Should The Whitehaven Coal Hoaxers Be Prosecuted?

Jonathon Moylan and some fellow activists in the protest group Front Line Action On Coal (FLAC) released a hoax press release on Monday, purporting to be from ANZ’s corporate affairs section, stating that ANZ had decided to pull its $1.2B in funding from Whitehaven Coal’s Maules Creek coal project.

The hoax was a fairly amateur, copycat version of The Yes Men’s original and more elaborately constructed hoax on Dow Chemicals, in which one of them pretended to be a spokesman for Dow. The “spokesman”, Jude Finisterra (apparently no-one saw the joke in the name) announced on the BBC World Service that Dow would liquidate Union Carbide to provide a $12B compensation fund for the victims of the Bhopal disaster. Dow stock immediately began falling rapidly, wiping about $2B off the market value of the company before the hoax was discovered.

FLAC’s hoax caused Whitehaven’s (WHC) share price to fall from $3.50 to $3.20 before trading was suspended and the share price recovered to $3.50.

One might thus think there was no material harm done, however many investors or traders were induced by the false announcement to sell at a loss as the stock fell. On the flipside, there were many traders who made a profit by buying after the hoax, but prior to the suspension.

However, people who had previously bought WHC shares, either on the day or prior, lost money as a direct result of the hoax if they sold after the “press release” and before the trading halt and subsequent correction. The hoax clearly induced them to sell and the hoaxers were at least reckless as to the effect of the false information they intentionally disseminated.

That’s a pretty clear breach of S1041E of the Corporations Act 2001, so yes, from a legal standpoint, Moylan and his fellow conspirators should be charged. In fact, ASIC has seized Moylan’s laptop and mobile phone to gather evidence, although he has freely admitted his role in the matter anyway. The hoaxers could receive a fine large enough to bankrupt them. There is a possibility of jail for Moylan.

Additionally, investors would have a civil claim against the hoaxers under S1041I. It would be hard for the defence to mitigate their liability for damages by using S1041N 3(a) to argue contributory negligence by anyone who sold shares during the time interval in question. That is because anyone who sold shares would have logically had to do so even if they saw through the hoax, because most people didn’t and thus the share price would have fallen further anyway. There was no knowing how much sellers would panic and how far the share price would fall. Therefore the only logical course of action was to sell, regardless of whether one believed the press release.

Consequently, any civil claim run by a halfway competent lawyer should be able to secure a finding of significant damages against Moylan et al, although since they almost certainly have few assets, the purpose of such an action would really only be to bankrupt them all.

Even bankruptcy might be doubtful if the hoaxers can raise sufficient funds through donations. Analysis by the SMH's Paddy Manning of WHC trades in the time interval between the hoax announcement and trading halt shows Moylan et al's legal liability in a civil suit would be at most $450,000, plus costs (which should be awarded to the plaintiff, given the evidence).

So, it is the law that Moylan et al can be prosecuted for their stunt. A prosecution should almost certainly succeed, as should a civil action for damages. That leaves only the question of whether it should be the law that people can be prosecuted for hoaxes such as this.

With characteristically dishonest sanctimony, the Greens and other lefties think Moylan should be given a medal. Some of these people seriously believe the entire concept of exchange tradable securities is evil.

However, any sane person with a knowledge of history will have grasped that financial innovations like the joint stock company, tradable bonds, public exchanges and clearing houses, insurance and futures contracts are significant contributors to the economic development of Western society. The availability of both venture capital and debt financing allow not only investment in large scale manufacturing and resource projects, but also technological development and production. These three elements have been overwhelmingly the source of the massive increase in Western society’s standard of living, including the growth of the middle class and more recently, the welfare state Moylan and all his mates want (and rely upon).

Without secure and robust financial markets, we couldn’t have the depth and breadth of investment we need to maintain both the standard of living and the standard of government we want, as well as develop new technologies. If Australia were poor, we’d be burning a higher proportion of fossil fuels and be investing much less in developing clean energy sources. This point is of course lost on twits like Jonathon Moylan and commies like Christine Milne and Lee Rhiannon.

This is why ASIC should prosecute anyone who deliberately disrupts the flow of free and correct information in financial markets. From sanctimonious, wannabe heroes like Jonathon Moylan to shonky wankers spreading false rumours for profit, to market manipulators and insider trading. Frankly, I think deliberately spreading false information to manipulate a security price (or being reckless as to the information’s effect) is significantly worse than someone who uses inside information to profit from foreknowledge of the direction of a security’s value … and the latter often get jail time. I think that’s a bit harsh, but what does it mean should happen to Moylan?

He won’t be looking so smug after a good reaming and bashing in Grafton Jail.

Addendum: I'm not really advocating Moylan be sentenced to years in a high security prison, like he would in the USA. However, deliberately or recklessly distorting or disrupting financial markets is not that different to fraud. It should be a serious criminal offence, because poorly functioning markets harm investment, which ultimately decreases innovation, government renenue and living standards in general.

If all the sanctimonious little turd gets is a fine, his equally sanctimonious left wing supporters, probably organised by Bob Brown, will simply raise the money to pay it for him. At least that's a de facto way of taxing them all in return for the taxes they'd like to impose on the rest of us.

1000 hours of community service, plus a large fine, plus a five year good behaviour bond? Maybe. That would be more constructive than a short custodial sentence in a minimum security prison.

The alternative is to impose a fine, plus a 2 or 3 year jail term, but suspend it. That would force him to keep his head down and send a message to all these lefty wankers who think that because they adhere to a "higher law", they can choose which laws they will obey, yet decry religious people who use the same argument to ignore secular laws such as anti-discrimination legislation.

Stalk The Paparazzi Back

In a liberal society, people should be subject to and protected by the same laws.

Suppose I picked a random person out of the phone book, then followed their every move, constantly photographing them and putting those photographs on websites and in magazines. Then I’d be arrested and charged with stalking, followed up with a civil suit for harassment and intentionally causing distress.

If it’s considered a criminal offence (and a tort) to do the above, why is it apparently legal to do it to Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus? Does a certain level of fame extinguish a citizen’s rights? By what legal or democratic principle?

Do rights to privacy incrementally evaporate in proportion to a person’s public profile? Or is there a threshold of fame beyond which a host of rights to privacy are extinguished? How is that threshold measured? If a movie star wins an Oscar, can I now take a photo of her topless on a private yacht and publish it?

Who determines such things? Will celebrities constantly have to pursue test cases to establish a body of common law?

Hopefully the above is sufficient argument to persuade people of the impracticality and unfairness of having one law for “ordinary people” and another for celebrities.

But celebs like Justin Bieber calling for tougher paparazzi laws have misunderstood the nature of the problem.

Tweak laws or make special cases and paparazzi will still find a way around them. People like Chris Guerra and Jamie Fawcett are parasites. Their entire livelihood is devoted to constantly following celebrities, or in the case of Guerra, a single person. They will spend a great deal of time and effort to navigate around any legal changes.

They are also delusional, as Frank Griffin’s comment after Chris Guerra’s death indicates:

“What's the difference between our guy who got killed under those circumstances (run over taking a picture of Justin Bieber’s car) and the war photographer who steps on a landmine in Afghanistan and blows himself to pieces because he wanted the photograph on the other side of road. The only difference is the subject matter. One is a celebrity and the other is a battle.”

Yes, one is a celebrity and the other is a battle. Well spotted. No real difference … apart from our troops fighting a difficult war under controversial circumstances actually being news.

If the law against stalking and harassment applies equally to all citizens, as it should, then call for the existing law to be applied, not for a new law.

If the law for some reason does not apply equally to all citizens, campaign for it to be. Use your fan base.

A more effective approach is to try and solve the paparazzi infestation permanently. If there really is some legal loophole allowing paparazzi to stalk public figures, but not ordinary people, use it to your advantage.

Start a Follow The Paparazzi website. This will make each of them public figures, so you can apply the same loopholes to them that they do to you. Then hire people to follow each of them day and night, placing every detail of their lives on the site, including any transgressions, no matter how minute, which arise from your investigations of their personal lives.

Wealthy stars have the resources. Why not turn them against the paparazzi? If there are any legal actions to be fought, who has the deeper pockets and better lawyers?

Publish the paparazzi’s home addresses, plus photographs of them and their houses on your website. Let your fans know how much these people are upsetting you and leave it at that. Your fans will know what to do. Let them help you in digging up all manner of embarrassing dirt on your enemies.

I can’t understand why no big stars haven’t already thought of something like this. How about some of you do the world a service and put these vermin out of business by giving them a taste of their own medicine?

The Dishonesty Of Compulsory Voting

The only thing compulsory about compulsory voting in Australia is having your name crossed off at a polling place. You don’t even have to turn up and do it yourself: I’ve never been asked for ID when voting.

If an Australian citizen wishes, they can have their name marked off on the electoral roll, collect their ballot paper(s), then simply put them into the collection boxes blank, or even just walk out with them. Alternatively, they could cover their ballot paper(s) in obscenities, political protest slogans, or draw new boxes and vote for other people (which would count as informal of course).

None of the above is illegal. Even if it were, the secrecy of the ballot means there would be no way to police such conduct.

We could employ new technology to have say, touch screen voting in booths which informs the voter of any procedural errors and does not accept a vote until it is formal. It could even have software which would scan a voter ID and only record that person as having voted after a valid vote was registered, without recording the nature of the vote against the voter ID, to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Whether people would trust that link not to be made is a distinct issue.

So, we now have the technology to make voting truly compulsory. But do we want to go to these lengths to force people to express a political preference which is clearly not sufficiently strongly held for them do so voluntarily?

A RIGHT means having an option to exercise a choice. It also means having an option to abstain from making any choice. A compulsory choice is a form of duty, a very different concept from a right.

If people actually believe that voting is a civic duty which should be enforced, then be honest and say so.

I don’t. I think it’s a moral duty of citizens to understand and participate in the political process in an open society, however I don’t believe that this particular moral duty (among others) should be enforced by law.

In a free society, people have a right to deliberate ignorance, as long as they have no commensurate right to complain about its consequences. Choosing to remain ignorant of civics in a free society is immoral because it wastes rights which were in many cases hard won over in some instances, centuries. But I don’t want to live in a society which polices non-invasive moral choices, as opposed to letting the natural consequences (if any) of those choices be their sanction.

A proposal canvassing the repeal of compulsory voting in a green paper on election reform for the Queensland government has met with the usual dishonest claims from the left of “an attack on democracy”, from our most honest PM, no less. The Courier Mail even ran an opinion piece by left wing academic Paul Williams, in which he claimed the proposal is “undemocratic”, then provided no argument to support this statement.

This is how the left typically responds to calls for voluntary voting.

Some people on both sides of politics actually believe voting to be a duty which should be compulsory and that reluctant citizens need to be “encouraged” to engage in the democratic process for their own good and the ultimate good of society. There are also many who believe that the franchise is a right which citizens may choose to exercise (or not).

However, most on the left argue against voluntary voting because they know it will decrease the left’s vote. That’s also why most people on the right argue in favour of it. If it would decrease the right’s vote, they’d be arguing against it and the left would be in favour and arguing the right not to vote as a democratic choice.

If pressed, the left will admit that of the people who only vote because it’s compulsory, the overwhelming majority vote Labor or Green. They then try to counter that it’s undemocratic if those people’s choices aren’t counted.

But their choices are being counted in a voluntary voting system as much as any votes for minor parties which exhaust in an optional preferential system. Some people who would choose not to vote at all would do so because they don’t like any of the candidates, or the political process in general. Such actions are also democratic choices.

However, most people who choose not to vote would do so because they are simply too ignorant and feckless to make the effort to understand even the basics of contemporary political issues, make up their mind as to which policies they support, then get themselves to a polling station and vote accordingly. What they are saying by not voting is that either they don’t care enough about who is in government and making decisions which affect their lives to do anything about it, or they don’t think it will make any difference anyway. If that’s their view, how is it democratic that their vote counts equally to an educated citizen who does make the effort to grasp political issues?

It's telling that such people overwhelmingly choose left wing parties when forced to vote. The left would say that's because they represent the oppressed and such people are their constituents.

Oppression is not being able to vote. They just couldn't be bothered.

"But such people have been oppressed by society's unjust disparities all their lives. That's why they have lower educational outcomes, hence less understanding of politics and thus less interest in voting."

The oppression of the "social injustice" they have suffered is so great that they cannot voluntarily walk to the nearest polling booth and write a 1 next to the ALP candidate, yet are capable of doing just that if threatened with a fine? Really? Yes, that's right ... the lumpenproletariat cannot be expected to take responsibility for exercising their own rights. Their behaviour is determined by the injustice of their environment unless the state "helps" them.

If people who will only vote if forced are a material part of the ALP's constituency, it's no wonder voters are turning away from the party. It's all very well to pretend to represent the oppressed and downtrodden, but if you also hitch your wagon to the creed of laziness, ignorance, failure and envy (to paraphrase Winston Churchill), people who can make their own way in the world and take responsibility for their own wellbeing will find other parties to vote for (and actually turn up to vote).

The above statements will almost invariably educe accusations of snobbery, discrimination against minorities and thinly veiled racism. Yes, you’re right … because I’m aware that lower percentages of Aboriginals and migrants with poor English would vote were it not compulsory, preventing them voting must be my real motive, because they tend to have such a strong effect on electoral outcomes, living in marginal seats as they do. Actually, Aboriginal women helped deliver the recent NT election to the Liberals, significantly due to their disillusionment with the failed policies and preachy identity and grievance politics of urban Aboriginal activists on the left. Additionally, a lot of Aborigines don't vote even though it is in theory compulsory. How many of them do you think would ever receive a fine notice like I would?

I have heard the discrimination argument made several times and its dishonesty is symptomatic of the left’s predilection for ideology over reason and evidence. The equation of not requiring people to vote and actually disenfranchising them is an absurd non sequitur. Nobody is being prevented from voting.

“Oh, but migrants and Aborigines tend to find the whole voting process confusing and intimidating, so many of them won’t vote unless we encourage them.” But the right are the patronizing bastards.

Then you and your political party can go and encourage them. Go and explain to them how it all works. Get off your fucking arses and stop treating what you believe are your natural constituency as a captive bloc, like you do with Aborigines in the NT and migrants in working class, city electorates.

Actually, that’s true of all political parties. Voluntary voting would in this respect enhance the democratic process by forcing politicians to explain to people why they should make the effort to actually vote for them, not simply pick them as the least worst, forced choice.

On the flipside, if citizens find themselves being saddled with representatives they believe don’t represent them, maybe they will start to think a bit more about politics, so their future votes might actually mean something.

The dishonesty of the self serving arguments of the left and right in this debate has obscured an important philosophical argument as to whether voting in a democracy is a duty or a right. It also veils the laziness and arrogance of the major parties, particularly the ALP, who believe the coercive power of the state should deliver their natural constituencies to them on a platter each election. Is it any wonder politicians frequently hold the wishes of their electorates in such contempt?

One Direction Can Only Gain Musical Credibility With A DEV-O Cover

Girl U Want is a fairly obvious, but tame choice for the young heartthrobs. The girls in DEV-O’s clip might give them an audience closer to their own ages. If it’s good enough for Soundgarden to cover, it’s good enough for One Direction.

The smooth tones of Shrivel Up lend themselves to the five lads taking it in turns to sing a couple of lines each.

Maybe they could go for something equally early but harder like Uncontrollable Urge. What young girl wouldn’t scream as Zain thrust his Islamic crotch at the audience, singing: “Got an urge, got a surge and it’s out of control now!”

… or the five of them jerking about the stage to the opening guitar riffs of Mongoloid or the more mechanical Blockhead.

Harry Styles singing:

Fraid that no-one around me comprehends my potato.

Guess I’m just a spud boy, looking for that real tomato.

would certainly give all those 10 year old girls something to ponder.

The other four could jump in:

Common stock … we work around the clock …

We shove the poles in the holes!

Duty now for the future, One Direction!

Publish The Names And Addresses Of The Journal News Staff On The NRA Website

In the aftermath of the Newtown, CT shooting, some left wing smart arses at upstate New York local paper The Journal News decided to publish the names and addresses of all registered handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties, information which is available on public record.

Ooh! Here are all the evil gun owners in our community! These are the crazy, right wing people we need to be scared of. Don’t let your children go over to play in a house with guns in it!

Janet Hasson, the paper’s publisher, said:

“We felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.”

You sanctimonious, incompetent, middle class lefty fuckwits! Not only have you provided criminals a detailed map of houses worth burgling, you’ve omitted all the houses which contain rifles and shotguns, which for some reason do not require a permit. So, now we know who owns a pistol (almost certainly for sports shooting or self defence), but not who owns an assault rifle, the usual weapon of choice for massacres.

The gun owners were of course furious. They seem to have the support of most of the community.

Maybe gun owners will feel it’s important to “share information” about the social engineering, lefty hand wringers in their area who want to pillory and scapegoat them for exercising their LEGAL right under the 2nd amendment.

One of the intentions of the 2nd amendment was to facilitate the formation of militia, not just for defence against invasion, but against tyrannical government (having just won independence from Britain). Lefties would hold that the military is the US’s modern defence against invasion and that, being a democracy, there is no longer a requirement for defence against tyrannical government. Given that lefties tend to be constructivist rule makers who exclude dissenters from their rule making committees (and therefore don’t really believe in democracy), I’m not so sure defence against tyrannical government is no longer necessary.

There is a high level of gun ownership in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Scandanavia, without anywhere near the same level of gun homicides as in the USA. People can own guns without shooting each other at high rates. The problem in the USA is not guns: it's the level of fear and anger in social interactions; something which visitors can sense.

Don't let the lefties turn the US into a UK style, international socialist lawyers' nanny state which puts the rights and identity politics of minorities above the dominant culture. If you do, you'll probably need the 2nd amendment when the first Muslim president tries to introduce sharia law in 2112.

Perhaps the NRA should publish on its website photographs, names, addresses, car registrations, social security numbers etc of all the staff at the Journal News. These hypocrites will scream blue murder when given a taste of their own medicine, of course.

“Oh, but that’s purely to harass and intimidate us for legitimate journalism. You fascists!”

Legitimate journalism? Political campaigning masquerading as journalism, more like it … and your publication of gun owners’ addresses had no intention of eliciting any intimidation of them via social censure.

Let’s see how much you smart arsed wankers really do like freedom of information.

Update: Ha! Ha! It didn't take long. Gun owners have published the Journal News staff's names, addresses and telephone numbers. Maybe one more burst of anger in social interactions is necessary before American society embarks on some serious self examination.

Officious Little Turds Give The Sydney To Hobart Race A Bad Smell

Reading right through the SMH article on Wild Thing’s exclusion from this year’s Sydney to Hobart Race, it’s hard to see Howard Piggott and Tim Cox from race organizers, the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA) as anything other than the villains of the piece.

Race director, Tim Cox (with CYCA Commodore Howard Piggott’s full support) excluded Wild Thing from this year’s race because of inadequate documentation. Specifically, it appears the contentious issue is that modifications recently made to the boat had to be signed off by a naval architect that they were in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping guidelines.

Wild Thing skipper Grant Wharington says that his boat’s documentation contains a report from a naval architect which states: “the modification falls within the minimum scope of the ABS guide”.

Could a person acting in good faith interpret that statement as not complying with the race regulations? Not in my opinion.

Howard Piggott and Tim Cox said accusations of their bias against big boats are “nonsense”, however their denials don’t appear to be supported by the evidence. To throw a boat out of an important race on a technicality smacks of ill will and petty officiousness. Additionally, why would the CYCA race committee itself lodge protests against both the 2010 and 2011 winners, unless it really is run by petty fuckwits with an axe to grind, as Grant Wharington is implying?

Perhaps they really don’t like the big boats coming and winning. However, it’s the big boats which attract the TV coverage, the sponsorship dollars and the prestige.

What about all the crew who were looking forward to sailing in the race? All the time, money and effort which was spent getting the boat to Sydney and ready for the race? What effect will it have on the race’s reputation (and hence economic benefit to Sydney and Hobart) if people think it’s run by a cabal of petty minded twits?

People of genuine substance would have considered that an adverse decision would ruin the season for the crew, as well as the larger economic picture. Only hollow, little men rely on technical points to use their positions to ruin events for others.

That’s what I think is at the heart of this episode: jumped up, little nobodies pretending to have power. What the race needs is organizers who believe it is about the sailors, not making mean spirited decisions and then trying to hide behind some bogus safety regulations or similar.

Should any of this matter to government in a liberal society?

Yes, if the race brings in tourist dollars and generates employment and tax revenue, which it does.

If government tourism agencies provide assistance to the race, the Ministers for Sport and Tourism should have a say in how it is run, even if that support is only in kind, such as marketing. Perhaps the government should threaten to withdraw its support from the race organizers, even offering it to a rival Sydney yacht club to hold their own race. I’m sure any trademarks can be worked around. The state could afford the loss of revenue for a couple of years more than the CYCA can.

Ludicrously, the race committee offered to “allow” Wild Thing to sail with the race, but not actually compete in it, probably because they knew they couldn’t prevent the crew sailing down to Hobart anyway.

Rather than pull out, I’d have liked to see Wild Thing tell the CYCA to get fucked, start say, fifteen minutes behind (since there would be some official exclusion zone for non-racing boats around the starting line), then sail for Hobart as fast as possible. What a farce it would have rendered the race had they beaten the “official” winner.

More Bullshit From The Courts

It’s bad enough that parliaments pass stupid laws. At least these are statute and can be repealed.

Worse is the creation of nonsensical common law via judicial activism, as absurd rulings establish perverse precedents.

There is no way that a person should be able to claim workers’ compensation for being injured while having sex, unless they work in a brothel.

The full bench of the Federal Court disagrees. They have just awarded a public servant workers’ compensation after she injured herself while having sex on a work trip, in a motel room, at night. Apparently a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled off its mount and hit her in the face, so she must have gone off like a firecracker. A finger up the arse at the right moment can do that.

Perhaps the stupidest thing about this case is that it has been allowed to continue for five years, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then twice to the Federal Court, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Comcare (the federal government’s workplace insurer) quite reasonably argued that the woman’s injury was not sustained during a work activity. The AAT agreed, but the stupid bitch kept fighting the matter and took it to the Federal Court, who found in her favour. Comcare of course appealed, but in a farcical decision, lost.

The court also allowed the claimant’s name to be suppressed, because ”she was unprepared to continue with the case if a consequence of doing so is that her true identity will be made public”.

Sounds like a good reason to publish it. I’d like to know who is grifting some of my taxes through this try on. Of course, she has also claimed additional compensation for a “psychological injury” and “loss of income”, because she really was so traumatized she just couldn’t go back to work, could she?

Typical fucking public service mentality.

Fundamental jurisprudence in common law is intent. When a situation arises that is not explicitly covered by statute, courts are supposed to consider the law’s general intent, as well as possibly the specific intent surrounding the actions of any parties in the matter.

The general intent of workers’ compensation law is to cover injuries sustained during work activities. The woman’s employer clearly did not intend sex to be part of her work activities and said as much during every hearing.

The AAT could grasp this logic. It must have taken some effort not to, but the full bench of the Federal Court found a way. Apparently, any injury during lawful activity done in any place which constitutes a work environment and which does not amount to misconduct qualifies for workers’ compensation.

The court cited an example of an injury incurred while playing cards (a paper cut, perhaps):

“If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced or encouraged her to engage in such an activity.”

No she fucking well shouldn’t be. What if she had been injured swimming in the hotel pool? Or put her back out playing Wii in the hotel room? Or choked on a brazil nut after raiding the mini bar?

These things would all be as a result of her own, chosen actions which are not essential to the adequate performance of her job. Having a shower, ironing a shirt: these things are necessary. Swimming in the pool or having sex are not. Therefore the former should be covered and the latter are her own problem. I think this is almost certainly the intent of the legislation.

Now, because of some idiot judges’ farcical interpretation, it needs to be explicitly amended to say this. The unions will of course fight tooth and nail to prevent any such amendment. “They’re taking away our rights!”

No, we’re protecting taxpayers against being ripped off.

Cases such as this help engender public disrespect for the courts and the legal system in general. If the Federal Court cannot be trusted to make decisions which reflect both common sense and what the majority of the community would clearly want OUR law to be, why should citizens maintain confidence in them?

I initially described this decision as judicial activism, which it is, since the Court has made some effort to find implications in the legislation which many would consider to be absent. But it also seems to me to be an example of the judiciary trying to asset itself.

It’s almost as if the Court is tacitly saying: ”If Parliament passes bad laws, it’s up to it to fix them. Otherwise, we’ll make whatever interpretations we feel like”.

Unfortunately, this political act has been at taxpayers’ expense and will ultimately be detrimental to public trust in the courts. It will also create a precedent which will allow other, similarly meretricious claims.

More useful would have been to make the correct interpretation of the law’s intent and throw the matter out, then make a submission to the Attorney General on the problems with the legislation’s current wording.

But that would have been too sensible.

The Tyranny Of The Fearful And Feeble Minded Claims Another Victim

Yet another citizen’s life and career stand to be ruined because of a poorly thought out, excessive law enacted in a knee jerk reaction to the fearful bleating of the feeble minded. Section 73 of the NSW Crimes Act rears its head once more.

What is this legislation actually intended to do?

Protect vulnerable, young people who are still legally children from sexual predators.

What its proponents probably had in mind was a calculating teacher, counselor, priest or sporting coach using their position of authority and power to enjoy a series of sexual conquests of the good citizenry’s 16 and 17 year old sons and / or daughters.

OK. Most of us would agree that such clearly predatory behaviour should engender some official censure additional to merely getting the sack.

This is the point: the framing of the law should clearly distinguish between a pattern of behaviour whose circumstances obviously indicate predation and one off affairs in which the person “in authority” lacks maturity themselves.

But what does the law actually do? Who are the people being charged? What are their alleged crimes?

Firstly, it is a serious criminal offence to have “sexual intercourse” with a 16 or 17 year old “under your care”, even though it would be perfectly legal were they not. The offence carries up to 4 years if the “victim” is 17 and 8 years if they are 16. That is, if you’re a 19 year old student teacher and you have sex with a 16 year old student at your school, you could be sentenced to 8 years in prison. Regardless of the length of sentence, you’ll be placed on a sex offenders’ register for life. However, have sex with a 16 year old student from another school and it’s perfectly legal.

A 21 year old university tutor who had sex with a first year student who attended one of their tutes and happened to be 17 could be charged under s73. Now, the police may or may not bring charges in such circumstances, but they could if they felt like it and that’s the problem with this idiotic law: its practical implementation does not in any way reflect either common sense or the views of the majority of the community.

This law as currently framed, allows selective prosecution, either due to police bastardry or conservative, vindictive parents. It also fails to adequately differentiate a wide spectrum of severity of wrongdoing.

Recently, a middle aged teacher was jailed for 18 months for a sexual relationship with a 16 year old student. A sackable offence? Certainly. Career ending? Maybe. But jail? Manifestly excessive. This was not a pattern; there did not ensue a host of other students coming forward to make complaints.

Now we have an injustice an order of magnitude greater. Another example of the tyranny of the stupid.

Carla Ruggeri has been charged with having sex with one of her 17 year old students, seven years ago, when she was 22.

Are we serious? As a society, do we believe this represents justice?

She is being prosecuted on our behalf. Will our society have gained anything after this travesty has run its course?

Apparently, we will have lost a good teacher. Carla Ruggeri is clearly liked by at least some of her students. Positive comments about a teacher on a website are not trivial: students usually devote their time to slagging teachers off. She has evidently grown up significantly in the intervening period and become a good teacher.

Are people’s children “at risk” around her? No, I don’t think so. People’s children are far more at risk from the lefties in the Teachers’ Federation or youth hating curmudgeons who, somewhat bizarrely, have chosen teaching as a profession.

I have taught 21 and 22 year olds in the final year of their B.Ed. Many of them were significantly less mature than some of the 17 year old boys in my final year at school.

Is the “power relationship” between a 22 year old teacher and a 17 year old student necessarily so one sided as to automatically infer predation from any sexual relationship?

Not in my experience.

My point here is that to be just, a law such as s73 (if we are to have one at all) must clearly differentiate patterns of behaviour from single affairs. It must also take into account the relative maturity of the so called perpetrator and victim.

It is reasonable that teachers, counselors or sporting coaches be sacked for sexual affairs with students. Evidence of predation involving 16 and 17 year olds should attract a ban from certain types of employment. However, I find it difficult to see the justice in jailing someone for sexual conduct which would be legal, but for the “position of authority or care”.

If you agree that Carla Ruggeri has already suffered an injustice by merely being charged, write to the NSW Attorney General, Greg Smith. Obviously, he cannot interfere with the particular case, however, it is his responsibility as AG to fix this unjust law.

Wade's Over Was Not Discrespectful

Michael Clarke giving keeper Matthew Wade an over during the 1st test against Sri Lanka was not at all disrespectful to cricket.

Have a look at the video. Other than being a bit short, he bowled pretty well. His speed was around 125 - 130k, which was about what Mark & Steve Waugh used to bowl. There was nothing wrong with trying something different at 4/186. He got the ball to skid through and could have had a wicket had the ball hit a crack or landed on the edge of the seam. People might not have been so churlish in their approbation of Clarke then.

Fortunately, not everyone is a narrow minded idiot who thinks a captain should not try something outside the box occasionally. Most cricket players I know were happy to see Wade have a bowl. Good on him. Hussey and Warner both had a crack. Wade looked at least as likely to get a wicket as either of them.

Whether it’s park or for your country, sport is about enjoying yourself and playing competitively relative to your ability.

Fingo’s team’s regular keeper occasionally swaps the gloves and in fact has taken 5 wickets, so Wade is in illustrious company.

Who are these curmudgeons who think a keeper shouldn’t bowl “out of respect for the game”? Brendan O’Brien, who the fuck are you anyway? What have you ever achieved in the game?

It’s always the people who have done nothing of note in a field who are the most officious.

If Only He Had Used His Geek Powers For Good

Building a personal, camera equipped drone is pretty cool and would have been a lot of fun. You could even start a small (or eventually big) business from the hobby if so inclined.

Engineer Paul Wallich goes into considerable detail about how he constructed a 1kg, remotely controlled quadcopter with built in camera. He even discusses off-the-shelf flight control software.

So what did he use it for?

Redefining helicopter parenting by following his grade school (I’m guessing 7 – 10 year old) son 400m to the bus stop. He then laments that power restrictions prevent him from following the bus all the way to school.

He used to walk his son to the bus stop, but in that much caricatured geeky way, seems to prefer social contact be mediated through a machine interface.

Is there something wrong with trusting your son to walk the 400m to the bus stop, then get on the bus and arrive at school by himself? What do you think might happen to him? I reckon the novelty of the copter overhead will pretty quickly give way to resentment at being watched. You’ll be beaming neuroses directly into him from the copter’s RF unit.

The sheer number of parents who either drive or walk their kids the short distance to our local primary school astounds me. Why don’t you just teach your molly coddled brats basic safety precautions and let them walk to school or the bus stop by themselves? We all used to.

How will these children ever learn to think and act independently? To assess and handle risks in a balanced manner? Oh, that’s right … we don’t want them to in our cradle to grave nanny state.

It would have been much funnier had he built the copter out of a dead cat.