The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Bob Brown should pay his own legal bills
|
Bob Brown is using his office as a senator to get his legal bills paid, and the media are willing accomplices in this cynical exercise in power. Yet the very same media couldn’t give a fig about the thousands of Australians who each day are sent bankrupt, have their lives torn apart and in some cases commit suicide, because they too have to pay a legal bill when they lose a case. Senator Brown is entitled to use the court system to pursue his case, just like every other person in this country. And if he loses his case, which he did in this instance, then the general rule is that as the losing party he pays the winning party’s costs. There is nothing sinister about Forestry Tasmania, the successful party, pursuing Senator Brown for what was an expensive case. In fact, it was revealed yesterday that they offered to shave off a fair slice of their legal costs, but Brown wouldn’t be in the deal. So to suggest, as Brown and his disciples are doing, that the Tasmanian government is in some sort of corrupt conspiracy to hound Brown from office is absolute bollocks. But there is a bigger picture being missed by the media here and those dear well heeled souls, including Brown’s mate Dick Smith, who are rushing to empty their bank accounts to help the high income earner Brown pay his legal bill. And it is that what Brown is doing is something the average Australian could never achieve — use their title, office or position to milk public sympathy to have their legal bill paid. Each year thousands of Australians are dragged through the indignity of legal proceedings to ensure they pay the costs of the other party, when they lose a case. Bankruptcy, garnishee orders, instalment arrangements, sale of the family home, these are all tools of costs enforcement. For many people, it is a humiliating, degrading and heart wrenching experience. I have personally known of cases where people have contemplated suicide because they face having to pay hundreds of thousands in legal bills. I am also personally aware of cases where the sheriff has turned up at the homes of families on a Friday evening to execute a warrant to seize assets, and to give notice that the family will have to quit the home so it can be sold. And our jails are full of people who, when released from prison and are trying to get back on their feet, will be immediately hit with unpaid legal bills. In none of these cases does the person hit by the legal bill have the clout, the media profile or the resources of a taxpayer funded office to run a well orchestrated sympathy campaign which also serves as a neat fundraiser. One trusts that Brown’s wealthy benefactors and the media now turn their attention to prisoners, the homeless and broken families who face a much worse predicament than Senator Brown. Wouldn’t it be nice, but of course it won’t happen. Bob Brown has taken politics to a new low this week. |
|
|
68 Comments
What in the hell? Bankruptcy proceedings started by lawyers employed by Forestry Tasmania causing the leader of the third biggest political force in the federal parliament to be at risk of losing his seat is just fine though is it Greg? Especially when the replacement would be chosen by the same person that removed the basis for his legal action!
Yes Brad it is fine. Brown has had months to pay this amount and has chosen not to do so. Is he to receive special treatment from the legal system because he is a politician?
Yeah, a pretty one sided article, clearly a hatchet job. I note there is no mention of the hand Lennon and Howard had in changing the laws, but that would ruin your narrative wouldn’t it Greg?
This also ignores the fact that Brown wasn’t really pursuing the legal case for his own benefit, but to protect a piece of native forest. I would argue that we do have a debt to Brown’s actions, and I will be happy to help him meet this ridiculous debt.
What a ridiculous argument.
Bob’s court case was not a personal matter - he was pursuing the issue of what our federal environmental legislation and international biodiversity commitments porports to cover versus what was actually happening in practice - in an effort to protect several threatened species.
The case failed because the federal and Tasmanian governments changed the laws around what regional forestry agreements actually cover.
The threatened species here isn’t Bob, and his supporters will use their own judgement about whether what he did was a worthwhile effort on their behalf.
The Greens continue to advocate on behalf of the homeless and disadvantaged and were the only ones recently standing up for single parents and the unemployed in the discussions over the stimulus package and the global financial crisis - if the media doesn’t find this newsworthy and donors don’t flock to these casues that is hardly Bob’s fault…
We can’t let the threat of expensive court cases be a way that States or other big players get away with doing stuff of questionable legality - just look at how they’ve kept a lid on native title…
I think Bob stood up for what a lot of us think is right, and I haven’t seen him abusing his power of office to get out of it or claiming he is unable to pay the bill.
Its a cause I’m happy to donate to…
Or perhaps a number of people truly value the work Bob Brown does and would prefer to contribute some of their own money rather than see him forced to give up his job as a senator due to bankruptcy?
Spot on Greg. Irrespective of the worthiness or otherwise of ‘the cause’ Senator Brown, like any opther member of parliament knew the rules of engagement when he began the process. In this instance Senator Brown was definitely not green.
Greg - you’ve lost sight of the big picture here. To suggest Bob Brown is anything other than a selfless servant to the Australian people, and in particular the Australian natural environment, is somewhat suspect.
It seems accepted that he was done over by the dodgy tricks of Lennon and Howard - please dispute if this is not the case.
Is Brown using the legal bills to garner publicity for the Greens - most likely. Is this taking politics to a new low? Anyone who was concious during the Howard government would probably think not. A question for you Greg - would the country/world be better off with more Bob Browns or more John Howards? The level of the political discourse in this country is around the kindergarten stage - certainly encouraged by a simplistic, partisan, media. If Bob Brown needs to highlight political bastardtry through this issue - good luck to him.
This is a very disappointing effort from someone who usually makes very valid points.
Nasty Greg Barns, very nasty. That is the most important point to make - just plain nasty.
And look how badly you have had to err in ‘law’, in order to be so…nasty.
You know that the whole point of strategic litigation is that a social movement or community starts a court case in order to prove a point through and around the case.
For example, Shell just settled out of court a few days ago, in the Ogoni human rights trial (http://www.shellguilty.com/) and that still constitutes a victory for the Ogoni. And had they lost, people all over the world would gladly help pay their costs for them - its called ‘friendship’ or ‘solidarity’ Greg Barns.
I could go on with examples in climate litigation, asbestos, tobacco, Nazi assets, nuclear power stations, technical class actions etc but I think that if you are prepared to hear the point, it has been made.
I reckon you are so motivated by anger towards Bob Brown that you have had to construct a sloppy, reactionary argument which backs you into a position you will one day regret.
Dear Greg might rage against the idea that Bob will dodge the bullet, but in doing so he ignores what it supposed to a central tenet of conservative philosophy – that people are allowed to do what they want with their money.
Either Greg must agree with every other conservative on the planet and allow that Dick be able to decide what he wants to do with his hard earned or join the ranks of the Nanny-staters, in which case I believe the Greens may have a vacancy coming up.
Cheers
Elror
Thank ‘whoever’ things are not as black and white Greg. What a bloody horrid world it would be if there weren’t shades of grey in between.
It is more than disappointing to see this attack on Bob Brown.
As if this was a purely legalistic issue. It is not. Brown and the Greens are acting to protect the environment, not pesonal interests.
Traditionaly corporations and governments have been using the law to bunkrupt environmentalists, and this is just another case.
Andrew Glikson
10 June, 2009
What some people seem to be missing is that Bob Brown took action effectively on behalf of a number of people. Its likely that if he had waited for financial support before taking court action he might have been less successful. I can’t see the difference if, given his present circumstances, we retrospectively choose to support his cause, than if we had supported him up front.
Those that support him will help him out, those that don’t, won’t - no problem.
How Greg can compare this to someone fighting a very private action who fails and owes costs I cannot fathom. Why ever in that circumstance should anybody do more than feel sorry?
Greg, the world has changed, grow up, the right lost
I for one was very pleased to be able to donate to Bob Brown’s appeal for funds. While not diminishing the pain bankruptcy causes private citizens, I consider Bob Brown has incurred this cost by standing up for the protection of the environment. He has been defeated by an apparently cynical manipulation of the law which was supposed to ensure protection. Bob Brown speaks with integrity, a habit not very common amongst politicians. Bankruptcy would possibly deny him his seat in the Senate, and thus silence him. I hope his fund accumulates much more than he needs to settle his legal bills, and the surplus can be devoted to further efforts to save the forests.
Greg, in 1991 I was pursued into bankruptcy by a power hungry arrogant d-ckhead from a qango. Fortunately, he is dead so that he can’t be defamed. My crime was to have an advertisement that was larger than permitted for my profession. The law had been changed, but not proclaimed. Other members of my profession had similar advertisements, but weren’t pursued.
That said, I hope Bob Brown does get bailed out. We need such quixotic characters to tilt at our windmills.
What a tendentious pile of steaming turds Greg.
You know it, and you’ll never admit it, so I won’t bother going on.
Just hang your head in private.
Oh dear, I forgot Brown is a deity and attacking him is, to some anyway, akin to attacking the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa, which thankfully a few people do. Ah, thank goodness for skepticism!
This is not an argument of left versus right. It is simply this - Brown pursued the case in his own name as plaintiff. He knows that the rule in Australia is that generally costs are awarded to a successful party. This may not be desirable but having said that, and witnessed the American litigation system which places no such sanction on losing parties, there is something to be said for costs following the winner.
I note that none of the horrified critiques - Mr Cass take the cake with his description of it as ‘nasty’ - seek to question whether it is right that Brown should use his taxpayer funded office to drum up support for a private legal action?
Oh and to suggest I am on the right of politics is absurd. I left the Liberal Party over its treatment of refugees, and they disendorsed me back in 2002. My writings in this publication over the years are decidedly liberal, with a small l. Just because I question Brown on this and other occasions does not make me right wing!
Brown was not just a disgruntled tax payer off on a frollick when he went to court - whilst his action was that of a private citizen he is always a public figure representing many people who can cast him aside at the next election. Clearly he believed he had a strong case (which he almost won) and clearly he had the moral support of many Greens across the country. To suggest as Barns does that he should now be cut adrift on principle ignores the fact that many people want to see him stay afloat. There are times when people look to leaders to do the heavy lifting, and then there are times when they see an opportunity to lend a hand.
Well Greg the first line of your reply above speaks volumes - the year 10 sarcasm is a sure winner (irony noted)
“It is a good thing to follow the First Law of Holes: if you are in one, stop digging.”
Denis Healey
http://tinyurl.com/lkzv9v
Greg Barnes. Your article was regrettable but your rebuttal was worse. Why bring in Mother Theresa and the Dalai Llama. To resort to this is merely throwing dust in the faces of those who disagree with you.
I fail to see the connection between thousands of Australians being bullied by what is laughingly referred to as our legal system, and Bob Brown being deliberately screwed by John Winston Howard and Paul Lennon in a corrupt and contemptible display of crookedness as we are ever likely to see.
I don’t know if you have a son at school, Greg, but if you do I would almost kill to see your reaction if the sports coach or the umpire changed the goal-posts mid game. You would be outraged. Yet this is exactly what Howard and Lennon did to Bob Brown.
I find your comment to be unintentionally humourous. Shredding Bob Brown on the grounds of it all being a cynical exercise in power. Hellooooh! I beg your pardon? It was an action of total and complete power by Howard and Lennon. Must you accuse the wrong people Greg?
Personally I am delighted to have donated some money to a man who is prepared to act out of idealism as opposed to sheer bloody-minded lining of his own pocket.
Greg, my belief is that Bob Brown holds the position he has in the senate precisely because he has the initiative to take legal action and fight for what he believes - and those who vote for a position for him in the senate also believe. I would suggest he is not using his position in the senate, but has been given this position to do precisely this.
I personally have contributed donations to other people and for legal costs for court cases where I believed the outcome affected not just the individuals directly involved. Don’t communities do this kind of thing quite often when fighting in the land and environment court?
If you don’t agree, don’t donate, but you have it back to front regarding the use of power.
I have no doubt that the legal bills will be paid by hundreds or thousands of people including myself who support Bob’s work, because of his commitment, dogged determination and clear focus to do what’s right for the planet and our future, not because he’s a deity, or even because he’s a Senator.
It’s a nonsense Greg to say it was a private legal action - it was a very public campaign, and Bob took the action on behalf of all of us who want to see Tasmania’s forests, their wildlife, and their carbon sinks protected.
Over the long weekend I visited the fringes of the Tarkine forests -both intact and clearfelled bits and was respectively inspired and outraged. The bit that really gets stuck in my throat is that the money is going to Forestry Tasmania to help with their ongoing pillages.
Play the ball, Greg, not the man!
What if it was Turnball or Rudd, with their $billions, who had to pay a fine? They would have just paid.
So, because Bob Brown is not rich, is he has to lose his Senate seat?
Spare us the cynical remarks about Bob Brown’s “deity” ?
In today’s dismal political and climate environment, Brown remains one of the political figures with an integrity to admire.
why use Greg Barns at all in your Crikey columns? He obviously can’t stand the very legitimate criticism that has been levelled and he doesn’t deserve the space in your columns.
Barns argument ad hominem does no service to himself as a correspondent. Strange the way Forests in Tasmania so sharply divide the populace and the commentariat.
John Collins
Barns has an enduring grudge against the Greens - any chance to put the boot it, almost a reflex. Settling old scores?
Ian Sale
This is not a credible argument. I made the decision to financially support Bob Brown on the basis of my respect for the stand he has taken in this case and throughout his career - not because he is a senator or holder of public office.
We respect what he stands for and that he has the guts to take a risk on behalf of the rest of us for something he and we believe in. I feel privileged to be able to make a contribution to his efforts in my own small way. We want Bob Brown and the Greens to stay in Parliament
I find it incredible that you disregard the actions of Howard and Lennon who really fit the description of taking politics to a new low. Theirs was a real abuse of power.
Bob Brown has been a prominent figure in Australian life for decades and were he a private citizen I believe he would attract the same kind of support were he in such need. The comparison with a private citizen becoming bankrupt is ludicrous. Bob Brown is fighting to retain his senate seat and to continue his stand for Green values - not simply to avoid bankruptcy.
Sen Brown pursued a case for the public good on behalf of the public. He won in the first instance but then the unholy alliance of the Rodent, big biz & “labour” conspired to shif the goal posts and the cause was lost on a technicality. The seeking of costs were pure rat bastard vindictiveness, the effect being that of the ‘slap writ’ issued by Gunns against individuals (incl Brown wotta surprise).
In the case of the Customs airport whistleblower, an embarrassed Rdoent set his Praetorian Guard on a retired individual since sent broke, over a four years period, purely to punish the disclosure of wrong doing/culpable incompetence or worse.
First rule of revolution, shoot all the lawyers. In the meantime get them out of Parliament miught mean we have a less back rubbing, mutal m*sturbation legislature.
What is the propoirtion of lawyers in Parliament? Something like 60+, including even the likes of Garrett which shows the lack of ethic sor shame.
“Oh dear, I forgot Brown is a deity and attacking him is, to some anyway, akin to attacking the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa, which thankfully a few people do. Ah, thank goodness for skepticism!”
The only thing to be skeptical about is your understanding of the issue, Greg. Brown was acting in the public interest, but some reactionary from the liberal party wouldn’t even comprechend that concept…
That’s a bit unfair, Greg. We all know that Bob Brown did this and other things for the benefit of all, even if it was technically in his own name. He might have a well paid job as you say, Greg. But it’s a matter of record that he does dip into his own pocket to fund many of the projects he believes in. I’ve visited (as an observer - not a supporter) two of the properties purchased by the trust he set up to return grazing land to its original condition. They are well managed. The senator might lead a party with more than its fair share of naive loons but no way is he a loon himself. I believe we need this man in parliament and I was more than happy to contribute to the fund to pay this bill.
Regardless of Bob Brown’s personal finances, this is nothing less than a deliberate attack on our democratic process by a special interest group, for their own self-interest.
Quote !
(So to suggest, as Brown and his disciples are doing, that the Tasmanian government is in some sort of corrupt conspiracy to hound Brown from office is absolute bollocks. ) end Quote !
Whomever made that statement needs to keep his ear to the ground or perhaps live in Tasmania for awhile as any one with a modicum of smarts know’s how corrupt this Govt. is. Christ ! N.S.W are pussies in comparison and this comes from a person who has never supported Brown in any way, except perhaps through a strong desire to have logging cease in this pristine environment.
Wake up and smell the flowers , the majority of Tasmanians do not want ! and will not tolerate this stinking monstrosity in the state , also brown won the case ! Lennon and Howard then signed an agreement which changed the RFA, and then the appeal against Wielangta was lodged. Brown lost and gets slugged with a bill - all because Lennon and Howard moved the goalposts after Brown had won the case.
Don Davey
Launceston’
Tas.
It is onteresting, is it not, that after many years in politics, Bob Brown has no money. Hands up LibLab pollies who can say the same?
Reading the threads I am heartened by the positive feeling for Bob Brown and the negative for the author of the article. Bob Brown is a selfless human being who has commited his life to conserving rather than raping the environment unlike those who rigged the system to get him. My partner and I are more than happy to donate to what we think is a worthy cause.
As far as I am concerned Bob was acting on my behalf and I will therefore support him financially. Regrettable as it may be that many others are caught by the consequences of unsuccessful litigation, they are not acting for me and therefore don’t get my support.
Oh Greggy,
silly, silly.
This was clearly a political attack on the environmental movement. It’s entirely appropriate that this low attempt at intimidation be publicised in a political context. If he was trying to raise money after a court dispute with a neighbour about lawn-mowing that’d be a different matter.
Why did you even bother to write this?
bob speaks for me too.
Bob Brown’s ‘unforgiveable’ sin presumably is that he continues to get elected unlike a certain try hard candidate. Ouch.
Brown shoiuld pay his own legal bills. Take responsibility Bob.
Bob Brown is not the only conservationist in Australia to have taken legal action against the logging industry, lost and ended up with huge court costs. In the Otways a number of conservationists took legal action against loggers who treated them very badly in January 1999. These conservationists were trying to protect the Otway forests when loggers set up their own counter protest camp. The conservationists took the loggers the Forestry Union to the Supreme court arguing that they had been held prisoner for five days by the loggers. The court found the loggers guilty of doing some bad stuff but not guilty of false imprisonment. As a consequence the conservationists sort of won but also lost because they ended up having to pay huge legal costs, more than three times what Bob Brown has to pay. These conservationists like Bob Brown were acting on behalf of the whole community trying to help save the forests in the Otways. Ironically the area where this incident occurred has since become part of the Great Otway National Park and is protect for further logging. However these conservationists are still going to be bankrupted. I wonder if Bob Brown and his supporters will help pay the legal fees for these Otways conservationists who are all ‘heroes’ as well?
Why is Greg Barns permitted to write an article for Crikey when he knows less about the subject than most of his readers? Maybe I should start writing emotive articles on nuclear physics. Nuclear physics is obviously all about nuclear bombs so the teaching of this subject should immediately be banned from all our universities. I now await a call from Crikey.
Greg, your argument is so full of personal animus against Bob Brown that one could wonder precisely what kind of nerve he is striking. Is it his utter incorruptibility, his selfless devotion to the protection of our fragile environment against vandalism? As several other commentators have pointed out, his legal action was motivated entirely by public-spiritedness: he’s not some vexatious litigant out for personal gain.
And the only reason he lost the case on appeal at all is that the law was rewritten to suit Forestry Tasmania – THAT was what was scandalous. (Indeed, wasn’t it something more of a scandal how some years ago a certain Victorian premier cynically joked about the money he gained from libel laws?)
One of the freedoms our democracy still allows us ordinary people is to be able to choose to support the Bob Browns of this world. He speaks for the majority here: any survey you want to take shows that very few Australians want to keep clear-felling old-growth forests. And he’s not the first environmentalist to have to struggle against ruthless operators with bottomless pockets and a determination to silence all opposition.
Most of us, if faced with SLAPP writs, wouldn’t have the guts or the public profile needed to get the point across. And certainly not the resources. It is a scandal indeed that justice and the public interest can be defeated with buckets of money by litigious environmental vandals.
So what are you really saying, Greg? Are you saying that a person who can bring and win a case that is in the public interest should simply give up the whole fight because the disgruntled loser was able to get the law rewritten? What possible advantage to this country could there be if Bob Brown could be forced out of parliament essentially because of such deals to change the laws? Is that really the kind of society you want?
I’ll be contributing to Bob Brown’s fund because he speaks for me and for the vast majority, i.e. all the people in this country who don’t derive any benefit whatsoever from the rampant destruction of our irreplaceable old-growth forests.
I think it is actually quite a clever use of his profile to garner publicity for a multiplicity of causes. The bastardry of the Tasmanian government and its servants. The stench of an utterly corrupt legal system where, typically, the deepest pockets wins. And, of course, the original environmental issue, which I had not heard of until this week. I shall be donating.
Dear Greg
I’m spitting chips over your article. Bob Brown is one of the very few politicians in this country who’s opinions and practice measure up to the true meaning of ‘servant of the people.’ The shocking behavior of the forestry goons of Tasmania would pulp the whole place given a free hand. ‘Lets chop down all the trees, dam all the rivers and who gives a.’ Well I do and if Bob Brown is in financial trouble because he got of his backside and went in to bat for what remains of the Tasmanian forests then he can expect my support and will get it. Greg go plant a tree.
I mean to say, “Ironically the area where this incident occurred has since become part of the Great Otway National Park and is protect from further logging.” oops typo
Regardless of what anyone’s opinion of Bob Brown’s character and might be, the arguement put forward in this article is absurd! The court case was clearly instigated because of a belief in a cause greater than the indivdual involved, so clearly anyone else supporting that cause may naturally feel they wish to help, financially or otherwise. If it was someone other than Bob Brown involved there would still be publicity and support in the community, as long as there is support for the cause.
You don’t have to agree with the cause to see that this is a natural process (that happens all the time). Really, this article is just bizarre more than anything else. Very strange.
Right wingers complaining about the influence of money on politics
Crikey must of made a packet ads over this story, but alas,
it’s symptomatic of the overall decline of crikey of late
i fear it’s lost it’s edge,
too many idiots like this and also too much academic writing
By the way, donate here: http://www.on-trial.info/donate.htm
One element missing in the response by Matt Francis and others is this - Brown has known about this legal bill for many months but has only now decidedly to raise funds. Why did he not, right at the outset of the case, some years ago, ask for a fighting fund, or do so at least after the High Court refused Special Leave to Appeal?
And should politicians use their public office to raise funds for a legal action that was brought by the Party? Brown brought this action as a private citizen as he is entitled to do, but he is now using his position as a political party leader to run a fundraising appeal for himself?
Surely, even his keenest acolytes must be able to see that there is some cause for questions here?
“It is a good thing to follow the First Law of Holes: if you are in one, stop digging.”
Greg, he DID set up a fighting fund at the very beginning of the case - do a bit of research!
Greg, the cause for question for even Howard’s keenest acolytes is surely whether it is ethical, legal, fair, reasonable etc to change the law in the middle of a case. Seeing as the unholy Howard/Lennon alliance saw fit to act in such a manner surely all bets are off over what is and/or isn’t ‘proper’ behavior for Brown in attempting to ameliorate his position.
It really doesn’t matter when Bob knew about his bill - the point is he was put in this predicament by the underhand and Machiavellian machinations of Howard, and so the high moral ground you are so amusingly trying to occupy was ceded by your erstwhile leader long ago.
Still. your hyperventilating is well worth the subscription fee.
“There is nothing sinister about Forestry Tasmania”
Wake up Greg. This is truly a first rate piece of crap that you have subjected us to. Go and write something up to the Crikey standard we are used to and demand from you.
Paul Cumming and indeedmy colleague Bernard Keane misunderstand the impact of the amendments passed by the Howard government and the Lennon government in Tasmania after Brown won his case in the Federal Court. The impact was precisely nil.
I would refer readers to this passage from the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Brown v Forestry Tasmania, handed down on 30 November 2007:
“The amendment to cl 68 of the RFA, insofar as it relates to CAR, simply puts in clearer language what we regard as the true meaning of the original clause.”
And this:
“In our view the clarification effected by the new cl 68, which would have been unnecessary but for the erroneous decision below, does not rob the RFA of its character of a regional forest agreement as defined.”
It is all very well to seize the legal ground here-as we all know the Law is akin to writing a thesis, you can write, or arrive at anything one wants as long as there is precedent.
And ample research to prove one’s point (pity Andrew Bolt couldn’t do this).
All one needs is a judge-professor-to look kindly upon one’s work. And within the bounds of legality and points abc.1-4990, the court finds against Bob Brown.
Wherein lies the first real victim in these proceedings? A poor, tattered but once powerful motivator of human endeavour, one which the law has, along with everyone else in any form of power, especially corporations, thrown overboard in their obscene rush to make millions of dollars at the expense of the land.
Her name happens to be Morality. And piously falling back on the specifics of the law in order to allow the utterly immoral practice of clear-felling our precious native forests in order to be turned into pulpwood to be sent to Japan and turned into lavatory-paper which we then buy back again is an affront to all decency. To put these rolls of infamy onto our super-market shelves is the perfect illustration of how little value is placed upon our world, and that of our childrens’ world for the future.
I would love to see what the law had to say if these non-renewable forests of ours would be seen in a parallel case by a judge if the were the Sistine Chapel which was the issue at stake. You may notice it too is non-renewable.
Greg, what on earth is wrong with anything Bob Brown has done here? Geez Louise, he is acting for your future as well. If you don’t agree with him well fine – no-one is holding a gun to try to make you contribute. In the meantime the rest of us can exercise our democratic right to contribute if we want to.
Or, could it just be (bear with me here – I could be just a tad over-suspicious in which case ignore the rest) that you are trying to blow enough smoke to make the uninformed say ‘no smoke without fire’? Why on earth? What the hell has this decent man done to get up your nose?
Hey, Greg, it’s all your own smoke; no fire here. And he is not going to be bankrupted by backroom deals and forced out of parliament by a bunch of corrupt forest-destroyers, not if I and the rest of his contributors can help it. So move on. Get over it. Get a life. Whatever.
… And he’s made the amount. Good.
See http://www.on-trial.info/ Breaking news.
“Each year thousands of Australians are dragged through the indignity of legal proceedings to ensure they pay the costs of the other party, when they lose a case.” Yeah but do they represent my views in the senate? Are their cases fought on my behalf as a supporter of Tasmanian forests? Am I a stakeholder in the outcome of their cases? No. I don’t support Bob Brown because I feel sorry for him! I support him because he is an *extremely* effective advocate for views that I strongly hold. If some dude goes into bankruptcy because his ‘Jim’s Cleaning’ franchise goes to shit, I fail to see how donating money to him/her maintains representation of my political views in the senate or contributes to a sustainable future.
The Zebras. thank god there are a lot of Australians who are prepared to pull their heads out of their bums, look around themselves and do good for the sake of the Nation.
I imagine you are the sort of person who tells newcomers to go back where they come from. So here’s one Australian who tells you the same thing.
Run away little manwoman
Venise, WTF?
Venise - we’re on the same side you eeediot! Think! Thinking is sooo important!
this battler very happy to juggle the budget to contribute to Bob Brown’s cause. Yes, he makes far more money than we do.
But, he works so bravely and well on our behalf and, sorry, Greg, I do so admire him for walking his talk. So unusual in our nation these days.
And what a heaven sent opportunity to send a message to:
Forestry Tas,
David Bartlett
and those shadowy Lennonesque and Howardly figures.
maybe even Peter Garrett.
Irrestistible!
There will always be shrapnel for Bob.
The score thus far:
Greg: Nil
Bob and the rest: Plenty.
Greg, if it is not already too late to do so, please grow up, look around you and consider the wider moral and ethical implications of your rants before launching them.
There is a whole world out there with finite resources, warm and caring people and unimaginable complexity of life forms.
Your article and your responses to criticism show neither awareness of this world nor sign of compassionate caring life even within your own skin.
Please, for your own sake, lighten up! Take yourself less seriously and go get a few new friends.
Sorry Kate, I get emotional about our gorgeous trees being hacked down for lavatory paper. LP gets flushed down the lavatory. Thousands of years of beauty, wildlife torn down. Ask yourself. Do you really think it’s worth it?
Just a quick point about the Otway’s legal cases: Adrian Whitehead was one victim of an axe, or was it axe handle attack to the head, and won some kind of legal redress. No doubt the kind of unionist violence Gillard was talking against recently, most ironic as her ex boyfriend Michael O’Connor was in charge of the logger union.
And I say this as along time member of the ASU, soft cuddly community services union.
And in East Gippsland public interest defender Tony Hastings was stuck in major legal case against illegal logging and I was gratified to be able to help him in a legal support sense, and due to his own guts and determination he won a famous legal victory.
All on John Brumby/Bracks watch actually as wet old growth/rainforest was illegally logged.
Tony Hastings, or Tony Quoll as his artistic moniker goes, has a great website you can google anytime and there are some stories on my blogging about his case.
Greg, fancy you castigating Bob Brown, while at the same time ignoring the reality of the Tasmanian Government’s attempts to screw up not only Tasmania but the planet as well. The role and importance of Gunns in the running of the govt is a disgrace. We all know, that the ‘little people’ aren’t meant to even succeed in achieving what the majority want, and the Courts are usually there to uphold their views and those of the small elite or really run this country.
If not for people like Bob Brown and the thousands who supported him, here and around the world, the Franklin River would be no more. I purchased goods and donated money then, and if we choose to do it again now, what damned business is it of yours? I only wish I could contribute more, and I thank those people who did. This whole sorry mess was designed to shut Bob and those who are against the destruction of Tasmania’s beautiful forests. That’s the reality, and Bob refused to play.
IF you were interested in a balanced view, which you obviously aren’t; and if you were interested in upholding free speech and the ordinary person’s right to access the legal process, of which our taxes pay for, which you aren’t; and if you upheld any individuals or groups right to protest, then this attack would’ve been superfulous. I’ll help support the upgrading of support against the Pulp Mill’s construction, and people like you won’t put me off.
What role will you play when the old forests around the country have all gone, and the planet is slowly choking in its own filth? Probably screaming the loudest about the destruction of the planet, and us apathetic lot who allowed it to happen. Bob Brown has more integrity in his little finger than you’d have in your whole body, if it was twice its size! For his tireless struggles on behalf of the future of my kids and grand kids, I thank him!
Venise, I’m with you, and so was “The Zebras”, that’s why I couldn’t understand why you were getting stuck into him/her/them!
Ooer Chr-st! I apologize most profoundly to The Zebras. and to Kate.
In my hyper-sensitive mode I completely misread The Zebras comment to mean.
“I don’t vote for Bob Brown” Period.
God I can be a clown when I set my mind to it. Once again, fulsome apologies! Grovel grovel.