Pee Kay: What Is It Going To Be, Law Or Lore?

Law should be fairly simple to understand, shouldn’t it? It is simply there, written in black and white and based on what has gone before.

 
But sometimes it is not that easy to interpret. That is why we have learned judges who we need to and should be able to interpret the law fairly and justly on our behalf.

Ramesh Thakur: Judicial Adventurism Can Imperil Democracy

The only period of legal authoritarian rule in India was June 1975–March 1977 following the declaration of an Emergency by Prime Minister (PM) Indira Gandhi. I happened to be back in India, based in New Delhi, doing archival and interview research for my PhD. The experience of the overnight transition from a rambunctious democracy to which argumentative Indians had taken with gusto, to a stifling and oppressive rule by state fiat, was deeply and permanently sobering. It led to my first academic article on returning to Canada, ‘The Fate of India’s Parliamentary Democracy’ (1976).

Maryanne Demasi: Australia’s Misinformation Bill Is Dead…for Now

It is official.

The Australian government’s attempt to ram through legislation to combat misinformation online has been blocked after the Greens party announced it would not support the controversial bill.

“We are concerned this bill doesn’t actually do what it needs to do when it comes to stopping the deliberate mass distribution of false and harmful information,” said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Rebekah Barnett: Proposed Hate Speech Laws Abound in Australia

Victorians could go to prison for up to five years for hate speech under new anti-vilification laws proposed by the Victorian Government.

Under the proposed laws, it would be an offence to “incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule” of a person or group based on their sex, gender identity, or race.

Rebekah Barnett: ACMA’s Role in Australia’s Censorship Campaign

Last year, the Australian Government’s proposed legislation to combat misinformation and disinformation was shot down in flames after a strong backlash over the threat to free expression, and the unfairness of special exemptions for government and media.

Critics complained that the bill would result in the censorship of a staggering range of speech, on issues from the weather, to scientific debate, to elections, to religion, and public health.

Rebekah Barnett: Australian Government to Ban Social Media for Kids

The Australian Government is set to impose social media age limits, amid increasing concern over the effect of social media on youth mental health, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced today.

Legislation is to be introduced later this year, and is expected to gain bipartisan support after the leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, called to ban social media for under 16s earlier this year.

Wanjiru Njoya: The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate”

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

Point of Order: Buzz from the Beehive - 15/12/23

It’s Judith Collins, KC, (among other things) now – and here’s hoping she has noted what happened to Sir Francis Bacon

What does Judith Collins have in common with Sir Francis Bacon? Oh – and with former Labour cabinet ministers Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Martyn Finlay?

All served as Attorney-General in their respective countries, but Sir Francis, Sir Geoffrey and Finlay also were King’s or Queen’s Counsel.

Gary Judd KC: Tikanga is not law

Tikanga is a collection of beliefs: it is not “law”

Introduction and Background

In the Ellis case [1], a majority of the New Zealand Supreme Court stated that tikanga was “the first law” of New Zealand. It is clear from the judgments of the majority that, if the Supreme Court’s stance is confirmed in a case where such pronouncements are necessary for the judgment, tikanga will apply generally within the common law of New Zealand.[2]

This essay explains that the “tikanga” the judgment endorses cannot be the “first” law because it is not “law” at all.