Notes: Wednesday, December 21, 2011-Wednesday, January 11, 2012 (part 2 of 2)

8. H.H. The Pope's homily at a Mass on the 2012 World Day of Peace (January 1): In at least one respect, a vast improvement on His Holiness's Message ("Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace") for the celebration of the 2011 World Day of Peace:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20120101_world-day-peace_en.html

(That homily came to my attention via this item in a recent edition of the Vatican Information Service's (V.I.S.'s) daily e-mail bulletin:

"IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATING YOUNG PEOPLE IN JUSTICE AND PEACE"
VIS 20120102 (1090)
http://www.news.va/en/news/importance-of-educating-young-people-in-justice-an

See also this V.I.S. daily e-mail bulletin item:

"ANGELUS: PRAYING THAT THE NEW YEAR MAY BE A TIME OF PEACE"
VIS 20120102 (440)
http://www.news.va/en/news/angelus-praying-that-the-new-year-may-be-a-time-of)

Labels: Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, religious liberty

9. On the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

9.1 "ALL new laws will be checked to see whether they stack up against Australia's human rights commitments, after Attorney-General Nicola Roxon declared the sharper focus on rights would ensure legislation lived up to the nation's obligations"

"Laws to face human rights check", by Patricia Karvelas, dated January 4, 2012, downloaded from The Australian's website:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/laws-to-face-human-rights-check/story-fn59niix-1226235954400

Labels: Bill of Rights, human rights

9.2 Two editorials in The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-case-for-trusting-the-judgment-of-parliament/story-e6frg71x-1226236809315

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-right-to-common-sense/story-e6frg71x-1226237750214

Labels: Bill of Rights, human rights

9.3 In relation to the so-called Malaysia Solution:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/the-malaysia-solution-ducks-rights-scrutiny/story-fn9hm1gu-1226236845046

Labels: Bill of Rights, human rights

10. A major new initiative for propagating the teachings of Vatican II

"Note with pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith", from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated January 6, 2012:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20120106_nota-anno-fede_en.html

See here for the accompanying "Communiqué on the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith".

(The web-page for the text of the Note came to my attention via this post by Terra; originally, the Note came to my attention via the following V.I.S. e-mail bulletin items:

"PASTORAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH"
VIS 20120105 (770)
http://www.news.va/en/news/pastoral-recommendations-for-the-year-of-faith

"PASTORAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH"
VIS 20120107 (1430)
http://www.news.va/en/news/pastoral-recommendations-for-the-year-of-faith-2)

Labels: C.E.C., Roman Curia, Vatican II

11. "[Catholics and others] will either have to change their views [on marriage] or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40323

Labels: discrimination, G.L.B.T., marriage, religious liberty

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Hyginus, Pope, Martyr, A.D. 2012

Notes: Tuesday, March 8-Tuesday, March 15, 2011 (part 1 of 2)

1. A couple of recent developments regarding euthanasia

1.1 "TASMANIA is poised to become the first state to legalise voluntary euthanasia"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/state-to-push-for-mercy-killing/story-e6frg6nf-1226017319925

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=25378

Labels: euthanasia, Tasmania

1.2 "SUPPORT for voluntary euthanasia in NSW is running at 83 per cent, with only 10 per cent of people implacably opposed"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/support-for-voluntary-euthanasia-at-85-20110310-1bpsm.html?skin=text-only

Labels: euthanasia

2. An amusing example of gay outrage

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/a-channel-ten-newsreader-has-apologised-after-calling-mardi-gras-disgusting-on-air/story-e6freuy9-1226017840089

When I blogged in late 2008 on the revelation that the N.S.W. State government was directly to fund the Sodomites' Parade, a commenter asked jokingly

But, Pole, it's so *colourful* - how could you possibly object?
[http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/10/taxpayers-to-fund-sodomites-parade.html?showComment=1223032140000#c296515895030110427]

Luckily I didn't say the following, or I might have been reported to some Anti-Discrimination Commissar:

“With respect, there’s a difference between colourful and disgusting in some cases.”

Mr. Tim Dick wrote about the fiasco in a column in Saturday's Herald:

... on Monday, Channel Ten's Ron Wilson suggested elements of the parade crossed the line from ''colourful'' to ''disgusting'' during an interview with the organisation's co-chairman, Pete Urmson. He batted the suggestion away without too much difficulty, and at the end of the discussion, Wilson congratulated him on the success of the festival and parade.

But it prompted a brief bit of predictable ''outrage'' nonetheless. He was homophobic, he was ignorant, he was narrow-minded. His prejudice was the disgusting thing. Something must be done, and someone inevitably threatened an anti-discrimination complaint.

Wilson was duly back the next morning to apologise for any offence caused, and for good measure threw in some support for the gay marriage campaign.

I wish he hadn't. The over-apology was an over-reaction to an over-reaction.

Journalists are supposed to ask difficult questions, and despite Wilson using a clanger of a word, it was one reference in a longer interview generally positive towards Mardi Gras. ...
[http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/whats-there-to-hide-its-a-sin-to-omit-the-emitters-20110311-1br71.html?skin=text-only]

Labels: G.L.B.T., Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, Ron Wilson

3. "Catholica no longer appears on the [Australian Catholic Bishops Conference] list of links"

http://beyondpews.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/quietly-removed/

Labels: A.C.B.C., Catholica Australia

4. Launch of a proposal for a N.S.W. Bill of Rights

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shes-baaaackkk-20110309-1bnaq.html?skin=text-only

Labels: Bill of Rights, N.S.W.

5. Two "openly gay" N.S.W. Liberal election candidates "support ... removing exemptions to the Anti-Discrimination Act"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/liberals-challenge-greens-for-the-gay-vote-20110311-1br84.html?skin=text-only

Labels: Adrian Bartels, Bruce Notley-Smith, discrimination, G.L.B.T., Liberal Party, N.S.W.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
15.III.2011

Notes: Friday, December 3, 2010

1. "Water pollution turning birds gay say scientists"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/water-pollution-turning-birds-gay-say-scientists/story-e6frg6so-1225964592809

2. "[Victorian] Charter [of Human Rights] opens door to Sharia law recognition"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/charter-opens-door-to-sharia-law-recognition/story-e6frg8zx-1225964766903

3. Russian Orthodox teachings regarding the State

Via this blog comment I came across a Russian Orthodox document on social doctrine, which has a fascinating page on the Russian Orthodox doctrine of the State and of the Church's relation thereto. If I have time next week I might blog about it in detail.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Francis Xavier, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Notes: Friday, October 29, 2010

For future reference: Prof. Bagaric on his moral philosophy

... I regularly make wide-ranging comments that conflict with policies of the Left and Right. I'm apolitical; the policies of Labor and Liberal are so similar to make the debate almost irrelevant. Most of my writing is informed by one underlying principle. It's called utilitarianism. It is the theory that when you are faced with a moral or political choice you should make the decision that will maximise human flourishing, where each person's interest counts equally.

The Left doesn't like me because I'm a fan of tough counter-terrorism laws and harsher sentences for sex and violent offenders. I also oppose euthanasia, abortion and dispute the desperate need for a reduction in greenhouse gases. I often upset the Right because I push for gay marriages, animal rights, no tax for the poor and mega taxes for the rich, multiculturalism and tolerance towards Muslim values.
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mutant-rebels-need-some-causes/story-e6frg6zo-1225944885437]

"Salazar and Catholic Social Teaching"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34429

Excerpt of most interest to me:

Salazar was above all things a Christian and a Catholic. Yet, for the revival of religion or the restoration of the Church he had done so little positively that some foreign observers had even taken scandal thereat. General Franco, who in so many ways resembled him, had done much more in 12. Why this? Some had attributed it to timidity. But Salazar was not timid. His personal influence had been exerted to its utmost for religion.

If then, he had moved so slowly there must have been grave reason. Salazar felt that State patronage exercised against the present disposition of important sections of opinion, would not help to anchor the Church in the hearts of the people.

He thought it wiser to give the Church freedom and let it rebuild from the base upwards upon new and better foundations than could be laid by any statesman setting it up as a department of the new State. In giving the Church liberty and equality before the law he had already done much.

"Qld pro-abortion MPs would face 12% against them, says survey"

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=23973

"Tasmanian Labor-Green Coalition Government has released a discussion paper on a Human Rights bill"

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/10/secularist-attacks.html
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=30717

Interesting comment by Mr. Schütz:

Yes, and I am not rejecting that centuries old tradition and synthesis in any way. The problem comes when this synthesis is read back into the exegesis of the scriptural passages, thus missing an important element in the understanding of the passage (nb. I am not saying that the passage cannot be legitimately understood in other ways, but that we must have appreciation for how it sounded to the first readers). When it comes to the Lutheran Catholic dialogue, it is quite appropriate to argue about “infused grace” or “imparted righteousness” over against “imputed righteousness” and “forensic justification”, as long as we understand that this was not Paul’s argument. And that is important, because the Lutheran argument is that Catholic doctrine is “unscriptural”, not “untrue”. The fact is that Lutheran doctrine is “unscriptural” too, because the scriptures they quote to support their position doesn’t address their position any more than it addresses the Catholic position.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/taking-your-greek-bible-to-church/#comment-17856]

H.H. The Pope on, among other things, "the depenalisation of abortion [and] euthanasia"

Excerpts from an item from today's edition of the Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletin:

BRAZIL: CHURCH TEACHES MAN HIS DIGNITY AS CHILD OF GOD

VATICAN CITY, 28 OCT 2010 (VIS) - Prelates from the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (Northeast region 5) who have just complete their five-yearly "ad limina" visit were received this morning by the Holy Father. [...]

"First, the duty of direct action to ensure a just ordering of society falls to the lay faithful who, as free and responsible citizens, strive to contribute to the just configuration of social life, while respecting legitimate autonomy and natural moral law", the Holy Father explained. "Your duty as bishops, together with your clergy, is indirect because you must contribute to the purification of reason, and to the moral awakening of the forces necessary to build a just and fraternal society. Nonetheless, when required by the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls, pastors have the binding duty to emit moral judgments, even on political themes".

"When forming these judgements, pastors must bear in mind the absolute value of those ... precepts which make it morally unacceptable to chose a particular action which is intrinsically evil and incompatible with human dignity. This decision cannot be justified by the merit of some specific goal, intention, consequence or circumstance, Thus it would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defence of the right to life from conception to natural end. When it comes to defending the weakest, who is more defenceless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or comatose state?"

"When political projects openly or covertly contemplate the depenalisation of abortion or euthanasia, the democratic ideal (which is truly democratic when it recognises and protects the dignity of all human beings) is betrayed at its very foundations. For this reason, dear brothers in the episcopate, when defending life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, rejecting all compromise and ambiguity which would conform us to the mentality of this world". [...]
AL/ VIS 20101028 (630)
[my square-bracketed interpolations]

Blog comments by me

Just this one:

Cardinal Pole
October 29, 2010 at 2:52 am

Here’s the rectified link:

http://coo-eesfromthecloister.blogspot.com/search/label/Fr%20Crothers
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/our-st-mary-more-likely-to-pray-for-vocations-than-to-challenge-for-women-priests/#comment-17874]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

29.X.2010

Notes: Monday-Tuesday, June 7-8, 2010

"Human rights by back door"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-by-back-door-20100606-xn8a.html?skin=text-only

Full article: (it's only short)

THE man whose recommendation for a human rights act was rejected by the Rudd government believes much of what he proposed will be adopted through the back door.

Frank Brennan chaired the consultation committee that recommended an act that would allow judges to assess Commonwealth laws and practices for their compliance with human rights.

Writing in a coming Australia Institute newsletter, Father Brennan says that although the government rejected the idea in April, it accepted other recommendations that would have much the same effect.

He says that as a result: ''Parliament will legislate to ensure that each new bill is accompanied by a statement to which it is compatible with the seven UN human rights treaties.''

Ultimately, Father Brennan says, Australia will require a human rights act to set workable limits.

But here is Fr. Brennan's response:

Transparent rights

You report that I believe that much of what the National Human Rights Consultation Committee proposed "will be adopted through the back door" (''Human rights by back door'', June 7). To the contrary, I believe much of what we proposed, other than a Human Rights Act, will be achieved by the government's national human rights framework; and some of what we proposed through a Human Rights Act will be achieved by the courts rightly applying the legislation introduced to Parliament last week. Nothing back door about any of that.

These are front door measures in which the executive, Parliament and the courts will play their distinctive roles transparently in the public domain, improving the protection of human rights.

Father Frank Brennan Chairman, National Human Rights Consultation Committee, Yarralumla (ACT)
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/stop-the-waffle-and-do-whats-right-for-australia-20100607-xqjh.html?skin=text-only]

"Backlash over Church of England's move to allow divorced bishops"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/backlash-over-church-of-englands-move-to-allow-divorced-bishops/story-e6frg6so-1225876189319

Excerpt:

DIVORCED clergy could be allowed to become Church of England bishops for the first time.

Church leaders have discussed the move and are set to reveal their decision next month at the General Synod, the national assembly of the Church of England.

[...] The change was agreed to at a meeting of the House of Bishops, the newspaper said.

A Church of England spokesman said the house considered the issue last month after seeking legal advice. "The house had asked for clarification of the relevant legal background and, in the light of that, has now agreed that a statement setting out its approach to these issues should be prepared," the spokesman said.

"It is expected that the statement addressing the relevant legal and theological issues will be available in July when the General Synod meets.

"There is no legal obstacle to persons who have remarried after divorce, or are married to spouses remarried after divorce, becoming bishops. The agreed policy is to pursue a discretionary approach on a case-by-case basis.

It will be interesting to see what goes on at the forthcoming General Synod, not just for its decision on this policy, but its decisions on other matters too.

AQ thread on post-Vatican-II changes to the celebration of the Sacraments

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31985

Particularly useful is this comment (though its source is sedevacantist).

Mr. Coyne on Original Sin

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=49310

Here's the relevant paragraph:

I think a large part of the problem with "Original Sin" comes from the name itself. I think that perhaps if we called it "the fundamental disjunction" or some different expression like that it wouldn't have ended up attracting such a negative press. My sense is that it is NOT trying to tell us about some "first sin" committed by some "first parents" and we are saddled with their transgression and have to perpetually do penance for it until we are "redeemed" by some magic act by Jesus. It's trying to convey to us (humankind) that there is a "fundamental disjunction" built into creation and we are perpetually fighting against it as it were. To my own mind the "disjunction" is a by-product of the choice, or right to participation, that was extended to sentient creation. The by-product is that in our choices we will inevitably also make wrong choices — often for the very best of intentions. Our offspring very often cannot 'undo' the consequences of those wrong choices. The Godhead, or heaven (to use another term), is the only place in the whole of Creation where we are likely to get to a place where this 'disjunction' is finally resolved, ironed flat, or ruled out of contention as a factor in our lives. In the Christian context, Jesus represents the God-head, so it is true to argue that Jesus is the one who wipes away Original Sin or this Original Disjunction that we all have to battle against like Sisyphus perpetually rolling his stone up a steep hill. But it is not some "magic act" by Jesus that wipes away "the original disjunction" — it's by our entering into "the Way" (of thinking, feeling and acting) modelled by Jesus.

More from him on these matters here. This sort of thinking is nothing new at the Catholica forum, of course; see here and here for further coverage.

Two events, one recent and one upcoming:

1. The recent one:

Cardinal George Pell - Diary & Events
Thursday, June 3: 10am Chairs, NSW/ACT bishops’ meeting at St Mary’s Cathedral House, Sydney.
[http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/diary_and_events.shtml]

2. The upcoming one:

The sixth annual St Thomas More Forum lecture will be held from 6.30pm, for 7pm, on June 22 at the Canberra Southern Cross Club, 92–96 Corinna St, Phillip, ACT. The topic is St Thomas More – The Friend of Bishops. It will be presented by Archbishop Phillip Wilson, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Archbishop of Adelaide. The cost is $50 per person. Bookings close on June 14. For more details ring 6201 9814.
[http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=74&articleID=7020&class=Features&subclass=Parish
noticeboard]

See also this advertisement for the lecture.

Blog comments by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
June 8, 2010 at 12:40 am

“what “Cardinal Pole” says it flat wrong and contradictory to the Gospel and Christ’s church, but at least it is Catholic”

I have shown that the Social Reign of Christ is not “flat wrong” by natural-law reasoning. Now can you show how it is “contradictory to the Gospel and Christ’s church”?
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/simon-shama-on-the-snares-of-history-for-the-secular-humanist/#comment-15185]

Cardinal Pole
June 8, 2010 at 2:29 am

Oh, and our friends at Catholica helpfully remind us that the Roman Empire was not the first Catholic Confessional State:

“An extraordinary Christian called Gregory (known as the Enlightener or Illuminator) stepped into the breach and filled the vacuum. Like many of the saints of this period his life has been seriously obscured with fabulous legend. He is supposed to have been the son of a Parthian who had murdered King Khosrov I of Armenia. The baby Gregory was taken to Caesarea in Cappadocia where he was baptized and brought up. He married there and had two sons before returning to Armenia where he succeeded in converting King Tiridates III to Christianity at about the same time as the victory over the Persians; this after fourteen years of incarceration in a pit, presumably at the hands of the Zoroastrians, who were opposed to his mission. Having been consecrated as a bishop at Caesarea, Gregory spent the remainder of his life preaching and organizing the church in Armenia. Tiridates III helpfully destroyed the Zoroastrian sanctuary at Ashtishat that had been built on a pagan foundation, and erected a church in its place. He decreed Christianity the official religion of his country, the first ruler in the world to do so.”
[http://www.catholica.com.au/specials/first500-2/057_tl_080609.php]
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/simon-shama-on-the-snares-of-history-for-the-secular-humanist/#comment-15186]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
8.VI.2010

Mr. Carr on the latest development in the push for an Australian charter of rights

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/rights-charter-like-a-dead-parrot-20090604-bx1t.html?page=-1

The Hon. Bob Carr, former Premier of New South Wales, has an opinion piece in today’s Sydney Morning Herald in which he describes how advocates of an Australian charter of rights propose to obviate the barrier posed by the High Court’s incapacity to issue ‘declarations of incompatibility’. He speaks of

the scramble to come up with another version at a meeting in April convened by the Australian Human Rights Commission [A.H.R.C.].

This new model may be constitutional. Michael McHugh thinks it is. But it is politically indigestible. In it the Human Rights Commission boldly claims for itself a role in forcing the reshaping of federal laws. To quote its website, "The commission would be empowered, at the request of a party to the proceeding or of its own motion, to notify the attorney-general of a finding of inconsistency."

It goes on to say the attorney-general would be required to table this opinion in Federal Parliament and the government to respond within a defined period. That is, an elected government would be required to legislate to over-rule the objection served on it by the Human Rights Commission.

In other words, the only way of rendering a charter of rights constitutional is to give the Australian Human Rights Commission a role in effectively striking down laws. This recasts it as an annexe to the High Court. As the state Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, put it, the commission - an administrative body - would become "a kind of Clayton's court".

The web page to which Mr. Carr refers is here.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Ember Friday of Pentecost, A.D. 2009

Mr. Ackland and others on an Australian bill of rights

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/human-rights-dialogue-develops-a-stutter-20090312-8wcd.html?page=-1
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/13/1236919563684.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rights_charter_a_rewrite/

Mr. Richard Ackland had an opinion piece in last Friday’s Sydney Morning Herald on the prospective Australian bill or charter of rights. In this piece he reported on the pro-charter views of former High Court judge The Hon. Michael McHugh A.C. Q.C.:

Far better and constitutionally stronger [than a specified ‘dialogue model’ of rights legislation], McHugh says, to adopt the 1960 Canadian model of a legislative bill of rights, and use it to give effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This would create a "judicially enforceable" regime with remedies for breaches of rights. However, politicians could still stay in charge by inserting "notwithstanding" clauses into legislation to remove provisions from the need to be compatible with a human rights act.
(http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/human-rights-dialogue-develops-a-stutter-20090312-8wcd.html?page=-1)

Now how bizarre is that—a human rights charter that Parliament can override at will. What could the point of such a charter possibly be if Parliament can override it with such ease?!

The next day the Herald published a letter from Ms Catherine Branson, the President of the pro-charter Australian Human Rights Commission, in which she mentioned a couple of other possible features of an Australian charter of rights, as well as the one that Mr. Justice McHugh mentioned:

A declaration of incompatibility is only one possible feature of such an act. Others include requiring Parliament to scrutinise the human rights impact of new laws; requiring courts and decision makers to interpret laws consistently with human rights; and providing enforceable remedies for actions of public authorities that breach human rights.
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/13/1236919563684.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

I suppose that the first feature—requiring Parliament to scrutinise the human rights impact of its legislation—is pretty unobjectionable, but even to a non-jurist such as myself the second proposed feature—requiring courts to interpret laws consistent with legislated human rights—seemed rather odd. The Australian’s letters section of the same day showed that I was not alone in my concern:

Such a move would destroy any certainty about the future meaning of any federal law.

A ruling by a possibly idiosyncratic High Court judge could decide that the plain meaning of a certain wording was incompatible with the ICCPR’s [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’s] interpretation, and therefore must be interpreted to mean something else. This has already happened in the UK and the ACT.
(http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rights_charter_a_rewrite/)

wrote one Roslyn Phillips. The third proposal—enforceable remedies for human rights breaches—also seems rather dubious to me, especially since, as Mr. Justice McHugh acknowledges, Parliament could simply opt out of it at will! It seems to me that the pro-charter lobby is already scraping the bottom of the barrel (and here we are only talking about how a charter of rights would operate—no-one even knows yet what rights such a charter would contain).

Reginaldvs Cantvar
16.III.2009 A.D.

Fr. Brennan on the National Human Rights Consultation Committee

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24831528-7583,00.html

Rev. Fr. Frank Brennan S.J. A.O. has an interesting piece in today’s The Australian on a charter of rights and the work of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, of which he is the Chairman. It begins by reminding the reader that

The Government has asked the four-member committee to consult the Australian community on three questions:

Which human rights (including corresponding responsibilities) should be protected and promoted? Are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted? How could Australia better protect and promote human rights?

The first question is, though: what do the Government and its collaborators mean by a ‘human right’? In an age in which the Sex Discrimination Commissoner can make the inexplicable, but apparently unchallenged, assertion that ‘there can no longer be any doubt that paid maternity leave is a basic human right’, and the Victorian charter of rights explicitly excludes coverage of child destruction and abortion, one has to begin by clarifying just what are human rights, and when exactly does a human begin to enjoy them?

It’s interesting to note also that Fr. Brennan says that

Any options for change "should preserve the sovereignty of the parliament and not include a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights".

It’s interesting that the word ‘sovereignty’ is used, rather than saying instead something like ‘should preserve the power/influence of Parliament’. As students of political science know well, there is ‘soft power’ and there is ‘hard power’, and it’s hard to see how a legislated bill of rights could avoid transferring power and influence to the judiciary from the legislature.

And I was a little surprised to read Fr. Brennan writing that

During the abortion debate in Victoria this year I argued that politicians, public servants and some civil libertarians showed scant regard for the Victorian Charter's right to freedom of conscience when they insisted that the new abortion law include compulsory referral of a patient by a doctor who had a conscientious objection to abortion.

I thought interference with the doctor's right could not be justified because the intended purpose of the interference could be met by the state providing the patient with information about available abortion providers.
(my emphasis)

But I would have thought that interference with the doctors’ right could not be justified simple because it is involved an explicit directive to defy one’s conscience, regardless of whatever alternatives might have been available.

Fr. Brennan goes on to provide some data on support for a legislated bill of rights. He notes that submissions to inquiries on the matter largely supported human rights legislation, but Father fails to note what proportion of these submissions came from activists rather than citizens with no explicit political/activist affiliations, or what proportion of citizens even bothered to participate in the inquiries. I was surprised, though, to read that

A public opinion survey revealed that 89 per cent of respondents believed that WA should have a law that aims to protect the human rights of people.

It would have been interesting to know exactly what the survey question was. Not at all surprising, though, was Father’s observation that

The result has been the passage of human rights laws in Victoria and the ACT without any strong, broad-based community opposition.

But a lack of “strong, broad-based community opposition” is probably just a sign of apathy, not approval.

Fr. Brennan gets to the crux of what he would view as the case for a charter here:

From my 27 years of involvement in issues relating to human rights and civil liberties, I am convinced our existing arrangements are most under strain in three instances: when the major political parties acting in the "national interest" agree to overlook the basic rights of a powerless minority; when the government of the day controls the Senate; and when the majority of High Court judges cannot see their way clear while interpreting a statute to uphold long-treasured common-law rights and freedoms.

What exactly he means by ‘powerless minorities’ is not clear; if he is referring to refugees then there is clearly a whole range of other issues to consider that aren’t relevant to the question of how to balance the liberties of local citizens with their duties to the common good. Meanwhile on the domestic front one can imagine that the Sodomites’ League would be only too happy to claim for itself the title of ‘powerless minority’ and demand its confected ‘rights’ by appeal to this status. As for problems with the High Court, this is connected to Fr. Brennan’s interesting observation that

Those who oppose bills of rights in any form face a novel problem. In the past, Australian judges could refer to decisions by their colleagues in Britain, Canada and New Zealand. Those jurisdictions now have their own bills of rights, with the result that their judicial decisions are less likely to be useful to judges who continue to work without the aid of a bill of rights. This judicial isolation is compounded by internal judicial fragmentation, with Victorian and ACT judges deciding cases through a bill of rights template while other judges do not.

But the argument that ‘they have one, so let’s get one too’ could have done with a bit more elaboration by Fr. Brennan; I would have been interested to see the implications of this teased out.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
22.XII.2008 A.D.

More from Prof. Irving on an Australian Bill of Rights

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/constitutionally_doubtful/

Prof. Helen Irving of The University of Sydney had a letter published in The Australian yesterday in which she challenged (rather more mildly than I would have) the arguments of Prof. George Williams, a bill of rights advocate:

Recognising such doubts [regarding proposed High Court ‘Declarations of Incompatibility’], [Prof. George] Williams suggests that the best way to proceed is to legislate for such a model, and see what the High Court says. To promote an Act that might be struck down before it begins can hardly be satisfactory, either for advocates or for the Government’s credibility. Williams also argues that New Zealand provides a suitable alternative model for Australia. The NZ Bill of Rights Act only requires courts to interpret legislation consistently with the rights and freedoms it contains. It prohibits the courts from ruling that any laws are invalid or unenforceable for inconsistency with these rights. This will not satisfy most Australian rights’ advocates. It may also impact adversely on the High Court’s constitutional powers to rule on the validity of other laws.

I had been wondering how a legislated charter of rights could possibly have any value (other than as a symbol) if it did not provide for ‘Declarations of Compatibility’. Now we know: there could be a requirement for the High Court to interpret future laws according to the legislated Charter. But clearly this raises problems of its own, as Prof. Irving suggests. Also, I thought that the High Court’s role was to interpret legislation according to the Constitution—not according to other pieces of legislation! Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional too? This is all very baffling. It is becoming clearer by the day that the human rights mafia does not have a leg to stand on in this matter. But that hasn’t stopped it on other occasions, I suppose.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
17.XII.2008 A.D.

Mr. Akerman and Mr. Kelly on an Australian Bill of Rights

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24781015-5001031,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24791480-12250,00.html?from=public_rss
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/mandate_for_bill_of_rights_an_improbable_claim/

Mr. Piers Akerman had a good opinion piece in last Thursday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph. Though I did not agree with all of it (particularly, I reject his assertion that “we have a common law system and parliamentary democracy which ultimately derives its power from us, the people”), it offered a timely reminder that

history shows that most Australians are far too sensible to want to remove the power they have entrusted to their elected representatives and pass it to unelected judges.

In September 1988, when proposals which included certain human rights measures were put to a referendum, they were comprehensively defeated in every state. …
(http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24781015-5001031,00.html)

The Australian Electoral Commission’s website has a bit more information on this (http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Referendum_Dates_and_Results.htm). There, we read that the defeated 1988 proposal sought

to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government

In no State did a majority of electors vote in favour of it, and the national percentage of electors in favour of it was a mere 30.79. One suspects that, twenty years on, these results would only be reproduced if a similar proposal were put to a referendum. So given that Australians have rejected human rights being enshrined explicitly in the very Constitution of the Commonwealth, whyever would they bother having them recognised in a mere piece of legislation? But I suppose that the human rights mafia would answer that we just don’t know what’s good for us.

The Australian’s Editor-at-Large Mr. Paul Kelly had an even better opinion piece on the latest thrust for a bill of rights at the weekend, offering a comprehensive overview of the case against a rights charter. Again, I did not agree with all of (I don’t share his enthusiasm for democracy as the guarantor of rights, and we probably wouldn’t even agree on what a human right is), but it was particularly welcome for its amplification of the argument that an Australian bill of rights with an advisory role for the High Court would be unconstitutional (Mr. Kelly cited former chief justice Gerard Brennan and even Prof. George Williams, a vociferous advocate for a Federal charter), its reminder of how strongly pro-Charter the Federal Attorney-General is:

McClelland is a passionate believer of long standing who has backed strong change. In his June 2000 speech as shadow attorney-general, he called for a legislated charter of rights, attacked the founding fathers for bigotry over not including such measures in the Constitution, dismissed any notion of common law safeguards, mocked the idea of a democratically elected government being sufficient to safeguard rights, warned that majority law-making had the potential to be "just as hard and oppressive as any totalitarian regime" (yes, this man is now Australia's Attorney-General) and declared that inadequate health, education and employment conditions in country regions were also issues "of fundamental human rights".

Declaring that 'there has never been a greater need" for a legislated charter of rights, McClelland backed a system of "advisory opinions" from courts based on a charter with the onus for correction residing in the parliament. This would be buttressed by new committee arrangements to advise parliament on the extent to which bills comply with the charter of rights.

its pointing out the quandary that Fr. Brennan faces:

The intellectual contradiction on page after page of Brennan's book [Legislating Liberty, 1998] is his conviction that empowering judges is a fundamental mistake while he cannot envisage any other way to advance human rights.

and its demolition of the case for advancing Ahmed al-Kateb as a post-child for the need for a rights charter:

The lawyers enshrine the Ahmed al-Kateb case as proof of their cause. The point should be confronted. Al-Kateb, a stateless Palestinian, was an unauthorised boat arrival. He was not an Australian citizen, not a migrant and found repeatedly not to be a refugee. He was in breach of Australian law and the High Court upheld that law, which meant he was kept in detention. The claims by lawyers that this case of a non-citizen and non-refugee constitutes grounds for Australia to alter its system of governance are, frankly, preposterous. The Australian public would never accept this for a minute and they would be right. Al-Kateb was not going to be held in detention in perpetuity and the idea is ludicrous. The solution was going to come from Australia's democracy: the executive would negotiate a deportation or public opinion would force his release, and this is what happened.

It was also good for its description of

the "charter of rights" culture that almost totally infects Australia's legal system, from university tuition to the High Court. This corrosive culture cannot conceive that representative democracy is the best means of guaranteeing human rights. Distrust of elected government, hostility to executive authority and ignorance about the vast array of measures in Australian governance that safeguard human rights typifies the legal culture.

and of the rise of what Commonwealth Ombudsman Mr. John McMillan called "an entirely new framework for the control and accountability of state power", involving

the growth of auditors-general, ombudsmen, administrative tribunals, crime commissions, privacy commissioners, information commissioners, human rights and anti-discrimination commissioners, security and intelligence oversight bodies. Listed under the executive arm, their purpose is to check the executive.

[Prof. Helen] Irving affirms this argument. "Australia already has a strong record of legislation that protects rights (Sex Discrimination, Race Discriminations Acts)," she says. "We also have a range of common law rights. There are parliamentary committees that have a standing brief to examine legislation for breach of rights, for example, the Senate scrutiny of bills committee. Democracy is the best method of protecting human rights."

It’s a long article, but well worth reading in full. Interestingly, Prof. Williams had a letter published in today’s The Australian, in which he denied that a ‘declaration of compatibility’ was necessary for a charter, but failed to specify exactly what legislation that lacked such a provision would be good for! And, inexplicably, he thinks that despite provision for ‘declarations of incompatibility’ being hard to reconcile with the Consitution,

The best way forward would be to include the mechanism in an Australian law and to see what view the High Court takes. Only it can resolve the matter.

!!!!! So we should just push ahead with it, knowing that it’ll probably fail?! Mrs. Albrechtson’s pessimism is only becoming more and more appealing by the day: follow the power, follow the money, and, judging by Prof. Williams’s opinions, follow the ideological pre-occupations, regardless of whatever Constitutional barriers there might be. I only hope that the Rudd Government has the integrity not to rush whatever charter they concoct through Parliament without bringing it to an election first.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
15.XII.2008 A.D.

More on an Australian Bill (or Charter) of Rights

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fencesitter-heads-charter-team/2008/12/09/1228584839248.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24778075-7583,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24780185-601,00.html
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=10648
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/keep_power_with_the_people/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/might-a-right-but-lets-not-bill-the-rest/2008/12/08/1228584738166.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The Federal Attorney-General, The Hon. Robert McClelland M.P. has appointed Rev. Fr. Frank Brennan S.J. A.O. to head the Federal Government’s public consultation on the prospect of an Australian Bill or Charter of Rights. The Sydney Morning Herod notes that Fr. Brennan “calls himself a "fence-sitter" in the bill of rights debate”, but a report in The Australian points out that Fr. Brennan “is on the record as a supporter of "legislating for the federal protection of human rights " - which is code language for a charter”.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Janet Albrechtson has a very good (but very cynical) opinion piece on the whole topic in today’s The Australian. She writes that

ANALYSING calls for so-called reforms should always start with a few golden rules. Follow the money. And follow the power. This week both paths lead you straight to the legal profession and to the heartland of politically driven activists. Like pigs sniffing for truffles, lawyers can smell the enticing waft of money and power in the air as they push open new legal industries. For the activists, it’s about influence as they seek to move from the irrelevant fringe of political life to the centre of the action.

[…] If you doubt that a charter of rights will involve a fundamental transfer of power to lawyers, judges and activists, ask yourself this. Would these champions of a charter be so energetically supporting a charter if it didn’t transfer power to them? Would High Court Justice Michael Kirby be eager for a charter if it did not boost judges’ ability to socially engineer a better society according to them? Likewise, the activists. Their glee is driven by the new power they will wield as they seek out like-minded judges only too willing to cement their political agendas into law.
(http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/keep_power_with_the_people/)

I recommend that you read the whole thing; it is a trenchant and timely analysis of this latest outbreak of ‘human rights’ mania.

Perhaps the last word, though, should go to Prof. Helen Irving in yesterday’s Herald. She points out that

Paradoxically, the very attempt to protect parliament by empowering the courts to make "declarations" may itself prove unconstitutional. The commonwealth constitution prevents the High Court from giving advisory opinions. The court may only rule on actual legal disputes.

This hurdle may prove fatal. It will require close attention by the government.
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/might-a-right-but-lets-not-bill-the-rest/2008/12/08/1228584738166.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

May prove fatal? It sounds to me like a total demolition of the very foundation of a potential statutory charter of rights. And given the historical reluctance of Australians to vote in favour of Constitutional amendments, there’s no chance of human rights (whatever they might be) being enshrined in the Constitution. What a mess this is shaping up to be.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Melchiades, Pope, Martyr, 2008 A.D.

Mr. Ackland and Mr. Croome on an Australian Bill of Rights

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/richard-ackland/charter-foes-tilting-at-scary-straw-monsters/2008/12/04/1228257224294.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Mr. Richard Ackland has attacked what he regards as some of the straw men that have have cropped up in the re-ignited debate over having a Bill of Rights in Australia. He notes that

There are lite versions [of a bill of rights] already in existence in Australia - in Victoria and the ACT.

Nothing terrible has happened in those places. The judges have not usurped the power of Parliament, litigation has not exploded, confusion does not reign, the jails have not been emptied of criminals.

In Victoria, courts may find a provision in an act or regulation incompatible with a charter right. That's it. There is an obligation then on the relevant minister to prepare for Parliament a written response to the court's declaration. The responsibility rests with the politicians, who can repeal, amend or leave untouched the provision found to be incompatible.

The question is, then: if having a bill of rights won’t change anything then why are we bothering? I suppose I shouldn’t underestimate the liberals’ love of symbols, whether or not there’s any substance beneath them, as we were reminded at the time of the big apology of February this year. But there’s something that I find troubling about people clamouring for this kind of legislation while soothing the skeptics with assurances that it won’t actually do anything. Think of what a certain Mr. Rodney Croome had to say in The Weekend Australian on Saturday:

IN the early 1990s, Tasmania was the last Australian state and one of the few places in the Western world to punish homosexuality with a jail term, yet neither the state nor federal parliaments seemed able to act on this embarrassing human rights abuse.

Only after the offending Tasmanian laws were roundly condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee as a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were these laws overridden federally and then repealed locally.

In other words, it took a foreign tribunal judging a global charter of rights to do what Australia’s parliaments could not do.

This history exposes as a lie the case that parliaments alone can protect human rights.

It also shows that the debate is not about whether we should have an Australian charter of rights—the International Covenant is already our defacto
charter.

The debate is whether it’s sufficient for Australians to be judged by a tribunal we didn’t appoint under a covenant we didn’t design, or whether human rights violations should be judged by Australian judges according to standards set by Australians.

For me there’s no doubt; I’m for bringing human rights home.
Rodney Croome
South Hobart, Tas
(http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/bring_human_rights_home)

(Fortunately the redoubtable Mr. Henk Verhoeven saved me the trouble of having to submit a comment at that blog by reminding readers that “No, Rodney Croome, Tasmania was NOT the last Australian state to punish homosexuality with a jail term! It was a homosexual act such as sodomy, not homosexuality, that could attract a jail term.”) When the Sodomites’ League is all for something one knows it’s the sort of thing that one wouldn’t want to touch with a barge pole.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
9.XII.2008 A.D.

On an Australian Bill of Rights

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bill-of-rights-to-rein-in-parliament/2008/12/02/1227980018609.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24747400-16382,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Moves towards an Australian Bill of Rights are back in the news. “The Federal Government is set to begin a consultation process into what the document should look like next week,” reported yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herod. Today’s Herald editorial took a favourable view of the possibility, though it noted that

we could end up with a long list of fashionable causes that (apart from looking dated in 10 or 20 years time) would repel a large proportion of the population. At the risk of coming up with a rather bland document, it is probably better to err on the side of caution. The sorts of rights that are important but uncontroversial include the freedoms of expression, movement and association, and protection from torture and cruel treatment.

My preference was for The Australian’s rather more pessimistic view, however. What the Herald editorial failed to notice was what The Australian pointed out immediately:

THERE is one inescapable flaw in the case for a bill of rights: it would alter the balance of power within our system of government. Those clamouring for some form of bill of rights have been unable to explain how the community will benefit by stripping power from elected politicians and handing that power to unelected judges.

It goes on to note that

The logic of the charter lobby is that ordinary Australians sometimes make the wrong decisions when choosing their lawmakers. Instead of remedying these mistakes at the polls, the charter lobby would prefer to hand real power to wise, all-knowing judges who are far removed from the grubbiness of the political process.

The arrogance of such an approach is exceeded only by its naivety. Parliamentary democracy is by no means a perfect system of government, but its one redeeming feature is that Australians still get to sack politicians whose performance is found wanting. That is not the case with judges.

Clearly, then, what this amounts to is an upsetting of the balance of legislative and judicial power, and all for no good reason. And that’s without even thinking of the particular ‘rights’ that the usual suspects will be clamouring for, as the Herald rightly notes: one expects ‘reproductive rights’ (code for the right to kill one’s own child, so long as he or she is concealed within the womb), ‘gay rights’ (code for the right to go around sodomising people), you name it. Naturally a bill of rights will also ignore the question of when these rights are supposed to kick in: conception? Birth? When? Recall Fr. Brennan pointing out, regarding the Victorian Bill of Rights, that

Section 48 [of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities] provides that 'Nothing in this Charter affects any law applicable to abortion or child destruction'. It was included in the Charter to accommodate the concerns of Professor [George] Williams and his colleagues that the Charter not purport to resolve the question of when life begins for the purposes of defining the right to life.
(http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-agnosticism-passes-into-moral.html)

One predicts that the underlying principles for a Federal bill of rights will be positivism (people claiming whatever right they care to concoct, regardless of their relationship to a corresponding duty or to natural law) and Pyrrhonism (a refusal to pin down at one point in one’s life one begins to enjoy these rights). Like the republic débacle, it will be a waste of time and money, and probably end up failing anyway.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop, Confessor, 2008 A.D.

Do you want the good (Cath)news or the bad (Cath)news?

Firstly, the good (Cath)news:

Apparently His Eminence Cardinal Pell had some involvement in the A.L.P.’s abandonment of its policy unambiguously in favour of a Bill of Rights. This is a most welcome development, and one that invites some reflection on the notion of ‘human rights’.

The Christian acknowledges that everything he has is from God, and recognises that God is entitled, therefore, to impose such duties as might please Him. From these duties we can infer corresponding ‘rights’, e.g., ‘thou shalt not kill’ implies a right to life (with certain qualifications, as I shall examine shortly). But the basis for ‘human rights’ is rather shaky in the secularist world-view. It seems that for the secularist, ‘rights’ are not ‘rights’ as a Christian conceives of them, but that the term in fact has no absolute foundation but is just a convention for referring to some of the agreed implications of the principle that we should all be able to seek pleasure, constrained only by the pain that obtaining our pleasure might inflict on other pleasure-seekers (the harm principle). This, of course, is basically preference utilitarianism, and seems to me to be the only internally coherent (though nonetheless false) atheistic world-view, since humanism, for instance, asserts things like the uniqueness of mankind and ‘man as the end of all things’, which have no basis in the (false) evolutionary world-view, since man is just one species among many, and many of these other species can feel pain too (speaking of pain, that’s why it’s call ‘preference’ utilitarianism, since some people, namely sadists, quite enjoy pain, thankyou very much). Now the harm principle is nonetheless every bit as arbitrary as any humanist principle, but as an ordering principle for society, it has proven quite good (in the U.S.A.) at preventing complete anarchy, by enshrining rights in law. But nonetheless, it is a completely inadequate way to order a Christian society, since some who cannot feel pain enjoy, nonetheless, a right to life (as well as all the rights that the fully sentient enjoy) because of their innate capacity for God—their ontological dignity.

Now for the bad (Cath)news:

We see that Rev. Fr. Frank Brennan S.J. has reiterated his universal, in-principle stand against the death penalty. This goes by the name of the 'seamless garment approach', the idea that abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and unjust wars are all to be rejected for being anti-life (ignoring the fact that only innocent life has a right to life). It would be regrettable if any readers inferred from this that the Catholic Church has somehow changed Her ancient teaching on the matter, especially if an alleged change were part of a compromise ('we'll oppose the death penalty if you'll oppose abortion') with secularism, meeting it on secularism's terms as so many clerics are keen to do. See Dr. Peter Chojnowski’s essay at the American S.S.P.X. home-page (in the ‘against the sound bites' section, as I recall) for the timeless truth. Now let me be clear that I do not support the death penalty being applied to ‘drug-running’, since it is not in the worst category of crimes and since, as practised in some South-East Asian countries, it treats the destruction of human life as a means to an end, namely deterrence, when it can only ever be taken in this manner as an end in itself, i.e. for justice’s sake.

Now some (many, I suspect) will object that it is not licit to impose the death penalty except when it is impossible for the offender to be prevented from doing more harm. They base this on the relevant section of Evangelium Vitæ. But when one thinks through the situation that His late Holiness John Paul II envisioned, it becomes clear that he made a category mistake. Think about it: we have a criminal who is, purportedly, so psychopathic and violent that it is impossible to restrain him safely, and so he must be executed. So evidence is gathered, the trial is convened, a jury empanelled, witnesses gathered, the jurors have their deliberations and give their verdict, and the judge considers and hands down his sentence. But the criminal was restrained the whole time! All John Paul II was really doing was reiterating the liceity of using lethal force against an unjust aggressor. Capital punishment is not self-defence; it’s a category mistake. The death penalty is to be applied whenever no other combination of imprisonment, corporal punishment and financial penalty can balance the scales of justices. At the very least, then, murderers must receive the death penalty. To deprive a man of his liberty for life (life imprisonment) is an inadequate substitute for depriving him of life itself. To which one might object: that’s an eye for an eye! We’re more civilized than that! But ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is true in principle, it’s just that if one, say, puts someone else’s eye out intentionally, justice can be satisfied through some combination of imprisonment, corporal punishment and financial penalty; it is not necessary literally to put the offender’s eye out in order to satisfy justice. But no such combination of other non-lethal punishments can ever compensate for the injustice of murder.

One might raise an even more fundamental objection, though: the very conception of justice involved. Many in the legal fraternity will argue that we have ‘outgrown’ retributive justice in favour of the presently-fashionable ‘restorative justice’, in which punishment is only ever a means (and one of a range of means) to one or another of a range of ends (rehabilitation for offenders, closure for victims, deterrence for potential offenders). But the essence of justice is giving to someone what he is owed. If the situation of the ‘scales of justice’ being balanced means a situation where good deeds are properly rewarded and bad deeds are properly punished, then as far as the ‘bad deeds’ side of the ledger is concerned, justice is retribution. Rehabilitation for offenders, closure for victims, deterrence for potential offenders, among others, are all worthy ends, but they are subordinate to justice.

Reginaldvs Cantvar