Weed Them Out: Loony Lefties In The AAT

Do you believe that a non-citizen with a "very extensive criminal record" and a "long history of violent offending" should be allowed to stay in Australia, rather than deported?

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) deputy president, Stephen Frost does.

This particular case involves a 41 year old Tongan man, who came to Australia at the age of 7 and has spent 15 of the last 18 years in jail for violent crimes including assaulting police, beating a prison guard with a shower rail and stabbing a security guard. He’s also a paranoid schizophrenic.

On his recent release from prison, the Immigration Department had already decided he had failed the character test and so transferred him to Villawood Detention Centre for deportation. Like me, you may well ask why this did not happen after his first conviction.

In a typically absurd jettisoning of common sense in favour of their definition of “human rights”, left wing activists have been able to foist upon the Australian public a “right of appeal” against deportation orders for non-citizens convicted of serious criminal offences, which of course is all paid for by Australian taxpayers via legal aid.

This is not a case of a foreign citizen having the right to appeal against a criminal conviction, which reciprocally, Australians would and should expect in a foreign country. There has already been a conviction. The person is being released from prison after serving their sentence. Australian law in such matters should be clear and simple to enforce: conviction for a serious criminal offence = fail character test = deportation. The process should be automatic, so that no appeal is possible, let alone one paid for with our taxes.

Even with the current legal situation of allowing appeals against ministerial deportation orders, should Australian citizens and taxpayers not expect the AAT to reject the appeal in such a case as this?

AAT Deputy President, Stephen Frost took it upon himself to override an elected minister and decide for the rest of us that this mentally ill man with an extensive history of violence has “a low risk of reoffending because he is now taking antipsychotic medication”.

According to Stephen Frost, the man now:

“… has an ‘unswerving commitment’ to taking his medicines. He is now open in his acceptance of the fact he has schizophrenia states. He claims to be in control of his thoughts and himself. He no longer feels anger and resentment towards other people."

Oh well, if a violent, mentally ill criminal claims to be “in control of his thoughts and feelings”, I guess we should just take him at his word. There is absolutely no chance he will stop taking his medication, or even just snap one day due to his soul destroying existence at the bottom of a society which he is unlikely to ever successfully navigate.

Stephen Frost concluded:

"While the risk of reoffending and the potential for harm to individuals or the Australian community have not been eliminated, they have been reduced, in my opinion, to an acceptable level."

An acceptable level, in your opinion, Stephen?

Exactly what qualifies a former ATO employee and tax partner at KPMG to express such an opinion on a criminal and mental health matter? Moreover, what qualifies Stephen Frost to make a decision on behalf of the Australian community as to what constitutes an "acceptable level" of risk for us to bear?

The Tongan government made a self-serving submission in the man’s case that it “did not have a welfare program for unemployed or disabled citizens and had short supplies of antipsychotic medication for schizophrenic patients”.

So fucking what? Does that mean it should be Australia’s problem? He’s your citizen, you deal with him.

He should have been sent back to Tonga years ago, after his first serious offence.

It is not Australia’s duty to accommodate the world’s mentally ill. How typical of lefties that they would rather put their own citizens at risk (and censure them for complaining).

Australia givesTonga $32M in foreign aid each year. Some of it could easily be redirected from specialist surgical procedures into mental health.

The deeper problem here is that hand wringing, left wing activists have been allowed not only to pass laws allowing such appeals to take place, but also to infiltrate the organisations which hear said appeals. Australians will continue having such reality defying decisions foist upon us until we weed out these insidious international socialists.

There’s a chance to get rid of some of the politicians this September. Hopefully then can begin the much bigger task of removing them from the judiciary and the executive, starting with Stephen Frost.

Are Good Vegetarian Dishes So Hard?

How many times have you been to a restaurant purportedly serving modern cuisine, charging around $30 a main, yet with only a token, unappetising vegetarian dish on the menu, if that?

I’m not vegetarian, so it doesn’t affect me directly. However, I often eat out with vegetarians. This limits the choice of venue.

A competent chef should be able to produce two or three interesting vegetarian dishes for both the entrée and main course. It’s not hard.

Here’s an example of the menu which prompted this post. It’s Yulli’s in Surry Hills, Sydney.

Yulli’s is entirely vegetarian. There are at least half a dozen dishes which I would happily eat. My companions, two vegetarians among them, felt the same.

My point is that these dishes are not hard to make. At worst, just look at the menu and copy them.

Any chef who does not grasp that a significant proportion of the population is vegetarian and cannot cater accordingly lacks credibility.

Obviously, if it's a specialty restaurant like a steak house, why would you bother? However, for a restaurant allegedly serving "modern" cuisine, there is really no excuse.

Right Sentence, Addled Reasoning

A few months ago, I wrote about Western Australia’s “One Punch Death” law and its potential for unjust outcomes at both ends of the spectrum of physical altercations via blanket application.

A recent Sydney case, in which Adam James Matthews, 38, was sentenced to a minimum of 11 years jail over the death of a man during a fight provides an instructive counterpoint.

I don’t think the sentence is wrong. The problem is with the muddled thinking and communication as to the reasons.

The victim, Scott Miller was determined to have died as a result of a brain aneurysm, which haemorrhaged when he fell backward and hit his head after being punched by Matthews. During sentencing, Justice Jane Matthews said without the aneurysm, Miller would

"certainly not have died or suffered any permanent physical injuries as a result of the fight”

It may be true that but for the unknown aneurysm, Scott Miller would not have died as a result of the fight. However, I do not accept that is certain. The problem in this case is that witnesses saw Adam Matthews stomp on Scott Miller’s head or upper body after he went down, unconscious. It’s THAT subsequent act, reckless as to whether grievous harm or even death could result and done to someone who could no longer defend themselves which justifies the murder charge under S18 of the NSW Crimes Act. The length of sentence is justified by Matthews’ string of previous convictions.

The only person who got it right was the prosecutor, Trevor Bailey, who argued that:

“It doesn't matter that the aneurysm was there. Matthews had started the fight and then punched and stomped on Mr Miller with the intent to either kill him or cause him serious bodily injury. He is therefore guilty of murder.”

Correct. The aneurysm is a red herring. The issue re murder is the stomping on a then defenceless person.

To claim that a punch CAUSED an aneurysm to haemorrhage and thus a person to die is a selective interpretation of the meaning of “cause”. It is the kind of argument lawyers are wont to make and why the intent of laws should be determined by the general public, not lawyers. Lawyers should be concerned with constructing laws so that they are logical and apply as intended.

Most people would take the view that a pre-existing physical defect caused the haemorrhage, which could just as easily been triggered by accidentally bumping one’s own head. To link an entire chain of events and then say that the first caused the last is not fair in many people’s eyes.

People should not have to resile from throwing punches in self defence or a fair fight because of the minute chance their opponent(s) may have an aneurysm. That does not describe the above case, the crucial elements of which were an unprovoked attack and subsequent stomping on a defenceless man. However, a court entertaining a causal link between a punch and death due to a burst aneurysm risks conflating matters with entirely different circumstances and leading to the injustice of people being charged with murder or manslaughter as a result of self defence or fair fights.