature of charges laid and eventually prosecuted. That should depend on the application of the law to the circumstances of the case and the evidence available. What is the alternative? Selective prosecution and sentencing based on the grief, anger and philosophy of victims and their families? Blood money?

Secondly, the sentence was not four years. It was seven, with a standard 75% non parole period. The perpetrator, Kieran Loveridge has been in custody since his arrest in July last year, meaning that he has at least another four years to serve.

The maximum available sentence for manslaughter is 25 years, but this would have been discounted for the guilty plea, then further discounted due to the defendant’s age. Thus, Kieran Loveridge almost certainly would not have received more than 15 years, even from a harsh judge. That’s a standard non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, so with time already served, the media would have been reporting 10 years at most.

I believe most of the community would have expected a sentence of more than 7 years, though. 12 would have meant just under another 8 in jail, with good behaviour. Kieran Loveridge would be 27 upon release.

In prison, how much harder criminal would he have become in those prime years from 23 to 27? Is that detriment to the community worth the message of a harsher sentence, as well as allowing the Kelly family more of the feelings of retribution they want and likely deserve? It probably is. If the police keep tabs on Kieran Loveridge after his release, they will be able to tell quickly enough which way he went in jail.

I don’t accept the disadvantaged background = lighter sentence proposition. Justice Campbell stated he had “borne in mind the offender's relative social disadvantage and the difficulties of his upbringing” when deciding on his sentence. This non sequitur seems to have almost been set in stone after the recent High Court ruling.

An explanation is not an excuse. Does the background of the perpetrator make the crime have less impact? Does it mean they are less likely to reoffend? The thesis is that they are less responsible.

So the defendant’s DNA was methylated at key bases due to deprivation and abuse, making certain behaviour more likely. Well, what are any of us responsible for then? To make the environmental argument in a legal setting is a bleeding heart fallacy. It might explain actions, but excuses nothing. Thomas Kelly is just as dead as if he were hit by a private school educated investment banker.

Justice Campbell also stated that in his judgement, “the offender is very unlikely to reoffend”. Really? Why?

Someone from a privileged upbringing, with more support and more to lose is probably less likely to reoffend. Kieran Loveridge is one of society’s dregs. So are his family. His background makes him more likely to reoffend, cancelling out his “deprivation” excuse. This is where Justice Campbell has let the community down: Loveridge should have received no discount due to background or age.

The NSW Attorney General is correct to ask the DPP to appeal against the sentence. However, this is all the government can presently do. There is no need to bring in special laws, almost certainly badly framed. Manslaughter is sufficient. It is Justice Campbell who was the problem in this matter and his sentence is being appealed.

Without breaching the principle of separation of powers, what the government can do is make the judiciary understand community expectations around sentence ranges and the balance of retribution versus rehabilitation for cowardly acts.

What the government should not do is pay heed to ignoramuses like Ray Hadley, who would enact knee jerk responses to every outcome they don’t like, without a glimmer of understanding of the consequences or even inconsistencies. How does calling rugby league games qualify someone to lecture society on points of law?

The Smears Of Mohammed

What are the Smears of Mohammed? Are the Smears a holy relic?

Is there a piece of muslin robe akin to the Shroud of Turin, but covered in brown streaks after Mohammed followed through while scoffing dates?

How do hate protests follow the Smears of Mohammed? Does someone run along waving the Smears, with the crowd behind them screaming: “Death to infidels! No-one may deride our Holy Smears!”?

What if the Smears were dropped in the stampede? Or got wet? How would a devout Muslim know they were the True Smears?

Perhaps the True Smears are kept safely locked away in Mecca, but in a process akin to the Catholic transubstantiation, the smears of any devout Muslim may temporarily become the embodiment of the True Smears in an atmosphere of sufficient religious fervour, such as a mass stoning or the torching of a church.

Now, all of this is very puerile, but that should not be a crime. It is certainly not a justification for murder, assault, arson or any other crime which large groups of disgruntled Muslims have tried to justify under the banner of outrage at blasphemy.

Satire is a vital element of freedom of speech. It doesn’t have to reach a prescribed standard of wit to qualify. Satire with the ironic quality of mocking the people angered by it, rather than the literal target is far more powerful, even if the literal piece is not particularly funny.

Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons on the topic are hardly side splitters per se. But their satire is valid political commentary. Their humour is greatly increased by the fact they satirise the people who are angered by them, rather than the literal targets.

The Onion loves stirring the religious pot. "Controversial Christian Faction Believes Jesus Was Nailed To Two Parallel Pieces Of Wood" is gold (especially the picture). Their more recent blasphemy: "Archaeologists Discover Site Where Desperate Jesus Christ Turned Tricks" seems not to have evoked a wave of fundamentalist Christian demonstrations, beheadings or bombings. Now imagine the speculative violence which would have ensued had the piece been written about Mohammed.

Here’s another one. It is literally directed at pretty much every mainstream religion but Islam, although actually directed at anyone in favour of blasphemy laws, particularly Islamists. It is obscene and childish, but has a reasonable point: Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are not taking to the streets as a result, threatening death to all infidels and blasphemers, assaulting people, burning cars and buildings. As the article said: “No-one murdered because of this image … upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.”

In an open society, citizens would never tolerate laws preventing cartoons or literature mocking or satirizing politicians or political parties and their supporters. In fact, this is an entrenched part of political discourse in free societies. Even debasement via ridiculous depiction comes within the ambit of our freedom of expression, as this gem from Pickering testifies:

Ridiculing self important or moralizing targets by depicting them engaged in some sexually deviant act is a common device, favoured by schoolboys and professional cartoonists alike.

If politicians are fair game, why are religious leaders and figures exempt?

A cartoon showing Cardinal George Pell being blown by an altar boy while writing a letter calling for the sacking of the rector of St. John’s College may be in poor taste (to some), but it makes a valid point. How about a cartoon of the Pope stoking his fireplace with copies of reports of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, while dictating a sermon on the sin of contraception?

Many people who aren’t even Catholic would consider satirizing the Pope crossing the line. But this taboo is absurd: it’s a culturally inherited relic of feudalism.

Religion is political philosophy with some fabricated metaphysics and revelations from “higher beings” added as justification for claiming the correctness of the philosophy and hence the error of all others. The metaphysical and revelational components are almost necessarily articles of faith because they are almost certainly untrue. In many cases, the claims are at least practically and often literally untestable. Many other claims are either directly falsifiable or patently absurd.

Adherents who believe the metaphysical and revelational aspects of their religion as articles of faith tend to believe the social and moral elements as corollaries. They are “God’s laws”: instructions for how to live. Hence, religion and politics cannot be separated, since religion tells us all the correct way to live and politics is about how we live together.

These are the people who are dangerous to those who reject their beliefs. They are precisely the types of people who make the ideals of secularism, liberalism and freedom of expression so important.

They are the types who co-opt the law to proscribe blasphemy, which may include telling them their beliefs are delusions.

The likely falsity of the metaphysical and revelational claims religions use to justify their moral and political pre and proscriptions does not invalidate the latter, many of which are reasonable in a liberal society. It simply means that any reasonable moral and political positions need alternative justification, by logical argument and (God forbid) evidence. This is in part how people of religious faith can comfortably live in, support and in fact, create a secular society.

However, part of freedom of speech in an open, liberal and hence secular society is the right to satirise inconsistent and hypocritical philosophical perspectives, which includes religions.

Suppose the beginning of this post had satirized the Shroud of Turin. I’m sure plenty of lefties would have smugly agreed with it. But Mohammed? His worshippers are brown. This article should not be published because it is inflammatory. It reveals me as another crypto-racist!

No it doesn’t. There is no Muslim gene. Their DNA is not the issue. Muslims’ mediaeval, superstitious stupidity is just as bad as Catholics, Baptists or any other white, religious people.

If the left truly believe in a secular society, they must support the fundamental principle of freedom of expression and its extension to satire, not selectively apply it to religions favoured by white people.

And Muslims living in Western societies who use blasphemy as a cover for speculative aggression should be deported. Send them back to the societies whose institutions and structures derive from their interpretation of their religion.

Why Was It Necessary To Go To The High Court For Some Common Sense?

Late last year, I wrote about a workplace injury claim in which the full bench of the Federal Court awarded a public servant compensation for an injury incurred while having sex in her motel room during a work trip.

Initially refused by workplace insurer Comcare, this speculative claim had been to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then twice to the Federal Court. Now, finally, the High Court has rejected the claim.

It only took six years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR money, but these factors have little relevance to bureaucrats on the public teat.

How could this matter have been allowed to go all the way to the High Court? Comcare have done nothing wrong: they had to appeal the matter because the Federal Court had set a ridiculous and potentially very expensive precedent.

Why did it take all this time and money to find a set of judges with the common sense to say what almost all citizens expect the law to be?

"In order for an injury sustained in an interval or interlude during an overall period of work to be in the course of an employee's employment, the circumstances in which the employee was injured must be connected to an inducement or encouragement by the employer. If the employee is injured whilst engaged in an activity at a certain place, that connection does not exist merely because of an inducement or encouragement to be at that place.”

Exactly. Only acts necessary to the proper performance of your job are induced by your employer. Having sex is not one of them. Neither is playing cards, Justice Bozo of the Federal Court.

It's all very well to argue that this case tests the distinction between work related and personal activities and that the High Court is the best instution to rule on this. It probably is, however this matter should have been clear cut and the Federal Court should have been able to be trusted to set the correct precedent. Amazingly, even the High Court's ruling was not unanimous.

A significant amount of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this matter. There now needs to be a reckoning on our behalf.

Firstly, the Federal Court ruling is incompetent and clearly at odds with public expectations. These judges deserve to be censured.

How was this woman able to appeal to the Federal Court in the first place? I doubt she was funding it herself.

A no win, no fee legal firm? Perhaps. If this were the case, they and the plaintiff should be jointly and severally liable for costs for such an obviously frivolous and speculative claim, funded as it would have been by a bunch of lawyers on the make.

More likely, the plaintiff obtained legal aid. If this occurred, whoever at Legal Aid wasted scarce funding on this matter should be sacked. This is not why taxpayers agree to fund some citizens’ legal actions.

Lastly, with the matter decided, the ban on publishing the woman’s name should be lifted. Her claim is clearly meretricious. Taxpayers have a right to know who has tried to rip us off. If the publicity discourages similar, future claims, all the better. Proven grifters should not be allowed to maintain a cloak of anonymity.

Is It Racist To Refuse To Shake A Black Person's Hand After Reading This?

Reports of penis stealing via witchcraft are again sweeping Western and Central Africa. The specific method is apparently a special handshake, whereupon the victim’s genitalia magically disappear. What the thief does with his hoard of stolen penises remains a mystery.

Cries of whatever “Fuck! Someone’s swiped me knob!” is in Yoruba quickly generate mass hysteria, followed by the summary execution of anyone deemed suspicious, usually an outsider. No-one in the crowd seems to be capable of stopping and saying: “Seriously? Your knob has been stolen? Show us.”

Of course, when they arrive in Europe, they’ll culturally advance a thousand years overnight and fit right in. Or do only educated Africans get on boats to cross the Mediterranean?

Next time I meet an African man, what will I say to avoid any awkwardness, yet ensure my manhood is safe?

I’ve found: “I won’t shake your hand … mine still has some semen on it” has worked a treat in the past.

No Freedom Of Conscience When It Comes To Abortion

If a patient requests an abortion or advice on having an abortion, should a doctor be punished for refusing to refer that patient to another doctor who will provide the advice, or indeed, the abortion?

Victorian GP, Dr. Mark Hobart is being pursued by the state’s Medical Practitioners’ Board for precisely this reason.

Doctors in Australia who are qualified to perform surgery are generally only required by law to perform an abortion in cases when it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. However, S8 of Victoria’s Abortion Law Reform Act (2008) requires that in other circumstances, a doctor having a conscientious objection to abortion must refer a patient “to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion”.

There’s a hole in that last clause: the practitioner can claim they do not know another qualified doctor who will perform or advise on the requested abortion. This is Mark Hobart’s defence. In this particular case, an Indian couple wanted to abort a 19 week old foetus because it was female. Dr Hobart claims that he does not know of any doctor who would perform an abortion for reasons of sex selection. He may be right: Victoria’s largest abortion provider, the Fertility Control Clinic states:

“It is extremely rare for us to receive requests for gender-selection abortion and we do not acquiesce to such requests.”

It would be simple enough for a woman or couple to get around this by claiming depression and / or extreme anxiety due to not being able to cope with having a baby at this time of their life. It would also be a simple matter for the couple to just go to another GP, or look on the internet. I typed “Victoria abortion clinics” into Google. Here is what came up first.

Yet the Victorian Medical Practitioners’ Board is pursuing Mark Hobart under S8(1) on an “own motion”. That’s right … Board members have brought the complaint themselves. One might well ask how the Board can credibly act as both prosecution and judge.

In a twisted irony, Dr Hobart’s persecution ensued from his own contact with the Board: when he discovered another doctor had subsequently performed the abortion, he filed a complaint on the grounds that it was knowingly performed for the reason of sex selection, without there being a heritable, gender related condition. In response, some Board members decided to anonymously bring the “own motion” against Dr Hobart. They had no problem pandering to third world cultural practices, however.

One might also ask why the doctor’s accusers on the Board have not been forced to identify themselves. This is not how things work in an open society. A person should always have the right to know his or her accusers and the face them openly. How much weight should we place on charges when those bringing them so lack the courage of their convictions that they seek to hide behind a bureaucratic cloak of anonymity?

The lefties at Crikey have sought to make an issue of the fact that Dr Hobart is a Catholic and a member of the DLP. But so what? It is not necessary for him to detail the set of his political and religious beliefs and affiliations in order to make a philosophical argument. Should everyone commenting publicly on same sex marriage be required to state their sexual preferences?

That the writer (and editor) of one particular story did not uncover these facts is sloppy journalism. The Herald Sun made the connection. Regardless of us explicitly knowing Dr Hobart’s political and religious perspective, the motivations behind such stances are generally not difficult to guess. However, they are not the point.

If a doctor refuses to provide or even give advice on how to obtain a medical procedure which he or she deems unnecessary (or destructive) and moreover, does not seek reimbursement for the consultation, why should they face censure? This is not a case of harm to a patient ensuing from refusal of treatment. Nor is it a negligent diagnosis stemming from perverse beliefs: the doctors at the Fertility Control Clinic probably hold a substantially different set of beliefs, yet stated that neither would they perform an abortion under such circumstances.

I think Catholicism contains a plethora of perverse beliefs. However, that is not the issue in this matter. What is at issue is a professional’s right to abstain from actions which are contrary to their philosophical principles, where such abstention does no material harm.

It does not matter whether you or I agree with Mark Hobart’s principles. He is not required to agree with us either. What he is required to do, as a licenced doctor, is competently treat patients. He is not required to perform what many doctors would agree is an unnecessary surgical procedure. Nor should he be required to scout around for a doctor who would be prepared to perform such a procedure. The patient should do that for themselves.

This matter makes a good case study in the difference in approach between genuine Liberals and the left, who are not Liberal in any true sense.

The attitude of both the conservatives and (in this case) the left is: if you do not buy into our world view, you must be punished and excluded. That is how people whose positions derive from ideology rather than evidence and reason tend to react to dissent. You see the same thing with both the secular left and the religious right. Because neither can refute the dissenter with argument, they use their illegitimate power to concoct rules and procedures and use these to stifle opposing views.

The purpose of the draconian S8(1) is not to formalise a woman’s right to an abortion. The remainder of the Act achieves that. S8(1)’s purpose is to force acquiescence to the ideology of those who drafted the Act, under threat of loss of career. That is its evil.

There already exist provisions for censuring doctors who fail in their duty of care. If a patient presents with symptoms of psychological distress about their pregnancy and requests an abortion, any doctor who does not provide abortions is negligent in their duty of care if they do not properly refer the patient. This scenario is already covered under general negligence. It does not need reinforcement with S8(1).

If a patient requests an abortion for the reason of gender selection, some doctors would perform it and some would refuse on the grounds the procedure is unnecessary. Those who refuse in such circumstances should be free to do so, regardless of whether you or I agree with the underlying philosophical motivation. If the patient is not in genuine distress, there is no failure of care. The patient can go and find a doctor who will perform the abortion. Additionally, they can pay for it themselves. I have no problem with my taxes being spent on providing abortions for women who need them, but there is no way I want to fund medical procedures for “lifestyle” reasons.

Election Betting Not Always A Good Predictor

It appears election betting odds are not always as good a predictor of voting intentions as I thought.

On the morning of the federal election, I ran a simulation which produced the most likely outcome of 98 seats for the Coalition, 49 for Labor and 3 independents, although I did comment that this probably overestimated the Coalition’s chances because the betting in seats like Werriwa was unrealistic. Ten days prior, I got 91 – 57 – 2.

Now, with most seats in the lower house determined, the currently most likely result is 90 – 55 – 5. Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie were returned as most people thought they would. Cathy McGowan appears to have secured Indi with a very strong campaign against unpopular Liberal incumbent Sophie Mirabella. The generally well heeled, but pious, lefty flock of inner city Melbourne have asked for three more years of sanctimonious preaching from middle class hypocrites, returning the Greens’ Adam Bandt with only a 1% swing against him. In a disturbing upset, self promoting windbag Clive Palmer looks almost certain to win Fairfax. Perhaps the good people of Bundaberg believe the carbon tax will fade their curtains.

So where did the simulation go wrong?

Clearly, Adam Bandt paying $2.35 and Clive Palmer paying $5 significantly underestimated the chances of both candidates. Shorter odds would have seen the simulation produce many outcomes with 4 or 5 independents.

The odds for Kingsford-Smith, Parramatta and Werriwa in Sydney and Wayne Swan’s Brisbane electorate of Lilley were also clearly wrong, but these predictions were discounted when scaling back the forecast number of Coalition seats from 98 to 94 or 95. Interestingly, they were more or less correct two weeks ago when they favoured the ALP, although Werriwa was only won by about 3500 votes. Some nongs must have done their money with sizeable bets on the Liberal in these seats.

Four of the late flips: Page, Petrie, Hindmarsh and Lyons did end up falling to the Coalition. McEwen, Capricornia and Lingiari are all tight, as per the betting. However, Blair was easily retained by the ALP, with a +1.5% swing. The Liberals’ Teresa Harding must have been a pretty ordinary candidate.

Speaking of poor candidates, the Liberals virtually threw away Greenway by standing Jaymes “we have a solar panel” Diaz. What a fucking dunce! Yet he was paying about $1.20 to win the seat.

So, wrong odds for Adam Bandt and Clive Palmer and a few seats with very poor Liberal candidates. If a candidate is paying $1.20, they will win in most simulated scenarios. A handful of those types of errors and your simulation overestimates by 5 or 6 seats.

Of course, the bookies did well from the misestimated payouts: the odds for the Coalition only came in in these seats because people placed (losing) bets on them.

Election Betting Says Coalition By 40+

Ten days ago, I wrote that using implied probabilities from Sportsbet and Centrebet odds to simulate the result of all 150 federal seats, the most probable outcome would be a 32 seat Coalition majority in the House of Representatives. At that time, the most probable outcomes were 91 or 92 seats for the Coalition, 56 or 57 for Labor and 2 or 3 for independents.

I ran the simulation again early this morning, using the latest available odds on both sites, just prior to the suspension of internet betting as the polls opened.

Now the most probable outcome in the simulation is 98 seats for the Coalition, 49 for the ALP and 3 independents, giving the Coalition a 46 seat majority after winning an extra 25 seats.

Why the 7 seat change over the last 10 days?

Firstly, there are several seats which have flipped to the Liberals in the betting: Kingsford-Smith, Parramatta and Werriwa in Sydney, Lilley (Wayne Swan’s electorate) and Petrie in Brisbane, Hindmarsh in Adelaide, Brand in Perth and Lyons on the east coast of Tasmania. The only one of these which I strongly doubt is Werriwa, Gough Whitlam’s old seat. There might be a few aspirational Liberal voters in Denham Court and the newly developed suburbs, but I can’t see it falling to the Libs. Even discounting Werriwa, that’s 7 in which the Liberals are now favoured. The outcome could easily be Lib-ALP 5-2 instead of the 2-5 it looked like a couple of weeks ago.

Secondly, a number of seats in which Labor were paying around 1.40 are now even money: Page in NE NSW, McEwen just north of Melbourne, Blair and Capricornia in Queensland and even Lingiari (all of the Northern Territory outside of Darwin).

Note that the simulation is predicated on the bookmakers’ payouts being accurate representations of the true probabilities of each candidate winning. In fact, they are as much determined by how much has been bet on each candidate as any statistical analysis of booth returns and polling. Having said that, I wouldn’t expect the money to be flowing one way and votes the other. The best we can say without being able to train the model on betting data from previous elections is that payouts are highly correlated with outcomes.

For example, in Kevin Rudd’s seat of Griffith, the Libs are paying 2.75 and Rudd 1.35. That translates into a probability of 30% of Rudd losing his seat. While I’d like to see that happen, I believe $1.35 is pretty generous odds for Rudd to retain his seat.

Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie are now almost certainties to be returned. Independent Cathy McGowan is now paying 1.90 to Sophie Mirabella in Indi and the Greens’ Adam Bandt has shortened to 2.35 in Melbourne. That’s why the simulation produces a much higher frequency of outcomes where we have 3 independents (Greens included). Even Clive “Skywhale” Palmer has come in to $5 from $8 a week ago (although I think that significantly overestimates his chances).

So, if I discount the seats where I think the betting is skewed, such as Werriwa, the Coalition is still probably up 4 or 5 seats on their position ten days ago.

I reckon that most likely puts them on 94 or 95, with Labor 53 and 2 or 3 independents ie. a 40 seat majority.