Stilgherrian » law

Just being nude doesn’t make it porn, you sickos!

Stilgherrian — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:04:15 +0000

Maybe I’m jumping the gun here, because the actual recommendations aren’t online yet. But news today that the Bill Henson “scandal” has prompted an overhaul of NSW art laws really gets up my nose.

Australian photographer Bill Henson is no stranger to controversy. His images, like the one here, are of nude or semi-nude adolescents, and “protecting the innocent children from the evil pedophiles” is a powerful rallying-call. Newspaper columnists and talkback radio hosts alike revel in its ability to stir the emotions — attention-seeking pricks that they are.

In an incident earlier this year, some of Henson’s photographs were seized by the police — but returned once the Office of Film and Literature Classification found that none of them were “child pornography”. Indeed, it called their nudity “mild and justified” and gave them a PG rating.

Got that? PG. Suitable for viewing by children under the age of 16, with parental guidance.

But apparently the considered judgement of the official body charged with this kind of analysis — the people who deal with and (sometimes) ban material which is pornographic — isn’t good enough.

When it was later found that Henson toured a school seeking models — in company with its principal who was following all the right procedures — Crikey correspondent Peter Faris QC called for an investigation.

Bill Henson makes a lot of money photographing naked or semi-naked pre-pubescent children. This is called Art by the Left glitterati. Most decent Australians would call it Pornography. It is a matter of debate as to which side of the line we place Henson.

We now discover that Sue Knight, the (then) principal of St Kilda Park Primary School, invited Henson to look around the school and select young models about 15 months ago. It is reported that a new book (by David Marr and excerpted in The Age over the weekend) states that Henson walked around the playground at lunchtime, accompanied by the principal.

This is not good enough. Nowhere near it.

I ask this: By whose authority did Henson trawl for subjects/victims?

And he goes on.

Faris, being a lawyer, didn’t quite call Henson a child pornographer. But he larded his rant with lawyerly rhetoric and went as close as he could go without getting slapped with a libel suit.

My response for Crikey was published in the email version and was on the website — but I can’t find it just now so here it is again with added linkage:

Peter Faris’ rant about Bill Henson is the usual grab-bag of logical fallacies (like the appeal to an assumed majority of “Most decent Australians”) and cheap rhetorical tricks (like the name-calling of “Left glitterati”). But unlike Crikey’s Canberra correspondent, who clearly points out the key difference between the two rounds of Henson-bashing, Faris makes an obvious error which demonstrates that he simply hasn’t thought this through.

He starts by pointing out that Henson makes pictures of “naked or semi-naked pre-pubescent children”, but then says the Victorian Crimes Act defines child pornography as including a photograph of a minor “depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context”. Bzzzt! Since when does “semi-naked” equal “sexual”?

I don’t know who all these sickos are who can’t see a little uncovered skin, adult or pre-pubescent, without feeling their lust rise, but why is Faris agreeing with their perverted worldview?

And if he continues to overlook the obvious difference between “semi-naked” and “sexual”, can I assume his next spray will be to call for the arrest of all surf club members for the mass child pornography of a Nippers Carnival, everyone involved in building a church with cherubs, kitschmaker Anne Geddes, and the producers of that toilet paper advert showing a baby’s bottom?

And yes, Anne Geddes’ work is evil. Little children who are far, far too young to give consent are drained of their individual humanity and, dressed as fruits and flowers, used as props in sentimental clichés. These are human beings, people, not dolls and mantle ornaments!

Meanwhile, I hope that when the NSW Sentencing Council report is finally published, so we can all see it unfiltered by tabloid journalism, it will show a rational series of amendments to law based on evidence — not pitchfork-wielding talkback outrage.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Stupid email disclaimers: don’t use them!

Stilgherrian — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:23:30 +0000

Over on the Link mailing list, there’s been a brief discussion on those legal disclaimers people put into email signatures. Brief summary: they’re stupid.

These disclaimers have never been tested in a courtroom, and in some circumstances they could even reduce your legal protection. However, I reckon the key issue for a business is “branding”.

Do you really want your communication with clients, suppliers and associates to look like your relationship will be defined by lawyers? That you routinely send “confidential” email to the wrong people and have to ask for it to be deleted? That you or your staff won’t actually stand behind what you say in an email because it’s not “confirmed in writing”? That your reaction when things go wrong is to sue someone?

Please, empower your staff to speak with authority. Get your act together so you don’t make lame mistakes to begin with. And have the confidence and honesty to stand behind what you say, wherever and however you say it.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Links for 17 June 2008 through 19 June 2008

del.icio.us — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:59:26 +0000

Stilgherrian’s links for 17 June 2008 through 19 June 2008. gathered automatically:

Receiver rejects call to release home plan | smh.com.au: Bizarre copyright claim? Building firm Beechwood Homes goes broke, but 580 customer can't get their homes built by someone else because Beechwood's receiver claims copyright on the plans!
Revoke Copyright for Poorly Paid Authors? | Brendan Scott’s Weblog: Counter view: "If the practical effect of 200 years of copyright protection for my industry body was that its members were 'the most poorly paid in Australia' I wouldn?t be asking for the regime to be extended! I?d be calling for it to be abandoned."
The Future of Copyright | Cato Unbound: Fascinating essay.
5 Influential Books All Bloggers Should Know | ProBlogger: Yes, by reading the same five books as every other blogger on the planet, you will suddenly provide a unique view on the world. Sigh. Good books, presumably, but "the usual suspects". Be original.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Why The Chaser’s charges were dropped

Stilgherrian — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:44:36 +0000

Here’s why the Director of Public Prosecutions (for American readers, read: District Attorney’s office) dropped the charges against The Chaser crew for their APEC security-breach stunt.

This is the full text via Crikey:

Direction

Today I have directed that there be no further proceedings on all charges against 11 persons involved in The Chasers War on Everything entry into a restricted area during the APEC Meeting in Sydney in September 2007: Julian Morrow, Charles (”Chas”) Licciardello, Nathan Earl, Giles Hardie, Lauren Howard, Geoffrey Lye, Alexander Morrow, Benson Simpson, Esteban Alegria, Mark Kordi and Rodrigo Pena.

The matters are listed for mention in the Local Court tomorrow, 29 April 2008, when the charges will be withdrawn.

In the unusual circumstances of this case I consider it appropriate to give some explanation for this course.

Background

On Thursday 6 September 2007, during the APEC Meeting in Sydney, two presenting members of The Chasers War on Everything ABC comedy/satire team were charged, along with six Chasers crew and production team members and three hire car drivers, with entering a restricted area without special justification, contrary to section 19(1) of the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007.

The legislation (which was in force from 4 July 2007 to 13 September 2007) provided for “declared areas” (setting in effect an outer perimeter of affected space) and “restricted areas” inside declared areas established around APEC Meeting venues and accommodation. The relevant areas for present purposes were along Macquarie Street, Sydney, north of King Street where a declared area was in place and north of a gate approximately 30 metres south of Bridge Street where a restricted area commenced.

Short Facts

The Chasers created a fake “motorcade” consisting of, in order: two motorcycle outriders, a black 4WD vehicle, a black sedan and another black 4WD. Five male members of the team (including Morrow who was directing operations) walked alongside the motorcade. After reaching Bent Street the motorcyclists dropped to the rear.

The three vehicles had obviously bogus APEC identification stickers and Canada identification stickers on their windscreens. The sedan had Australian and Canadian national flags on its bonnet. All had tinted windows. The five runners also wore obviously bogus identification. One of the motorcyclists wore jeans.

Nine cameras were in operation, some fixed, some handheld and worn and some with audio recording. Recordings from those cameras have been taken into consideration.

At about 11.30am on Thursday 6 September 2007 the fake motorcade approached along Macquarie Street from the south and stopped at the intersection of Bent Street. One of the motorcyclists and Morrow pointed forward. Police waved the motorcade on and indicated in a northerly direction along Macquarie Street towards the restricted area. It then proceeded through an open gate further into the declared area.

The motorcade then stopped briefly before moving north again towards a second open gate which in fact marked the beginning of the restricted area (although police in the vicinity were unaware of that and the Chasers were uncertain where the restricted area began). The motorcade then stopped just short of the second gate. Morrow asked people with whom he was in contact about the restricted area and was given to understand that it commenced at Bridge Street. The motorcade then proceeded again through the second open gate towards the intersection of Macquarie and Bridge Streets. There was no attempt by police lining the route to inspect or stop it.

The motorcade then stopped short of the intersection of Bridge Street and Morrow told police that there had been a change of plans and that they needed to turn back. Morrow suspected that they had entered the restricted area, which he had not intended to do. Macquarie Street had been narrowed by fencing and barriers between Bent and Bridge Streets and it was necessary to advance into the intersection to turn around. Police waved the motorcade forward into the intersection to enable that to occur.

The motorcade then stopped in the turn, Morrow consulted with Licciardello and he (dressed as Osama Bin Laden) got out of the sedan and with Morrow started to walk south in Macquarie Street. Police then arrested the 11 accused and seized items. (The two motorcyclists rode away.)

The Chasers had carried out an examination of the area on 5 September 2007 when police procedures had been different from those followed on 6 September 2007. The Chasers had also conducted a planning session on the morning of 6 September 2007 and some video and audio recording of that has been considered.

The evidence establishes that the Chasers plan, in what was considered the unlikely event that they were allowed to pass through any gates, was to stop short of the restricted area and to get Licciardello out of the vehicle.

Referral to ODPP

Police prosecutors were primarily responsible for the conduct of the prosecutions, they being for summary offences in the Local Court.

A large amount of evidentiary material was made available to the police prosecutors, along with representations on behalf of the accused and advice from senior officers and the Crown Solicitor.

Police could have prosecuted or withdrawn any or all of the charges. The case was first referred to the ODPP for the purpose of giving advice on 13 March 2008. On 14 March 2008 it was decided that the ODPP would conduct the matters and they were then taken over from police.

The matters have been assessed in this Office in the usual way for all briefs received. Regard has been had to the applicable law, the admissible evidence and the Prosecution Guidelines. There has been some urgency in the treatment of the matter by reason of the elapsed time since the events and the listing of the matters in court.

Reasons

It was an offence to enter a restricted area without special justification. Special justification was defined in section 37 of the Act and included circumstances where a person was permitted to be in the area by a police officer and where the person was required to be in the area for a work-related purpose.

The offence is one of strict liability. Consequently, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available to the accused. Put another way, it is a defence to establish, or to raise a reasonable doubt that there existed, an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in a set of facts which, if they had existed, would have rendered the conduct innocent.

In the cases of all 11 accused I am satisfied that on the evidence presently available the prosecution would not be able to negate, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of an honest and reasonable (but ultimately mistaken) belief that they would not enter or be taken into the restricted area and that, when they did enter it, it was with the permission of police (given by waving them through the Bent Street intersection towards the first gate north along Macquarie Street, then allowing them through the second gate unhindered and then directing them to turn in the intersection of Bridge Street). Police permission in fact constitutes special justification for entry.

Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect of conviction and for that reason the prosecutions should not proceed.

In the cases of Licciardello, the six crew and production staff members and the three hire car drivers a further defence may be available that they had special justification by reason of their requirement to be there for work-related purposes in the circumstances that unfolded. Morrow was directing the progress of all who were employed for the purposes of the stunt and they either followed or were swept along by the directions that he gave.

I am also satisfied that, if the prosecution proceeded against Morrow only on the basis that his situation could be distinguished from the rest, the court would be bound to find that the motorcade entered the restricted area in error and if the offence were otherwise proved (which I consider unlikely) it would be probable that a magistrate would dismiss the charge without conviction under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (considering also Morrow’s otherwise good character). That would provide an additional discretionary basis for not proceeding in Morrow’s case, in accordance with the Prosecution Guidelines.

There’s also a story at ABC Online. My comments to come tonight.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Links for 27 April 2008

del.icio.us — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:44:07 +0000

I’ve decided to have another go at publishing the links I find online. So, thanks to del.icio.us and some mild semi-automation, here’s today’s batch.

The Newseum: The interactive museum of news, including "today's front pages" for 500+ world newspapers.
TV Fugly Awards: An "alternative" to Australia's Logie awards for TV.
Eurovision Song Contest - Belgrade 2008: Official website of the Eurovision Song Contest.
The Bugle | Times Online: Weekly news satire audio podcast from the UK.
The Paranoid Style in American Politics: Richard Hofstadter's article from Harper's Magazine, November 1964. Paranoia Politics isn't new.
Twitter Rulez! (via Todd Langowski) | Newick: An apt sign spotted in workplace.
Plugger: Australian Business News: A customisable aggregator for Australian business news.
Secondary DNS Service: An inexpensive service which provides secondary domain name servers.
The seriously inconvenient truth on drugs | the Daily Mail: UK Daily Mail columnist Andrew Alexander puts a cogent case for the decriminalisation of recreational drugs.
A second summer of love: 20th anniversary of acid house: The Guardian's retrospective on the acid house Summer of Love of 1988.
The Australian Open Source Industry & Community Report 2008: A 20-page report on the state of the open source software world in Australia. A freely downloadable PDF and is redistributable under a Creative Commons BY-ND license.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Lesson from Iraq: don’t ignore international law

Stilgherrian — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:21:23 +0000

Of all the writing about the 5th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, one of the more interesting pieces is by Mary Ellen O’Connell (pictured) of Notre Dame Law School. In Learning from the Iraq War: The Wisdom of International Law, she argues that the most tangible lesson is that the US ignores international law at its peril.

Going into Iraq, we ignored the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Once in Iraq, we ignored the Hague Regulations, requiring us to put a stop to looting and to make only necessary changes to local law and government. We ignored the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit secret detention and abuse of prisoners of the kind we saw at Abu Ghraib.

The talk on Iraq is all about what went wrong, whether the surge is working, and when we can get out. We hear virtually nothing about international law and look set to repeat our mistakes. Violating the law has cost our nation and Iraq dearly. It has denied us the guidance of rules based on long experience and moral consensus. We have lost standing in the world, a literal fortune, and precious lives. Rather than internalizing the lesson of law violation in Iraq, we continue to defy the law in serious and self-destructive ways.

At some point, sooner or later, America needs to understand that international law does indeed apply to everyone — including America. Otherwise any US action against any other nation breaking the law is nothing but hypocrisy. (Hat-tip to Blog Them Out of the Stone Age.)

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Thursday Reading, 6 March 2008, 2nd edition

Stilgherrian — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:23:07 +0000

There’s just too much Good Stuff to read today! A speech by Justice Michael Kirby (pictured) to the Internet Industry Association last month, Law making meets technology, is a magnificent summary of the challenge facing legislators (and judges) in the face of rapidly-advancing technology. There’s also related news from Canada, where a bar was ordered to stop scanning people’s ID cards and keeping the data (hat-tip to Threat Level).

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

BitTorrent vs the Supreme Court of Victoria

Stilgherrian — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:42:24 +0000

Last night Channel Nine screened the crime drama Underbelly everywhere across Australia — except Victoria, where it was banned following a Supreme Court order. But thanks to the joys of BitTorrent, thousands of people have already downloaded it from the Internet. The law cannot cope in this new era.

As the screenshot shows, Underbelly was online within two hours of broadcast. By mid-morning today, 6500+ people had downloaded it from Mininova alone.

As with the Corey Delaney episode before it, this highlights the stupidity of the law in the bold new age of the Internet. I have no complaint with Justice Betty King’s decision. She’s just upholding the law as it stands. The law, alas, is hopelessly inadequate.

Who, I wonder, has this kind of law reform on their agenda. Anyone?

Bonus links:

My article for Crikey today: A torrent of interest in downloading Underbelly
Mark Pesce’s presentation Unevenly Distributed: Production Models for the 21st Century, which includes a detailed discussion of how new distribution models like BitTorrent will change TV forever.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Sensis’ legal bullying revisited

Stilgherrian — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:55:59 +0000

On 19 January I wrote about Sensis’ lawyers sending legal “nastygrams” to small website owners. Professor Roger Clarke has received a response [PDF file], which we can’t copy and paste because it’s a scan of a printed letter.

Professor Clarke reckons the response is “reasonable enough (as far as it goes)”, and he won’t be taking the matter any further. His article on Lawyers’ ‘Nastygrams’ re Trademarks reminds us that lawyers’ letters often make inappropriate demands on behalf of trademark-owners.

It’s vital that people stand up for their rights, and resist corporations getting away with claims that go beyond the already excessive rights that corporate welfare laws in the ‘intellectual property’ arena grant them.

So, we all should say “the Yellow Pages® directory” to help Sensis prevent their trademark turning into a generic word. Sensis is our friend.

The funniest bit, I think, is that the lawyer’s response reckons the original letter was intended to “encourage the proper use of Sensis trademarks”. Lawyers must have a funny idea about “encouragement”: their “nastygram” was a three-page letter in pompous legalese containing veiled threats [PDF file].

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

New website policies

Stilgherrian — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:27:03 +0000

I’ve decided to write a Comments Policy, Privacy Policy and Legal Disclaimer for this website. I think you’ll find the lengthy Privacy Policy decidedly… different!

I’ve been meaning to write a Privacy Policy like this for ages, ‘cos I think most website privacy policies are a load of shite. What do you think?

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Sensis lawyers bully small fry over Yellow Pages trademark

Stilgherrian — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:52:58 +0000

Sensis, the Telstra subsidiary that owns things like the Yellow Pages and Trading Post, has kicked off a legal attack on small websites for “trademark infringement”. Why? Because they haven’t got an ® after every mention of “Yellow Pages”.

Apart from the daftness of attacking little fish, which only makes your company look like a bully, you’ve got to wonder why they’re doing it.

They’re re-branding as “Yellow” anyway. yellowpages.com.au identifies itself as “yellow.com.au”, and their new logo just says “Yellow”. Here’s a screenshot of their site as of a few minutes ago.
There doesn’t seem to be any actual trademark infringement. At least not by my reading of some material I’ll mention shortly.

I found out about this yesterday when Professor Roger Clarke posted to the Link mailing list. I’ve become more and more astounded at the stupidity of it all as I’ve read people’s comments…

Professor Clarke says:

I am requested to:
— “use the [R inside a circle] symbol next to the trade mark …”;
— “use the name of the product as a noun (eg “the Yellow Pages
[R inside a circle] Directory”.

He points out that the web page in question receives bugger all traffic, and observes:

I find it absolutely extraordinary that [Sensis] would fund a partner in a law firm to waste time and money searching out harmless pages and writing ‘nastygrams’ of this kind — energy that could instead be invested in improvements to the product.

Note that the use of the term on the page is quite general, and there is no evidence of any attempt to appropriate the term, nor to benefit commercially or otherwise from its use, nor to denigrate the IP owner. In fact it promotes your site, and speaks in a complimentary manner about it. Under the circumstances, the letter is not only inappropriate, but oppressive.

Apart from this bullying, it would appear that there aren’t actually grounds for Sensis to complain. According to the Arts Law Centre of Australia (quoting IP Australia, who handle trademark registration)…

To be successful in an infringement action it is necessary to show that:

use of the infringing mark was use as a trade mark. That is, the infringing trade mark was being used to indicate a connection, in the course of trade, between goods or services and the (infringing) trader or service provider; and

the infringing trade mark is identical, substantially identical or deceptively similar to your trade mark; and

the goods or services (or both) in relation to which the infringing trade mark was used are the same or at least similar or closely related to the goods or services for which your trade mark is registered.

Professor Clarke’s mention of Yellow Pages doesn’t fit any of those criteria!

Rick Welykochy dug up an example of Sensis’ “nastygram” [PDF file], and Eric Scheid found another stroppy recipient of Sensis’ legal largesse.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, Sensis probably wants to generate consistency in the way people use their product name. But instead of asking nicely, they’re using aggressive, bullying language and implied legal threats. The reaction, naturally enough, is “Screw you!”

I recently moved my landline phone from Telstra to iiNet and bundled it with ADSL2+. A couple of weeks later, a Telstra rep phoned to ask, “Is there anything we can do to get you back?”

My reply was, “No. Because it’s not about the service or the price. It’s because I don’t want to do business with an organisation that’s run by a pack of arseholes. Please make sure that specific message is passed up the line.”

This Sensis attack on small website owners is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about.

[Update: I've just thought of a possible reason. Sensis want to separate "the Yellow Pages Directory" from the Yellow brand, possibly with the aim of offloading the presumably-expensive business of printing phone books which no-one uses any more.]

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Arrest of “teen party host” highlights stupidity of law

Stilgherrian — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:37:02 +0000

Yesterday a Melbourne teenager was charged with creating a public nuisance and producing child pornography. Reuters tells us he “became a controversial media star after a wild party at his parents’ house became a near riot, forcing police to call in a helicopter and the dog squad”. Hands up if you think you know his name.

Now, keep your hands up if you’re completely bloody sure you know his name.

OK, hands down.

Yet again we see how Australia’s laws have failed to adapt to the Internet age.

Everybody and their dog, globally, has been reporting the rise to fame of glamorous Melbourne socialite Corey Worthington Delaney. I’ve written two essays already [1, 2], and this third one probably won’t be the last. My friends at Crikey published The Corey Timeline yesterday (republished by Peter Black too, if the Crikey original is behind their paywall).

Now, under Victorian law, as in many other democracies, the media cannot identify minors charged with criminal offences. Nor can they identify who’s brought before the children’s court. Fair enough. Once upon a time we all agreed that youthful indiscretions shouldn’t mar our reputation for life.

So now we have the ludicrous situation where National Nine News and The Age and everyone else is talking about “a 16-year-old boy” as if we haven’t noticed a flood of media reports about a specific, named 16yo who — in an amazing coincidence — held a wild party on the weekend where the police were called, including a helicopter and the dog squad.

Happens all the time. Could well be someone else.

Even before the Internet this law was flawed. Radio and TV broadcasts were ephemeral (at least until we all got recorders), and newspapers could stop mentioning a name. But that couldn’t prevent you popping down the library to check last week’s edition. And it couldn’t stop people talking about what they already knew.

Today, thanks to blogs, Twitter and Facebook and the rest, even casual gossip is on the public record. Forever. Even if a web page is removed, we can still recover it thanks to Google’s cache and the Internet archive’s Wayback Machine.

You can’t take the piss out of the swimming pool.

Yet those tireless, dedicated soldiers of the mainstream media trudge through the ritual, typing “the youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons” and pixelating photos — even though we can still recognise faces we know.

So what do we do here? Do we ban all media identification of minors? Or just accept that The Truth Is Out There and drop the charade? Maybe we can do the latter and make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of anything we did as minors.

[Note: The pixelated image is for illustration purposes only. I pixelated an image of Corey Worthington Delaney (right) and a friend taken from Channel 7. I have no idea whether he was one of the youths arrested yesterday. How could I possibly know? The police have not said.]

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Review: Watching Brief

Stilgherrian — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:18:27 +0000

John Howard, during his time as prime minister, talked a lot about the rule of law. If we are a nation of laws then those laws must, presumably, reflect what we believe about ourselves as a nation. As people. As human beings. As Australians.

Howard, quite correctly, sees a century of the rule of law as one of the great achievements of Australian federation. And yet, under his watch, fundamental legal principles were eroded. Laws made as part of the so-called War on Terror introduced imprisonment without trial, secret evidence, searches without warrant…

With these conflicting thoughts in mind, I opened the pages of Julian Burnside’s book Watching Brief: reflections on human rights, law, and justice while leaving Australia for the first time.

As dusk fell somewhere over the Timor Sea, I imagined the horror of traversing that ocean below in an over-crowded, leaky refugee boat only to be hauled off to a concentration camp a quarter of the world away. Meanwhile, I ordered another brandy and Mr Burnside provided me with a concise, clearly-written explanation of just why I’d been so angry with the Howard government, and so angry with a weak and ineffectual opposition for allowing it to happen.

The book is studded with pertinent observations, explained well. I’ll mention only two which stood out for me.

Our own government was actually cynical enough to call the 9000-volt electric fence around the Baxter Detention Centre a “courtesy fence”.
Under Australia’s own laws regarding “crimes against humanity” (let alone international law), the extended detention — sorry, let’s call it what it is! — the continued imprisonment of people who have committed no crime (i.e. refugees) is illegal. John Howard, Philip Ruddock and Amanda Vanstone should all be charged. Unfortunately only the Attorney-General can launch proceedings, which Ruddock obviously wouldn’t do if he were one of those to be charged. However he is no longer Attorney-General.

John Howard is gone, but his laws remain. Burnside’s book provides a useful roadmap for what Kevin Rudd needs to un-do.