rief

THE
Volume 16, Edition 4

ABOLISH DEMOCRACY SHOULD WE IGNORE GLOBAL WARMING? ELIMINATING GENDER DISTINCTIONS BRINGING SLAVERY BACK A LICENCE TO BREED?

DANGEROUS

www.muls.org

COMMERCIAL CLIENT FOCUSED LAW FIRM

www.claytonutz.com/graduates

HELLO AGAIN AND GOODBYE FOREVER. Welcome to the nal edition of The Brief for 2010 Dangerous Ideas. Flick through these pages and you will be confronted with some quite radical propositions. For example, that we should perhaps forget about trying to prevent global warming, that we should require licences to reproduce, that democracy should be abolished, that slavery should be reinstated, and that men should be paid to raise children. But as offensive (or stupid) as these ideas may be to some, I think that all the articles in this edition make a hugely important point: there is nothing that you can take for granted. So many things which are commonly accepted today, such as women being able to vote, the existence of evolution, and homosexuality being legal, were once incredibly dangerous ideas. Sometimes you have to look over the fence of what is acceptable and try to construct an argument for the boarder being shifted, just to test whether our assumptions still hold true. Is gender that important? Is democracy the best that we can do? Is slavery that terrible? Maybe the answer to all these questions is yes. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt double check. Also included in this edition are a few celebrity appearances. The Honourable Michael Kirby returns to share his wisdom. Charlie Pickering, host of the 7pm project, advocates a career in comedy. And Mike Kelly, federal MP, joins us for the 5 Questions segment as a Macquarie law graduate. Finally, an enormous thank you goes out to everyone who helped with The Brief this year; that includes the subeditors, the writers and the one and only designer. You were amazing, it could never have been done without you, and I am eternally indebted. I wish the next Editor of The Brief the best of luck for next year. With love, for the very last time, Your Editor of The Brief 1

Dangerous Ideas
The Chilling Global Reality A Modest Proposal: Bringing Slavery Back Down with Democracy No one wants the Bill The New F-Word? Assaulting the Defendant An Anthem for Xenos Breeding Self-Destruction Rethinking Bodies The Case for Terrorism 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Something Completely Different

Postcard from Abroad Extra Curricular Alternative Careers Q&A with Kirby You Know What Really Grinds My Gears Law and Disorder 22 24 25 26 28 29

Get Your Mac On

5 Questions SOS II Competitions Corner Fly Sponsors Acknowledgments VOLUME 16, EDITION 4 30 32 34 35 36 37

THE BRIEF:

Editors Introduction

Contents

The Chilling . Global Reality

.
Climate change, human industry, and the big picture, writes Samuel Hardman.
The problem with global warming is not whether it is happening. Reach into the minds of anyone over the age of 50 and they will tell you how the ocean levels have risen in their life times. The real issue is the extent to which human activities are actually responsible. Is it our entire fault, or is there something much bigger and much more concerning in motion here?
The truth is; we are but a lm of grime clinging to the outside of a pebble thats hurtling through space. Though unlike pebbles, the Earth is continually at the behest of an in2 nite number of unequal equilibriums that somehow create an outcome we perceive to be stable. For us, this stability is embodied in the regularity of the tides, the rise and fall of the sun, or the seasonal rains. This results in the troubling deception that the Earth is constant, existing in its own bubble of isolation. This is not so. Every year, Australia moves an inch towards Asia. Every year, our little planet gets bigger by 10,000 tonnes of falling space debris added to the Earths mass. Every 23,000 years, the Earth wobbles on its axis, causing harsh summers and winters worldwide. Every 41,000 years, the Earth completes a cycle that alters the degree of its axial tilt. Currently resting on 23, it gives us our seasons, and yet we are only half way through the 41,000 year cycle. Every 100,000 years, the Earths orbit becomes more elliptical and thus takes us further away from the suns warmth. These statistics provide an overwhelming certainty to the fact that the Earth and its climate are not consistent. Perhaps most relevant to the present fears for global warming is this: every 1,500 years our planet experiences a cyclical change in its temperature between hot and cold, brought on by a mixture of internal weather and ocean-current oscillations and drops in solar radiation. The most convincing evidence for the 1,500 year cycle lies in ice cores. First noted in 1983 by Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger, as a snow ake falls through the atmosphere it collects oxygen isotopes along with it. The types of oxygen isotopes present in the atmosphere (speci-

cally oxygen 18-isotopes and oxygen 16-isotopes) indicate the air temperature and composition existing at the time. An ice core from Greenland, over a mile long and representing 250,000 years of snow fall, revealed that the Earth functions on a 1,500 year climate cycle which progresses regularly during the Ice Ages and more erratically during warmer global periods. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, acclaimed researchers in this eld, validate the discovery with the growth rings of various ancient trees and stalagmites which mark uctuating cold and warm periods. Studies by L. Keigwin of fossilised plankton and airborne dust found in deep-sea cores mined at the equator also corroborate Singer, Avery, Dansgaard and Oeschgers ndings. Concurrent to these discoveries is the combined work of geologist Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa, and astrophysicist Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Both identied a 135 million year cycle of global warming and global cooling present in the calcium and magnesium isotopes in fossilised seashells within a 500 million year period. Veiver and Shaviv concluded that over 75% of the worlds temperature alterations in the last 500 million years have been due to differences in the changing levels of cosmic rays bombarding the Earth as our solar system passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way an event that takes place every 135 million years. In reviewing all this (keeping in mind it is a mere fraction of the plentiful evidence out there), it is apparent that there is a cyclical nature to the warming and cooling of the Earths climate. While Singer and Avery believe it is prudent to concede that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions produced by the industries of the world have played a part in the recent climate warming, they conclude that it has been a minute role and has only served to slightly exacerbate the pre-existing 1,500 year climate-cycle. The likelihood that increased levels of carbon dioxide alone could be the sole instigator of global warming is minimal, given that research indicates during the Ordovician glacial period
THE BRIEF:

440 million years ago CO2 levels were ten times higher than they are today. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the current increases in temperature trends are nominal compared to those of the past. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics recently determined that the 20th Century has not been the warmest or most unusually warm on record. Soon and Baliunas reached this conclusion based on 102 temporal studies from around the globe, 78% of which showed there to have been earlier periods lasting at least 50 years that were warmer. In knowing this, Singer, Avery and many others who are critical of the theory that humans are the leading cause of current climate change, have concluded that three basic elements must be established before weight is given to a theory that would otherwise inhibit the full energy requirements and future development of civilisation. Firstly; that greenhouse gases will most certainly raise global temperatures considerably higher than during previous natural climate warming cycles. Secondly; that this warming would drastically harm the environment and human welfare. And thirdly; that there are rational human actions that can forestall this warming. This last minimum requirement is crucial, since the ramications for the natural climatic cycle are alarming themselves. The 1500 year cycle has in the past been powerful enough to function irrespective of the trillions of tonnes of ice covering vast sections of the Earth. Furthermore, when the last cycle completed its run, the Northern Hemisphere was hit by huge storm surges and expansion of snow falls and glacial ows. During previous Ice Ages, the poles froze to a depth that dropped the worlds oceans by several hundred feet. The idea that any civilisation could prevent even a natural warming of the Earths climate is laughable. What is important to note is that, throughout these millions of years, not only have the majority of these climatic changes been relatively gradual, but that life has always been

capable of adapting to it on the whole. As Singer and Avery note, the majority of life is either capable of retreating to temperate climates or reseeding once favourable conditions return. Where the vast majority of extinctions have occurred is where periods of climatic change have forced human migrations into areas where life is unfamiliar with this new type of predator. For instance, the land bridge formed across the Bering Strait permitted humans to travel from Siberia into the North American plains and hunt the ill-prepared mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel and ground sloth to extinction. Invariably, there will be considerable changes in rainfall patterns and the frequency of droughts. Just like before, nothing will be constant. Perhaps the only stable element is that life will nd a way to survive. This life may not be arranged as it is now, but it will nevertheless exist in some form. Even if all this proves to be a fallacy and that the increased levels of CO2 from human industry do exacerbate the climate system to the point that the Earth endures surges in unnatural climatic change the likes of which have only been experienced in such movies as 2012, there will be only one thing left to do, and thats to ride out the storm.

DANGEROUS IDRAS

A Modest Proposal:.

Bringing Slavery Back.

.

Mark Dunstan revamps slavery in a bid to end world poverty.

International poverty is perhaps currently the worlds gravest and deepest moral and institutional concern. The vast sea of humanity existing in grossly substandard living conditions makes up nearly half of the worlds population. Such people are commonly unemployed, unfed, and denied stable shelter. Additionally, there has been a clear inability within such societies to produce self-sustaining development. In fact, in the only cases where developing nations have been able to create new industry and inject any sort of vibrancy into their economic life, such as in South East Asia, it has been through a direct undercutting of tacitly understood principles of international labour policy, pushing Western manufacturing to ruin. The intolerable moral burden of global poverty, with its concurrent waste of human labour power, has

left our world in an unenviable place of decision. The loosening of international prohibitions on slavery is the only just and ethical option available to the modern world. The global war against slavery, beginning through the oft-forgotten antisocial rants of early Christian writers, through short sighted do-gooders such as William Wilberforce, has long been a stain on any litmus test as to the moral state of humanity. As must be taken as given, the proliferation of global capital and the expansion of marketable production are the core elements of equitable and upright humanitarian progression. All of the great advances of mankind have come through the accumulation of capital and the organisation of manpower. And at the rotted core of anti-slavery chatter, expulsion of people from humanityserving labour and capital production. Just imagine a world where the unemployed, unfed masses were put to protable work, funding the onward march of human ingenuity and success.

The lower, slave-class would be looked after and cared for by their owneremployers, in ways completely foreign to their current sufferance.
4

My proposal is to reintroduce enforced enslavement of the bottom two thirds of humanity (in terms of earning power) under the organisational power of the top few percent, with a substantial middle class to continue to provide an adequate independent market to encourage economic growth. The lower, slaveclass would be looked after and cared for by their owner-employers, in ways completely foreign to their current sufferance, while nominally allocated areas of resource gathering and manufacturing so as to serve as the industrious basis to societys development. Apart from the obvious benet of utilising the labour power of the poor, and the creative potential of the top percentage in the form of qualied direction, the world would also benet from a direct correlation between essential resources (such as food, water, shelter and health products) and work. Firstly, a slave-owner is not bound by arbitrary standards of remuneration and provision for workers, but is able to work within a system of great exibility and creativity. Overseer-employers will be able

to set levels of essential resource distribution in ways that would maximise the productive value of workers, with slaves working the maximum number of hours possible before their capital return begins to diminish through exhaustion and injury. Additionally, slave owners are able, with much more specicity than the brutish guesswork of current developingworld employers, to control population growth and quash unionisation through the tight control of resource distribution. In times of economic boom, population levels can be allowed to increase (although it may be necessary to restrict medical attention to the old to avoid the universal inconvenience of age). In times of downturn, resources can be withheld to kindly discourage reproduction amongst the slave population. Of course there are bound to be critics of such ideas, particularly amongst the poor of the world, who may not see the drastic benets such a plan would have to their own fullment, allowing more to participate in the great meta-narrative of human achievement. Such issues will of course need to be dealt with partly

by policing (employing those skilled at the art of mediating industrial disputes and motivating directionless workers) as well as through education. It is crucial that the latter be put into play so that the incumbent global slave population is helped to become aware of their key role in making our world a fairer and more just place to dwell. I feel that my modest proposal as to the alleviation of world poverty, unlike many currently being discussed, is not merely a bandaid effort. Rather, it is a real and effective plan to use the guiding principles of morality and justice, which have served humanity so well in the past, to continue to allow us to thrive and develop as ethical, creative beings.

EXPL RE OUR WORLD

At Baker & McKenzie we are different in the way we think, work and behave. Like no other law rmand few other businesses. Our difference is in our global platform none is bigger. It is in the scope of our practice noneisbroader. It is in our client listawhos who of global business. Join an entrepreneurial rm where new ideas and innovation are expected. A place where you willexchange rich local insights andknowledge with the best legal minds from all over the world people who know the law and who understand business. Our global reach will open you to an extraordinary career in the global economy. And our world-class learning programs willhelpyoudevelop as far and as fast as your talents and drive will take you.

Ready to explore our world?

Amanda James in Melbourne +61 3 9617 4325 Kate Evans in Sydney +61 2 8922 5517 www.careers.bakermckenzie.com

DOWN
Ben Dummett puts a plague on both houses.
Name one good thing democracy has done for you? What, foster a stable system of government resulting in steady national economic growth and the creation of a multicultural society? Wrong. Democracys enduring quality is that it seems perfect, fair, ideal. On paper a system of rule whereby the people are part of the process sounds very ne. Even the hairless cat, on paper, sounds ne. The devil, as always, is in the practice. The practice of modern democracy has resulted in a system of the tyranny of the majority, gross inefciency, and a surfeit of leadership. Imagine this: a meeting to decide what is to be done with hairless cats once and for all. It is an important decision. However instead of restricting attendance to a few key gures, everyone in the country turns up. You try to listen, but too many voices are competing with each other. Everyone from young to old wants to be heard and right now. From your back row seat only snatches of the important conversation make it to you, words like carbon tax, programmatic specicity and horrid beasts. You want to speak up, to make your thoughts known, but of course no one can hear you over the crowd. It is impossible. In frustration you start to argue your case with the chap sitting next to you, but hes worked up into a lather about a completely different issue. Frustrated and unheard you go home. At the next meeting, the country is arbitrarily divided up. From each group one representative is picked. You start to feel optimistic as now you might have a chance of, indirectly, contributing to the great meeting. Bless your foolish optimism. It just so happens that you live in an area where the majority of people hate hairless cats. Hairless cats are, of course, your most important issue. You just love hairless cats, from their wrinkly neck folds to anaemic wheezes. You write to the representative, who you suspect is more of a dog person at any rate, only to receive a form letter telling you your thoughts are important, but not as important as the thoughts of the majority who will re-elect them. Through a quirk in geography and electoral distribution your voice is muted, and it seems that the hairless cat will be banned. A minority has yet again been crushed by a majority intent on advancing its values and beliefs. Oh no! Is there any appeal to this? Both situations, direct and representational democracy respectively, are far from ideal. And yet we have all tacitly agreed that our country should be governed just like this. It is as if when presented with a menu of governmental options, we picked the worse option for each course. And now, as we unbuckle our belts and wipe our brows we are hit with the deepest of regrets. Democracy forces governments to pander and, through the process of trying to appease everyone, becomes staggeringly inefcient. Even though the merits of the hairless cat may be many, if popular opinion is against them, then bad luck. Governments get locked into short term thinking, where decisions are made on the basis of what will be the most popular or least controversial rather than the most effective or benecial. The realist school of thought tells us that all players want only to increase their power; why would anyone pick a hairless cat, mewing sadly, over free ights to Canberra, a printing budget and a shot at the Lodge? Hard decisions are rarely made and instead are shifted away in a whirlwind of committees, studies and delaying tactics. Governments become bodies of vacillation, locked into decision paralysis. Under our model of democracy, the individual has a say in the same way an amoeba contributes to the total life force of the planet: that is to say, innitesimally so. Instead, power is wielded by those with the most resources. John Citizen gets a vote, supposing he can tear himself from the Australia vs Antarctica 20/20

DEMOC
6

WITH
tour de football match, but Cobol Engineering hires a 100 member lobbying rm with the direct contact details of senior cabinet members. We live in a society where corporations have far more political power than any individual. Of course you could join up and create a Friends of the Hairless Cat action group. You could write letters, do a petition, go on a hunger strike, attend a rally. You could, but history has shown that you probably wont and even if you did it wouldnt matter. We can, and should, blame governments for wrecking democracy. They are weak and slaves to the fact that democracy is a popularity contest, as a recently disposed silver haired Prime Minster would attest to. But at the end of the day democracy fails becauseand I make this statement with the condence that only four years of university education can providepeople are stupid. Churchill, who spoke in a position of some authority, once quipped The best argument against democracy is a veminute conversation with the average voter. While it is an unpleasant realisation, it is nonetheless true. I mean, you like hairless cats! That clearly indicates a lack of mental soundness. Why should someone who possesses such quite frankly abhorrent ideas get to decide the future of sensible and just people? The business of government is complex beyond imagining. The footage of faceless men handing down thousand page reports on subsoil agriculture in North-West South Australia is but one sign of this. Unless you devote yourself to the business of government with almost monastic devotion, it is probably not right that you should be involved. The complexity of administering a nation has lead to the evolution of the special species of homo sapiens known as homo bureaucrat and homo politician. These people are endowed with gifts that make them uniquely suited to governance. Democracy, rather than enabling these subspecies, frustrates and thwarts their attempts to do decent work. These experts should be left alone, to do their job without having to periodically balance a ball on their nose and wave their ippers around for the kippers of public support. When we go for an operation, we do not want the surgeon to consult with the people on the train about how to do it. Instead we trust that they will use their intellect, training and judgement to do a good job. As the board game Operation teaches, they do not always make the right decision, but that is the nature of life. The important thing here is that an expert was trusted to make a decision without having to worry about a plague of popular gnats sapping away at their concentration and abilities. How could anyone operate under such absurd pressure? We need to embrace change. Complacency is a curse on humanity. With the same vigour with which we undertook the race to space, or the search of cures for diseases, we need to tackle the question of what comes after democracy. If it is an evolutionary dead end, like the sea monkey, then we need new ideas, new systems of governance. In other areas of life we have relentlessly rejected ignorant ideas, like the earth being at or the suitability of ugg boots as an outdoor shoe. Yet, out of fear of change, we continue with two thousand year old idea: democracy. No more. Today we look for an alternative, such as a system of trusted ofcials, with access to the the best advice, making decisions. People will be freed of the burden of maintaining democracys faade. Politicians will be able to get on with getting rid of the hairless cat once and for all. The nation will rest easy, and we can nally enjoy the good life.

CRACY
THE BRIEF:

DANGEROUS IDEAS

No one wants the Bill

Australians dont need, dont know and dont care about having a bill of rights, writes Jean Cuthill.
Election campaigns provide a clear window into what Australian voters see as the most important issues affecting our society. In the recent election I heard a lot about health, economy, climate change and asylum-seekers. But nothing on an Australian Bill of Rights. Why are we just not there yet? arises. It quickly gets confusing. For example, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities states that a person has a right to join a trade union, but there is no right not to join a trade union. Surely both are equally important? A Bill of Rights is not, and cannot be, some magical answer to all our problems. Canada, with its comprehensive and constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, demonstrates this. It is the only common law jurisdiction where investigative detention is legally practised. This means detaining somebody without charge on the sole criterion of having reasonable grounds for believing the person is somehow connected to a crime, for the purpose of investigating it. This is far broader and more oppressive than the oft-bemoaned preventative detention laws in Australia. However it is constitutionally and legally legitimate in Canada because Section 9 of the Charter only protects against arbitrary detention. A Bill of Rights creates legal loopholes, as much as it protects rights.

Would we get anything more with a bill of rights?

Most people hopefully have some inkling that they cant plead Amendment this and Amendment that like they do on Law & Order. Various liberties are protected by discrimination and indigenous-issue legislation, and judges imply liberties in the Constitution and common law wherever possible, although these rights are imsy and insubstantial. The main problem with drafting a Bill of Rights is not what rights to include. There is a rich discourse on rights, as well as a number of signicant international treaties. The problem is dening the extent of these rights and what happens when conicts between different rights 8

The purpose of a Bill of Rights is to codify, not create. All it achieves is a convenient listing of current civil liberties and remedies for their infringement into a single, convenient list. Rights cannot be created out of thin air because, as Sir Harry Gibbs once said: if society is tolerant and rational it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. This is demonstrated by the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, which was introduced at the height of Stalins purges and contained an extensive list of rights such as freedom of speech and of the press.

Australians dont know and dont care

Some important rights and freedoms, such as freedom of communication and a right to a fair trial, do exist, albeit in qualied ways. We know theyre there somewhere even if we dont always understand them. I was horried to hear how many people believed arrested Australians had the right to one phone call to obtain legal advice, a repetition of the clich often heard on TV. For the record: s

123 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 confers a very broad right to contact, wait for, and communicate with any other party, including friends and family. There is little point in cutting and pasting a rule from one piece of legislation into another when the real problem is the apathy of most Australians on this issue. Often the Bill of Rights is presented as being a catalyst for social and political discussion and cultural change. But surely, something as important and permanent as a Bill of Rights should not be the beginning of the discussion, but the end? Particularly as even a statutory Bill of Rights would be permanent as it could not be tinkered with without public backlash. A regime of rights should not be imposed on the Australian public. To do so would frustrate the aim of a Bill of Rights in the rst place. That is, to guide Parliament and the judiciary on the values that the Australian public holds most fundamental. The community should push for better rights

denition and protection. But current levels of apathy suggest a major groundswell of public support for a bill will not happen anytime soon. There are obvious reasons why the government and politicians might be a little slow to jump on the bandwagon. A bill requires a lot of work to debate, draft, and enact. Huge amount of old legislation would need updating. It is understandable why John Howard was opposed to the drastic restricting of government and legislature in this way. The Australian people have also rejected their chance to prove they care. Only 30% of Australians in 1988 voted in support of a referendum including three human rights provisions to be inserted into the Constitution: freedom of religion, compulsory acquisition of property only on just terms, and trial by jury for indictable offences. It was the lowest yes vote in any referendum to date. It is unlikely that opinion has changed drastically since then.

There should be strong support for a guarantee of basic rights in some form, even if the process begins with recognising within the Constitution a right for Australian citizens to vote. However the most recent election revealed that neither politicians nor voters are particularly passionate about rights. A possible explanation is offered by former Special Minister of State, Gary Johns; there is a point at which the vast majority say I have had enough. Society is reasonably fair.

design your career at MINTER ELLISON

You are just starting your legal career so now you have some important decisions to make. At Minter Ellison we want to make that process easier by providing you with the learning and development opportunities you need to reach your full potential. If you strive for excellence and want to join a high-performing, positive and interesting work environment, find out how you can design your career at www.minterellison.com.

Contact
Liana Hurry Human Resources Consultant Minter Ellison Aurora Place, 88 Phillip Street Sydney NSW 2000 E liana.hurry@minterellison.com

The New F-Word?

The fate of feminism in 21st Century Australia, writes Michelle Aitken.
When Julia Gillard rose to the leadership of the nation, upsprang a resurgence in debates about feminism. For the few weeks leading up to the 2010 election, all anyone could talk about was how her gender might inuence voters; whether it would draw in women and repel men or simply amount to no difference. By either coincidence or cynical opportunism, opinion pieces in nearly every newspaper began to discuss issues relating to the gentler sex. To this author, it seemed that feminism was the word about town again, though there was something unsettling about it this time. Having scoured through a few too many of these newspapers, something began to irk me but I didnt realise what it was until I came across an article by Angela Shanahan in The Australian. Entitled Full-face burka lifts the veil on Western feminists insecurities, it argued that many Muslim women highly educated and living happily in the Western world have begun to identify with and regard their traditional religious articles of clothing as symbols of liberation. 10 The author viewed this decision as a new form of feminism, alleging it stands as a moral counterpoint to the overt and highly sexualised feminism depicted in such shows as Sex and the City. To Western feminists, the article read like a subtle poison pen letter. They were portrayed as horried, threatening that a symbol of chastity and virtue was undermining their ideology. At this point I started to wonder; who are these feminists? Germaine Greer and Nancy Friday were the obvious examples that sprang to mind; but who did I know personally? The answer was no one. This realisation did not mean that everyone I know advocates a return to the kitchen and a withdrawal from the workplace; far from it. After all, the majority of women in Australia believe that they do deserve the same rights and opportunities as men, and that laws should be in place to protect women in vulnerable positions. My close female friends acknowledge the role the suffragettes and feminists have played in bringing about this belief in equality. But none of my friends would identify themselves as being feminist. The word itself is used to slander anyone who might put forward a more radical view on the matter. Why is this the case? Why is feminism such a dirty word, given that there is evidence to show that women still suffer from discrimination at home, in the workplace, and are on average paid less than men? The battle for equality obviously has not nished; it takes more than a few decades to overturn thousands of years of oppression. And yet the next generation appears willing to give up the ght. Shanahans article was the nal piece in the puzzle for me. In her article, Shanahan reveals the modern feminist exists in two forms; the Sex and the City type, who believe that women need to be highly sexualised in order to be free of male oppression; and those, nding freedom in chastity, who believe that being sexualised involves conforming to the fantasies of men. That women must either fall into either of these categories is an example of the virgin/whore dichotomy that keeps rearing its unwanted head. No wonder women no longer want to be identied as feminists. To do so means that they have to conform to either one of these stereotypes, much to the detriment of their own selfexpression and most importantly individuality. When women have to act in a certain way because of their gender, equality no longer exists. Men are not dened

by their sexuality or lack thereof, yet women are ferociously scrutinised and criticised. Perhaps the nonfeminists have the right idea; they can occupy the middle ground between whoredom and enforced virginity and make their own decisions about their lives. It would be nice to think that this is the answer, but it does not solve the discrimination and inequality that still exists. Furthermore, it leaves the next generation with no mechanism for coming to an informed choice about their role in society. It will leave them wide open to the vapid, pointless and incredibly shallow inuence of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, which seems bent on ensuring that women, and men by default, believe that intelligence is a aw and that empty sexuality is the norm. To borrow a phrase from Tony Blair, we need to nd a third way that achieves progress without forcing women to conform. The answer: alter the role of men in society. It has been shown many times that legislation works with social opinion to produce real change. So why not have male focussed legislation as the next step in achieving true equality? The most obvious place to start is to encourage men to stay at home and look after their children while women return to the workplace. This is not advocating a complete role reversal; it is simply recognising that equality requires that a fairer ratio of fathersto-mothers leaving the workforce should come about. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this policy. Women earn around the same as men, until the point when they have children. From there, their careers generally go on a downhill slide as they juggle work with caregiving. That is assuming that they go back to work at all. Whatever their decisions, these women feel guilty. If they stay home, they suffer from social stigma and are accused of wasting expensive university degrees and promising careers. If they work too much, they miss out on time with their children. Although many men could be said to be in the same boat, they are few and far in between.
THE BRIEF:

Many though not all of these issues could be alleviated if the government provided incentives for men to stay at home instead. For instance; give fathers a longer period of paid parental leave than mothers. By giving fathers a bonus time period, it provides more of a nancial incentive for mothers to go back to work. As this becomes more accepted and commonplace, social opinions about the role of men will alter to accommodate this shift and so provide the basis for the next wave of change. There are plenty of other ways that gender equality can be achieved through legislation. After all, women have been the beneciaries of positive discrimination for decades. If we really want to be fair and treat men and women in the same way, is not time for men to receive the same opportunities? Feminism no longer has to be a dirty word that represents extreme points of view. So long as the aim is equality, it can be whatever we want it to be.

We need to find a third way that achieves progress without forcing women to conform. The answer: alter the role of men in society.

DANGEROUS IDEAS

11

Assaulting the Defendant

Positive consent, the rape shield and unfair evidence laws: Has the pendulum swung too far?
The pendulum has swung too far in favour of complainants of sexual assault. Balancing the rights of a victim of a psychologically and physically traumatic experience with the rights of the accused to a fair trial is exactly that, a balancing act. With the new changes, it is near impossible for those who engage in sexual intercourse to be sure that consent is provided. We have fashioned evidence laws in such a way that complainants very serious allegations do not have to withstand rigorous cross examination, and we have denied the unrepresented accused a fair trial. element. That is, whether they knew that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse. The legislature now provides a positive denition of consent. A person consents to sexual intercourse if the person freely and voluntarily agrees to sexual intercourse. The defendant will be taken to know that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse if they knew this was so, was reckless as to whether this was so, or did not have reasonable grounds to believe that there was consent. It is now the situation that those who have sexual intercourse must take conscious steps to not only ensure the complainant consents, but to justify that consent was given objectively. It is not good enough to simply think they consented, or to ignore the issue. It is also not good enough to simply infer consent from their actions. My concern is that consent has become a far too difcult question. I worry that provisions which provide that a person can be said not to consent if they have intercourse while substantially affected by alcohol, and that a complainant who does not offer physical resistance is not to be taken by that fact alone as consenting, makes it too difcult for people to be absolutely sure consent is given every time. Short of physical resistance, an explicit denial or revocation of consent, or the completion of a stat dec, when can you be sure that the other person consents? Lets be realistic, if your partner appears to be having a good time, if they do not object, if you coax them into sexual intercourse through foreplay, if they appear to be coaxing you on by performing certain acts, even if they are drunk, then surely they consent right? Thats where it becomes tricky. It comes down to your word over theirs.

The Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

The test to determine whether someone has committed sexual assault is by asking whether they had unsolicited sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse now broadly encompasses many acts not previously connoted with rape. The denition incorporates vaginal and anal penetration by any body part of the defendant. Included also is penetration by foreign objects, and oral sex, be it penetration of the mouth by the penis or the vagina by the tongue. In most sexual assault cases, the criminal culpability of the accused will turn on the mens rea or mental 12

The Rape Shield

Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) makes evidence relating to the sexual reputation and previous experience of the complainant inadmissible. There are only limited exceptions to this and even when technically permissible, the court must be satised that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any distress, humiliation or embarrassment that the complainant might suffer as a result of its admission. This provision is unrealistic. Of course the complainant will be distressed, humiliated and embarrassed

by giving such evidence in the trial. Most trial participants are embarrassed or humiliated to some degree, particularly when it comes to sharing intimate sexual details. It should not matter what the evidence relates to; the accused should not be precluded from asking certain questions which relate to answering serious charges made against them. When sexual assault trials come down to one word over another, it is imperative that defence counsel can at least attempt to paint a picture of the complainant that may attack their credibility. If the complainant has had sex before, or is known to be promiscuous, then why can this not be included as evidence that they led the accused to believe that consent was given? Why can we not question the motive of the complainant in reporting the matter to the police? If we ask these questions all the time when cross examining witnesses in other matters, why then should complainants of sexual assault be afforded any extra protection?

Cross examination barriers

Additionally, s 294A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) states that the complainant cannot be examined in chief, cross-examined, or re-examined by the accused if the accused is unrepresented. Instead they may be examined by a person appointed by the court. This appointed representative can only question the complainant with questions already submitted by the defendant, and cannot give legal advice to the defendant. This provision derogates from the right of the accused to face their accuser. It also deprives unrepresented defendants from being able to cross examine the person who is usually the only witness available to provide evidence to support the charge. It is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Without testing the only evidence brought against them, the defendant is in a vulnerable position. When sexual assault cases come down to whose word is more believable, it is

important that the accused has the opportunity to defend the charge which, because of an alleged lack of consent, transforms a legal act into an illegal one. There are already so many protections in place for victims of sexual assault, such as providing closed courts, allowing the complainant to give evidence in chief via CCTV, allowing for committal hearing evidence to be submitted in writing without challenge, allowing for the recording of a trial in rst instance to become credible evidence should there be a later retrial, and by requiring that the police and DPP inform victims at all stages of the process. With these additional protections, the pendulum has swung too far.

Expect

MORE
FROM THE LAW

Youve worked hard. Done well. You want it all. And probably want it right now. At Blake Dawson we have the billion dollar deals, great clients and everything you would expect at a top tier rm. AND MORE For us, more is an environment where your ambition is nurtured and supported by learning programs and partners with open doors. We believe it will make you a better lawyer. When you choose where to make your mark, choose to have more. Ask us how.
Amy Foulcher People Development Consultant Graduate Programs T 61 2 9258 6924 amy.foulcher@blakedawson.com IDEAS THE BRIEF: DANGEROUS

I thought it came with an acorn.

Applications open 30 June 2010 and close 30 July 2010

Visit our careers website http://careers.blakedawson.com

Level 36, Grosvenor Place 225 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia T 61 2 9258 6000 F 61 2 9258 6999

WWW.BLAKEDAWSON.COM

13

Breeding

Self-Dest
The Reproduction Act 2010: putting the case for a licence to breed, by Prudence Roberts.*
We control nearly everything. Having a licence to use a pen in primary school. The paperwork surrounding who I share the bed with. Nearly everything is written, regulated. In some way controlled. From driving, gun ownership, beer pouring, singing in public we regulate, monitor, punish and control so much of what goes on in society. Phone bills, home loans, immigration, tax requirements, background checks, criminal records. The process of death. The limits we place: wrong shoes, no entry; No plastic hat? Get offsite. Yet everyone anyone! with the functioning reex or appropriate orice, or a love that distracts the deep emptiness of the psyche; any drugfazed illiterate foul gene-ed dropkick in any living condition of any socio-economic background with any criminal history, violent tendencies, paedophilic uncle, manic depressant aunt, clandestine lock-up basement or alcoholic addiction, in any place in the world can do this: create life. And they do. As a result, we all suffer. 14

The Precarious Present

The problem is twofold: not just whos spawning mindlessly, but how many? How is this feasible? Dick Smith thinks its not. To be maintained? Peter Singer would cry his ethicist eyeballs out telling us it cant be. First; the how many. The world population is currently at approximately 6.7 billion, with a predicted low projection of up to 7.4 billion, and a high projection at 10.6 billion, in 40 years time. Our already stuttering resources will, as stated by Sebastian Pardo from Simon Fraser University Canada, force us to ght for a feed. The UN World Food Program is calling it the perfect storm for the worlds hungry. There are serious problems: soil sodicity, (no place to grow food), ocean acidication (no sh to eat), water contamination (nothing to drink), air degradation (nothing to breathe), biodiversity depletion (no butteries!). Were on our last case of beer! Shouts the host. Grab me two! Shout the guests. Humanity hurtling towards the precipice, and were only speeding up.

longer conducive to rearing a child. That this is exacerbated by a government paying you to do it is alarming to say the least.

Background Checks
Regulation is needed. Not the kind that leads to Hitlers Final Solution. Rather, the kind that prevents just anyone from creating life. Your personal and family histories, your skills, health, and capacity to support children; all this should be assessed. Potential parents should make applications, show statements of money management, levels of education, community initiatives, self direction, originality (this is shaping up to be a bit like a graduate capability checklist). How will this new little fella benet society, or the economy? Will it be a drain? A drug addict? Will they follow the trend and become a granny aged 30 requiring monetary and emotional support? After all, are we not just little numbers in the giant economic calculator of Australia? Why not literally act as such and follow through accordingly?

Reproduction Act 2010

Let us make 2010 the year to remember. No more breeding mediocrity. No more reproduction of mindless beings of vacuous consumption adding to the cellulating structure of contemporary society. As good as this old system has been for corporations, it is not in the best interests of the country or the world; it favours the myopic short term desires and does not adhere to a long term vision

Consciousness or Lack Of
There must be an internationally shared system of responsibility for when ever anyone hopes to bring in another mouth to feed. Our current habits of procreation are at the extreme opposite of what the planet needs; a few too many babies affects us all when the environment is no

ruction
of a sustainable future/city/country. If we want to keep going, we want and need only the most conscious, aware, diligent global population around the kind only Neale Donald Walsh could dream of. I propose a bonus; you will be rewarded for not having children, for not adding to the glut of the world. It is the least you could do for your society. It will shift from quantity to quality, opportunity to gratitude. In case we havent realised, were all in this. Our government is mad and we can see just how macular degenerated and money focussed it is. The social fabric is gagging for it, so we need laws and strict guidelines that say who can and cant. When and where. How many. And we would keep checks. You fail to full your part of the baby-making contract, and WHAM you are in trouble. There would be plenty of other willing and childless couples. This creates the framework for a more active, caring society. If you were allowed to reproduce, wow would you work hard! It would reverse what the baby bonus is doing in making babies a commodity. You would not hurt, mislead, or neglect that little child, nor would you spoil it because you would submit annual progress reports to the Department of Humanity (DoH? That wont work. Maybe thats why there isnt one). Babies and birth would become a limited commodity, hell actually why not even whack a fee on the whole application process, like there is on just about everything else? Procreation legislation, a better world for everyone. No articial inseminations, no cut and paste; sorry but if youre not able to grow a baby, maybe theres a reason for that. We probably were not meant to have your genes in the bowl anyway. back under our increasingly doubling chins and tightens around our necks. The people who should be reproducing, who have a concern about overpopulation, are the very people who arent. The ones who think big TVs equate to good living, are spreading like projectile spew on a coffee table after a Kings Cross bender. Not everyone should have the right to create life: not now, weve ruined it. We have laws that regulate behaviour, provide safety and reciprocity. So it makes sense to add procreating to the list. Those against this are perhaps the truly selsh, unable to take reproduction past carrying on the family name to carrying on the human species. * This article is not an expression of the authors true beliefs.

Longevity in the Interests of All

This would mean less waste of our limited resources on mindless consumers; less power to the select-few insatiable executives. No dumbingdown of the population, but bringing back a more natural way of things in the sense of survival of the ttest. Cleaning up the gene pool of humanity for the benet and longevity of humanity. This would assist in shifting the balance; the worlds richest 20% consume 76% of resources, where the poorest 20% consume 1.5%. Something about that howls inequality. The great contradiction is that this breeding of mainstream mediocrity must stop if we want to keep going, and it stops with the iron st of the law. If not, we are destined as a species to continue pumping our own miscreant kind into every last crevasse of the planet. Filling up every habitable space with a mass of dependent, incompetent, totally domesticated blobs who rely on a few corporations to tell them what to do and how to do it; ravaging every last natural resource until its grip pushes

THE BRIEF:

DANGEROUS IDEAS

15

AN ANTHEM FOR

Abolish mandatory detention, or at least change the National Anthem. By Alison Malek and Samuel Hardman.

XENOS
tors in ensuring that the Depression and war years were very much a thing of the past. Our immigration policies unashamedly catered to our national interest, yet they marked the height of our countrys compassion and tolerance to outsiders. Throughout the late seventies, Australias refugee intake was around 20,000 a year and immigration policies were very much bipartisan. The Fraser government (1975-83) rejected proposals for detention centres ve or six times and instead maintained community-run centres for refugees, upholding Australias obligations under the Refugee Convention. But our generosity was short-lived. By the 1990s we no longer needed skilled migrants or refugees to offset labour shortages. We needed to swiftly circumvent our international reputation for being a country which protects those seeking asylum from persecution and effectively close the oodgates. All of a sudden we needed a solution to the so-called threat of outsiders. Unfortunately this fear has formed the basis of political rhetoric ever since. And its working.

Throughout the 2010 election campaign, Australians were treated to nationwide broadcasts of political parties bleating Stop the boat people! Theyll take our jobs! Wont somebody please think of the children! Images of mass migration ashed across our TV screens, depicted as blood-red arrows sweeping through Asia Minor towards Australia. But snuggled away deep within the ignored second verse of our National Anthem is a poignant statement which makes a mockery of our policy toward asylum seekers: For those whove come across the seas, Weve boundless plains to share. This poses a dilemma for the nation. Do we change the Anthem to match the xenophobia that is proliferating throughout Australian society? Or do we embrace it and persevere to stamp out the growing intolerance?

national law and the Migration Act, Australia has an obligation to protect those eeing from persecution. On the other hand, overstaying visa durations is not only illegal, it happens far more frequently than the arrival of boat people. Yet not nearly as much money is invested into the latter, leading to the suspicion that Australia has a much higher tolerance for those who have entered the country through privileged means. And that is nothing to be proud of. Secondly, whilst we happily accept approximately 15,000 immigrants per year (of which approximately 80% are proven not to be refugees), boat people (approximately 95% of whom are genuine refugees) are causing a frenzy even though only about 100 unauthorised boats have arrived on Australian shores since the Labor party came into power in 2007. This works out to be about one boat person every two days. Not such a huge threat. Yet intervention and push back operations subsist. What are we afraid of ? And what do they achieve?

Cost
Between 2001 and 2004, the federal government spent over $1 billion on asylum seeker procedure programs on offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island. Both of these facilities cost $2 million per month to maintain. In 2008 another $400 million was spent building the high security detention facility on Christmas Island. The Department of Defence has also spent $150 million over the past few years on intercepting unau-

History
The Australian nation is largely founded on and by refugees. Post World War Two, and after Gough Whitlam banished all remnants of the White Australia Policy, Australia benetted enormously from the refugee movement out of Indochina. Migration and regional cooperation were accepted by unions, citizens and political parties as being critical fac16

Hypocrisy
Mandatory detention centres, introduced by the Keating government in the 1990s, became the solution to the created problem. But this response is entirely hypocritical when compared to our treatment of other migrants. There is nothing illegal about the status of asylum seeker. Under inter-

thorised boat arrivals. These are only some of the costs. Who would have thought it was so expensive to keep unwanted boat people separate from mainstream Australian society? Even in the height of the nancial crisis, we seemed to have endless amounts to donate to such processes.

Xenophobia
Even if the government were now willing to change their stance on asylum seekers, they would have to convince a xenophobic population. Earlier this year, the Department of Immigration transferred 35 unaccompanied minors and 24 asylum seekers from the detention centre on Christmas Island to alternative accommodation in Darwin and a disused mining camp in Perth. This was in line with the Rudd governments abolition of detention of children. It did not even come close to establishing a balance between supposed compassion and control. But it received the following responses from Perth Residents on the Perth Now website: Our boys go to Afghanistan and get shot at. Meanwhile, loony labor

rolls out the welcome mat for illegals and gives them bed and breakfast! Wheres the sense in that? (sic); This is sick...why cant they be housed in their own neighbouring countries...think of our water usage.... (sic); Start asking if the homeless west australians would like a free roof over there heads as well ok (sic). The proliferation of highly critical opinions such as the ones above show just how far Australia has shifted from the constructive and charitable society that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. Certainly homelessness and water usage are very important issues. But mandatory detention does not solve them, nor does intolerance.

to cost only 3.5% of the amount that offshore processing totals) efciently and quickly, and with appropriate access to legal assistance, medical care and social support. Community based reception centres would be well suited to meeting these outcomes. If they are successful in their claims, then refugees should be afforded resettlement options which focus on poverty alleviation, primary health care and basic education needs. Alternatively, we could change the National Anthem to bring it more in line with our current policy. It could become, For those whove come across the seas, were full, so [expletive] off. This would probably lead us to breach our international obligations, and deny the rights of those relatively few people whose desperation leads them to endanger their lives, and those of their children, by boarding unseaworthy vessels and navigating the treacherous waters to our golden-soiled continent. But at least everyone would know the second verse.

Really Moving Forward

Mandatory detention centres, particularly off-shore shore ones, should be abolished. They achieve nothing but further persecution of those who seek our help. And theyre not cheap for the tax payer either. Asylum seekers who arrive by boat should be processed in mainland Australia (which has been calculated

ONE SPECTRUM OF OPPORTUNITY

One Vision One Purpose One Firm One Decision One Journey

Visit http://summerclerks.hdy.com.au for more information

17

The standard response has been to correct the genitalia. This involves assigning the child a sex and literally inscribing it on their body.

Rethinking Bodies
The problem with gender, writes Sascha Peldova-McClelland.
Whats the rst question we ask about a newborn baby? Not the name, not even whether the baby is healthy. We ask: Is it a boy or a girl? Because before we can even begin to talk about this new person, we need to know whether they are male or female. We need to be able to say he or she. Otherwise, the baby is it. And it isnt human. 18 For most people thats not a problem. Were one or the other. End of story. But for others, determining gender is more complex. You have probably heard of transgender and transsexual people before, but perhaps not of intersex people, a population all but invisible to most of us. Intersex is an umbrella term used for a wide variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesnt t the typical denitions of female or male. A child can be born with internal reproductive organs, external genitalia and/ or sex chromosomes that are not exclusively male or female. For example, a person can have female external genitalia, but male reproductive anatomy, or vice versa. People can be born with mosaic genetics, so that some cells have XX chromosomes and some XY. Or a person may have genitals that seem to be in between male and female types, such as a large clitoris or a micropenis. People with these latter types of sex differences, commonly referred to as ambiguous genitalia, are the ones subject to the most scrutiny and medical intervention. Many intersex people identify as either male or female. However, there

are some who feel that our current sex categories are inadequate, and will often identify as a third gender or as gender queer. Intersex activists stress that by far the most important thing for them is the right to self determination, bodily autonomy, and freedom from discrimination; pretty reasonable expectations, given that they are basic human rights. However, it seems that large parts of the medical profession dont agree. For over fty years, the standard response to children born with externally obvious intersex conditions has been to correct the genitalia. This involves assigning the child a sex and literally inscribing it on their body using invasive, painful and damaging surgical procedures on infants who cannot consent. The decision of whether the child should be male or female often hinges on the possibility of creating an adequate penis. If the phallus isnt long enough, the child will be designated female and have a vagina constructed. Even though in the majority of cases an intersex baby is perfectly healthy, it is protocol to treat it as a medical emergency. Parents of intersex children are often told that their child has a life threatening condition which needs immediate surgery to rectify. They are put under enormous pressure to agree, and are hardly ever told about the risks involved, or nonsurgical alternatives. This puts them in a position where they are unable to give informed consent. Parents are also strongly encouraged to keep the childs intersex condition a secret from them, and intersex patients are often denied access to their medical records. The justication is that the intersex child needs to grow up with a stable gender identity, which can only be accomplished with unambiguous genitals, and ignorance of their original anatomy. This stems from a belief that intersex is a pathology which, if left untreated, will lead to serious psychological problems for the individual and great distress for the family. Implicit in this is the belief that society cannot and should not tolerate sexual variation.
THE BRIEF:

But male, female and intersex are not natural categories. They are social constructions that reect real biological variation. There is an innite combination of possibilities on the sex spectrum and our binary sex system is merely a way of simplifying and making sense of this huge variation. Nature does not decide where one category ends and another begins - humans do. More specically, doctors decide just how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts is, before it counts as intersex. Intersex is simply what someone decides is non-standard sexual anatomy. The motives behind surgical sex assignment are therefore not medical, but social - they aim to reduce social discomfort rather than any physical discomfort of those that they are performed on. But, they often create signicant physical, emotional and sexual harm. The surgeries carry substantial risk to life, fertility, continence and sexual sensation and function. In addition, the emotional trauma caused can be huge. People who undergo surgical intervention in childhood often experience consistently negative and confusing messages about their bodies and identities. Isolation, stigma and shame are the overwhelming feelings that result from lack of information, honesty and support, and the encouragement of silence and secrecy. The very things medical intervention is supposed to prevent - shame, stigma, confusion about gender identity -are a direct result of it. There is a common argument that intersex children have to be medically assigned a sex because it would be cruel to allow them to be so different from everyone else. What would other people make of them and what would they think of their own body? However, there is no evidence to suggest that people with uncorrected genitals suffer increased rates of psychological illness or social ostracization. It is common for people who do not have medical sex assignment as children to not have any negative associations with their bodies. It is usually only when they see doctors for routine exams as young adults

that they are made to feel that there is something wrong with them. The assumption is that surgery will x the problem of intersex. However, surgery is merely a response to a problem that medicine has itself created. And it creates a whole new host of problems for the individual it has acted upon. Consider this quote from intersex woman Esther Morris: I feel abnormal because I had to be xed, not for the truth about my body. Being born without a vagina was not my problem. Having to get one was. Humans vary in just about every bodily feature you can think of. So why then does it come as a surprise, often accompanied with horror, that people are born with varying genitalia? It seems that in order for us to be considered human in our world we need to be unambiguously gendered. That is why these surgeries are performed on children who cannot consent to them, by doctors who may not understand the consequences of their actions. What is the alternative? To revise our denition of gender and what it means to be human. To talk openly and honestly about intersex. To have full disclosure by doctors and parents to intersex children. To have solid social and psychological support networks for intersex people so that they do not feel alone or abnormal. And most importantly, to not perform surgeries on children who cannot consent to them, but rather to wait for the child to make their own decision. In short, we need to change society, not the bodies of children.

DANGEROUS IDEAS

19

Terrorism
Terrorism trumps democracy, writes Emilia Lukeman.
Most impressions of terrorism, like the universe, begin with a big bang. Then the questions arrive: who, why, and how can we stop it from happening again? In other words, how can we solve the problem of terrorism? But terrorism is not a problem currently offering any solutions. An act of terror is, without doubt, the result of a decision that terrorism in a certain context would be the most effective way to achieve an objective. And for as long as there are people who see terrorism as a strategic option with a chance of success, there will always be a case for it. this view, terrorist acts are a means of access to policy and government where there are no other options. An example of this line of reasoning would run: if a state were to remove all civil liberties including the ability to vote, the perpetual ammunition of the population at large is the threat of indiscriminate and constant violence. In apartheid South Africa, the consensus that terrorist actions were the only option available allowed Mandela to take the label of freedom ghter. While in context and hindsight this is generally accepted as an accurate description, in terms of argument this is not so much a slippery slope as a sheer wall of ice. The Irish Republican Army was also ghting for a majority, but the assumption inherent in the freedom-ghter-label is the necessity of the ght itself, and the events of the last decade suggest that a peaceful solution was always available. and police, and to create offences for terrorism which included preparatory offences and offences of association. Apart from giving the demoralising impression that the government is compensating for feelings of impotence against terrorism, diminishing civil, political, and human rights seems to be democracy shooting itself in the foot. Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby has written extra-judicially on how terrorism can be largely prevented by restrictive laws and still succeed in undermining the social and civil structures it so clearly rejects. In other words, it is in our response to the threat of terrorism that terrorisms ammunition resides. What other strategy would drive the government to diminish the rights of its population? What else could push the High Court to stretch the boundaries of the judicial power under the Constitution to allow control orders and greatly extend the constitutional defence power (seen in Thomas v Mowbray [2007])? What else would lead the government to accept the creation of insecurity in law-abiding Muslim communities through its own laws? The case for terrorism is that it is testing our democracy, and democ racy is failing.

The Case for

Terrorists & Freedom Fighters

The denition of terrorism is, by itself, a challenge for a PhD and a half. There is no universally accepted denition. As noted on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trades website, part of the problem is the truth in the worn-out clich that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom ghter. This common argument, which holds up Nelson Mandela as a prime example, treads the grey space in morality alongside theoretical (and not-so-theoretical) exceptions to the prohibition on torture in international law. The argument is that terrorism is sometimes a legitimate strategy of the disenfranchised, allowing oppressed minorities, or even majorities, to viscerally illustrate the dislocation between the existing government and true democracy. This is intended in the sense of a system representing the will of the people as a whole. In 20

Terrorism Works
The reason for the predominance of terrorism is obviously that, as a strategy, terrorism works. As 9/11 taught us, peaceful and democratic nations responses to terrorism often involve rstly, a dwindling of fundamental rights and freedoms, and secondly, more violence. Terrorism hits the democratic state right in its weakest spot democracy. After 9/11 the response of the Australian Government was to enact dozens of laws aimed to give more powers to the intelligence services

21

Postcard from Abroad

Shaun Star tells of his adventures in India.
After waiting for a bus to turn up 30 minutes after its due departure time I put my arm out and the bus slowed down (describing a Bus Stop as such is a little ambitious on the sub-continent. It should really be called a Bus Slow Down). Without it stopping, I jump in, grateful that I am finally on my way to university.
The vehicle lumbered towards my destination, negotiating ve lanes of trafc wedged into a two lane road. At every trafc light, more people crowded onto the already overowing bus. Men were hanging on to the outside, clutching the window bars and climbing on top of each other in an attempt to get to the door. After a few minutes of chaos, the bus driver slammed on the breaks and exclaimed in Kannada (the local language) that he was sick of this 22 nonsense! He then demanded that everyone get off, turned his bus around (across 4 lanes of trafc) and drove home. Standing on the side of the road, amongst the forlorn busload of people, I realised that I would never again complain about the reliability of the 288 to the QVB. Welcome to India! Already over the past couple of months I have been on an elephant ride, visited the highest tea plantation in the world, danced to Bollywood hits with street kids on Indian Independence Day, cruised the backwaters of Kerela on a houseboat, endured unfounded threats of gaol from a money hungry real estate broker and lectured auto-rickshaw drivers on the concept of supply and demand (in order to explain why it is not logical for me to pay them double the meter cost when there are 79,999 other rickshaw drivers that I can negotiate with). Of course, India would not be India without cricket. You can forget tennis elbow, after playing cricket with local Indian kids for two and a half hours I had cricket shoulder for the next three days. I urge any cricket lover to try bowling spin on an all dirt pitch, with an overhanging tree branch between you and the other wickets. Fun and games aside, I have been studying at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLS), whilst volunteering for an NGO and completing an internship in a local Sports Law practice. Uni here is very different to what I was used to back home. Like us, students here study full-time for ve years to complete their degree, however, they have three trimesters per year. And they have more contact hours per subject than Australia, despite operating on the trimester model. Accordingly, their university experience is quite full on and very few students nd the time to work a job in between their

studies. I am only studying a couple of subjects this trimester, and both require a seminar paper of 5,000 to 8,000 words! So perhaps keep this in mind when you complain about the 1,500 word admin law paper. Another interesting fact - all domestic students at NLS also live on campus in separate male/female dorms. This means that the majority of students at NLS do not have to start their mornings negotiating the chaotic Indian roads, they can just roll out of bed and walk to class (coming late to class, however, seems to be a universal uni-student trait, no matter how close you live to campus). There are also a number of German exchange students who live on campus I am the only exchange student at NLS who is not from Germany, which makes me feel quite popular around cricket season time. My volunteer experiences have probably been the highlight of my trip thus far. There is nothing more
THE BRIEF:

rewarding than empowering children with skills that are likely to change their lives forever. I have been volunteering for a charity that teaches computer literacy skills to children who cannot afford mainstream schooling. The kids are extremely grateful, and I must concede that the lessons are a phenomenal learning experience for me also. It is no easy feat explaining to children who have never seen a computer before that when you ask them to hold the mouse they should stop looking on the ground for a small fury rodent. While I have had some amazing experiences in India, my trip has not been without its fair share of challenges. A local once described this place to me as the city of living chaos. He said that you come to expect the unexpected, and that makes life interesting. For instance, despite being promised that my apartment would be completely ready on 4 July, I ended up moving into a

half-nished apartment on 20 July. I have certainly learnt to expect the unexpected and to appreciate the efciency in which things operate back in Australia. But it certainly has made my time here interesting over the past couple of months. And I am certain that the living chaos will continue as my adventure unfolds over the coming months. I have thoroughly enjoyed my experience on exchange in India and I can safely say that I have had experiences here that no ve years of studying back home could have taught me. I urge you to considering studying abroad and, if you have the opportunity to do so, consider doing it in a developing country while there will undoubtedly be challenges, the experience will be worth it!

SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

23

Extra Curricular:

BREAKING DOWN

BOUNDARIES
Want to build up the extra-curricular section on your CV without the soul-crushing process of joining MULS? Michelle Aitken has the answer.
A small group of Macquarie Law students went to the Breaking Down Boundaries conference not knowing what to expect. All that we really knew was that wed be attending a weekend residential conference at Sydney University and discussing social justice issues with idealist fellow law students from all around Australia.
After arriving and registering on Friday night, we had our rst opportunity to meet the other participants over drinks. One of the great things about the conference was that everyone there was passionate about the issues that we were discussing, and they brought with them a diverse range of perspectives and opinions. That was followed by keynote addresses from Catherine Branson QC, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the federal AttorneyGeneral Robert McClelland, both of whom discussed whether Australia should have a Bill of Rights. The next day was thought provoking and interesting. The rst forum was on same-sex equality and adoption rights, with a panel that included Nicholas Toonen, the complainant in the landmark human rights case Toonen v Australia. This was followed by a careers morning tea (with incredibly addictive chocolate brownies) that included a speech by Danny Gilbert of Gilbert + Tobin. 24 The second forum was on corporate criminality and international law. This brought our attention to an area of the law that isnt well known or established in Australia, but can have extraordinary implications for the lives of thousands of people affected by the negligent and criminal behaviour of transnational corporations. Peter Gordon, one of the founders of Slater and Gordon, was part of the panel that debated the role of the law in regulating and punishing big business, and how far liability and responsibility should extend. This was discussed with reference to high prole cases such as the complicity of Royal Dutch Shell in the torture and deaths of Nigerian activists, and the Bhopal disaster. Forum three was about indigenous issues and the role of public interest litigation in achieving social justice in the courts. The unique social and economic problems that can arise when the law is used to impose top-down reform were discussed by Justice Ronald Sackville, as well as possible solutions and improvements. The highlight of the conference was undoubtedly the formal dinner with former Justice Michael Kirby. It was an amazing opportunity to learn more about the reasoning of one of the most progressive and controversial High Court judges, as instead of delivering a prepared speech, he allowed us to ask him questions about his career and life. The next day included forums about intellectual property and government regulation of the internet. Although to me these sounded rather dry, they covered fascinating topics such as gene patenting and its implications for medical research and treatments. The speakers gave us an insight into a controversial area of the law, using the patenting of breast cancer genes, and effective ownership over them, as an example of the serious issues that can arise in intellectual property. The weekend was an intellectually provocative experience. We were provided with unique and progressive perspectives on legal issues that we wouldnt have otherwise discovered, and met a group of students who recognise how inuential the law can be and want to use their degrees to benet society in some way. We also learnt about alternative legal careers and how to combine a corporate career with social justice. The next conference will be held over the summer break. Its a unique opportunity to explore social justice issues and discover areas of law that you may never have considered. As an added bonus, youll meet likeminded and passionate law students from a diverse range of universities. For details, including keynote speakers and forums, speak to Jarrad Harvey and myself, or visit www. breakingdownboundaries.org or join the Facebook group.

Alternative Careers:

Comedian
We dont all want to work in law firms, and we cant all do a Bill Gates. So what are our options? Charlie Pickering, from The 7PM Project, suggests comedy.
What led to your transformation from lawyer to comedian?
It was a number of things, really. But I remember clearly making the decision to leave the law on my rst day in a big law rm. I was sitting at my desk looking at the senior partners in their corner ofces. They worked 16 hours a day, were 20 kilos overweight, didnt really know their families, theyd missed out on their kids growing up and none of them looked happy. Im a fairly competitive person and want to succeed in everything I do and I just thought that if that means success in this business, then I am in the wrong business. And so I walked out the door at the end of the week and went to do something that would make me happy every day of my life.

Has your law degree helped you, or contributed to your success?

Absolutely. I use it every day. And not just in a legal sense of understanding news and politics or checking my own contracts, but just having an analytical mind and approaching all problems from as many sides a possible.

Quite a few commedians are exlawyers. Do you think that this says anything about the legal industry?
I think it says that there are a lot of people who kill time in the legal industry while they gure out what to do with their lives. There are probably a lot more comedians out there who just havent taken the leap yet.

25

Q
26

& WITH A KIRBY

By Chris James & Christoph Liedermann.
Are decisions stronger if they are decided collegially? Does it perhaps weaken the courts ruling if you can see the differences in opinion?
I dont think that you should pretend there is agreement if there are genuine differences. If you paper over the cracks, the trouble is that anyone intelligent (which should mean most lawyers) can see what you are trying to do. Such behaviour will not advance the development of the law. Having said that, you should certainly try to nd common ground. The very nature of the Constitution means differences of opinion will arise. An example is the recent Rowe decision (The GetUp case) where the court was divided. Such is the nature of constitutional litigation. If they were not difcult issues they would not usually be bought before the High Court.

Do you think it is a good thing to encourage differences of opinion and debate amongst the High Court Judges? Or is it better to keep a more a collegiate attitude?
I think a collegiate attitude is generally desirable. Certainly, during my time as president of the Court of Appeal, we operated mainly in that way. But in the High Court there are procedures for recognising different views. I took part in many decisions that generated differences of opinion. The issues in the High Court are often controversial and involve values on which lawyers will differ. And not all the collegiality in the world should wash away the honesty and transparency of these differences. One of the strengths of the Australians justice system is the way it supports and protects this honesty and transparency.

Should the High Court take a social activist approach and seek social justice?
Judges must face the dual quandary of the legal system: to seek just outcomes, but to do so within the parameters of the law. I am neither for the rigidity of unreective decisions applying literal applications, nor for ignoring the law and substituting the judges own palm tree justice. The legal system tries to seek justice, but justice must be found within the law.

Do you think that the Courts play an important role in allowing free speech?
The High Court has generally taken a very strong stand on the right to free speech, especially in Lange v ABC. Also in the cases of Roach and GetUp, the Court acted to protect the rights of citizens to express their views through use of the ballot; which is really the most fundamental expression of political opinion. We believe it is very important, but is not the only value. Australians also value the right to privacy, dignity, reputation, and the right to have parliamentary free speech. There are other rights to be balanced against unrestrained freedom of expression.

The way we have sometimes treated Aborigines, boat people, prisoners, and so on, indicates that we do not have an unblemished record..

How do you see Australian law progressing in terms of a Bill of Rights?

Well Mr. Rudd said that the decision to reject a statutory bill or charter of rights would be reviewed in 2014. I do not believe there is a high likelihood of us getting a bill of rights any time soon. And that will leave us as the only western country without one. We trust parliament to protect our rights. Yet the way we have sometimes treated Aborigines, boat people, prisoners, and so on, indicates that we do not have an unblemished record. So I think some protection for universal human rights would be useful. The Mabo decision (that is, Mabo No.2) did feature some discussion of the protection of human rights. The question is whether we should have this consistently, not as an exceptional case.

How important is it for people (particularly up-and-coming lawyers) to have an open mind to these issues?
If law students dont have an open mind even before they graduate, it would be a very bad thing. Of course it is important we keep our minds open. Most law students come from higher income families, and most have attended private schools. I myself did not. I attended public schools. Asking those more privileged to imagine the world through the eyes of those disadvantaged is sometimes a big ask. But it is something a lawyer must do. A lawyer sometimes has to be a kind of actor. A lawyer must step into the shoes of the competing parties, and be able to assume the point of view on other side of record, and pursue it with ingenuity and vigour. You have to be able to imagine. Perhaps we should all be taught John Lennons song, Imagine, and how important it is to keep an open mind.

You have to be able to imagine. Perhaps we should all be taught John Lennons song, Imagine, and how important it is to keep an open mind.

THRIVE LEARN GROW

Thrive in a think tank

Our summer clerks learn and develop skills alongside lawyers who are among the very best in their fields. Clerks work collaboratively with partners and lawyers as a think tank of leading minds. If youre among the best and brightest law students, then Gilbert + Tobin is the place to complete your summer clerkship. Were one of the nations leading corporate law firms, servicing blue-chip clients across a deep range of practice areas and offering expanding opportunities in Asia. Most importantly, youll be part of a younger, more flexible first-tier firm that has built its success on legal innovation and having a heart.

To learn more about Gilbert + Tobin, see www.gtlaw.com.au/me

me

27

You Know What Really

Grinds My Gears...
The W5A ramp
You have to walk half way across the world to get the bloody door. Call me lazy, but when youre in a rush its annoying. PLUS! The building has no internal ramps or lift, so why did they bother building it anyway? FAT KID

Law firm rejection letters

Yes I know there was an exceptionally high standard of applications, and a very large number of applicants etc. Why not just say what you mean, that I was too shit to work for you? THAT HR LADY

Slutty costumes
It still annoys me that I was asked by several people at SOS II where my costume was just because I wasnt dressed as a half-naked school girl. Im sorry, I believe the theme was high school clichs, of which there is more than just one. THE GIRL WITH SELF ESTEEM

Animals in pet stores

8 out of 10 times they get dumped somewhere, and whats more is that there are thousands of lovable characters just sitting in pounds and animal shelters, waiting to be loved. So if you are going to buy a pet, at least alleviate the problem by saving a little furry soul from certain Nazi-style gassing. NOT AMANDA (SERIOUSLY)

Law students
Just because you study law does not mean that youre phenomenally smart or ridiculously good looking. Youre just advanced readers and your entire profession is a self-propelling leech on society. Most of you will never end up doing anything remotely useful. Yet you walk around as though you own this shit, calling everyone else laypersons. Bitches please! MEDICAL STUDENT

Fake animal lovers

People who pretend to be all into animals (not in the bestiality way) and get all angsty about a cat being put in a bin, or a dog being neglected, but still continue to eat meat when theyre out, knowing that, chances are, it is factory farmed. Thats hypocrisy that even the Catholic Church would be proud of. - THIS ONE MAY BE AMANDA

Facebook status updates

Particularly the ones that are supposed to be witty but are actually transparent, attention-seeking and self-centred, and are clearly intended to make sure that everyone knows how drunk you were, how last minute your assignment was, how you are doing well at law despite either having put in no effort at all, being so absent-minded, or being so over it. SOCIALLY ADEPT

uBar toilets
Every uBar event means walking through the sludge of urine, toilet water and mashed toilet paper when you need to tinkle. Youd be amazed at the absorption capabilities of Rabens too. - POOR SWORDSMAN

Library Security
Seriously, there must be more important things to protect than the library. THE BOOK THIEF

28

Law and Disorder

God bless America
Sometimes, and for no apparent reason, fate just hands you a gift. In my search for the most obscure laws around the world, one such gift was handed to me. It came in the form of the city of Walnuts municipal code. Walnut is located in California, USA, in the south-eastern portion of the Los Angeles County. Its municipal code is nutorious (Get it? Walnut? Nut? Nevermind.) for strange laws, the most interesting of which are located in Chapter 17 Offenses Miscellaneous. The fun begins with the misspelling of the title of section 16 so that it reads Display of private arts instead of parts. But the display of female breasts was awarded a section all unto its own, probably because of the level of detail necessary to describe how much cleavage is too much: any portion of either breast below a straight line so drawn that both nipples and all portions of both breasts which have a different pigmentation than that of the main portion of the breasts are below such straight line. But most interesting of all is section 31 which makes it an offense for a man or boy to dress up as a woman or girl except for the purpose of amusement, show or drama. There is no equivalent provision for females. Only a permit from the sheriff will get a cross-dressing male around this section. Now isnt that a conversation which you would love to see? What makes this all the more hilarious is that in 1999, CNN described Walnut as a model of diversity it obviously forgot to count all the men repressed by section 17-13. - MICHAEL SANTOS 29
THE BRIEF:

SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

What did you do after you graduated?

Questions.
With Macquarie Law Graduate Mike Kelly.
secured most of the information and proved most of the elements, so it was a good time to move on, and seek another way of making a difference on an entirely new stage. The ADF offered an opportunity to do so. It is involved in a lot of overseas missions in places where there are massive violations of human rights, genocide, and civil wars. So there is a chance to make a difference in terms of dealing with the issues that confront our military in those environments. It is necessary to make sure that we conduct operations effectively and minimise damage, particularly when conducting insurgency operations or UN Peace Keeping operations. In those situations you really need to employ interdisciplinary approaches, combining military skills with legal skills.

When I graduated I went to work for Turner Freeman solicitors in Sydney. I mainly concentrated on industrial action, workers compensation, and toxic torts, particularly asbestos litigation. I was involved in asbestos litigation at a very interesting period because it was early days so we were just beginning to discover the liabilities and methods of establishing the elements of the action.

With two capital punishment prosecutions to your name, have your views on capital punishment changed?
I was always opposed to capital punishment and remain opposed to it. But the world is not black and white. You often have to deal with situations which force you to make a choice between two evils, and in some circumstances, you do not get to have much choice. For example, in Somalia we had a genocidal maniac, Hussan Gutaale Abdul, who was going to resume his activities once we had departed, and he had an armed militia force behind him. The death penalty was effectively the only way the community could defend itself. Since then the International Criminal Court has opened up more

You joined the ADF Legal Corps in 1987, what motivated the move?
We had reached a point where we had put to bed all of the aspects of the asbestos litigation. We had 30

avenues of redress for similar situations, but in the circumstances at the time, it was basically the lesser of two evils.

You became the member for Eden-Monaro in 2007. What triggered your move into politics?
It presented an opportunity to serve the country, and to make a difference, in a different way. More specically, it gave me an opportunity to respond to what I perceived to be the shortfalls of the Howard government, particularly in respect of the approach taken towards security issues. The Howard government placed too strong a focus on kinetic force and ignored the use of softpower, interdisciplinary and multiTHE BRIEF:

lateral approaches. In effect, all eggs were placed in the one basket. I also felt that they werent taking enough interest in how things were operating on the ground in Iraq, how the war was progressing and what was going wrong. But I was also inuenced by the personal connection I have to EdenMonaro. I have a long family history in the region, and so I felt that there was a chance for me to reconnect with my roots.

world and leave it in a better state to how you found it. Dont limit yourself. With a law degree you can achieve all sorts of things. You can contribute, and you can make a difference, on any scale. Keep an eye out for opportunities as they present themselves and try to take them.

What advice can you give to current Macquarie Law students?

Never lose sight of the fact that your degree is not just a means to earn a living. Its a tool to use to shape the 31

GET YOUR MAC ON

SOS II
High School Clichs.
THE EFFECTS OF ICE. WE GET IT ANDREW, YOURE IN THE ARMY.

STRAIGHT-O-PHOBIA.
32

REVENGE OF THE NERDS; FEATURING JULIA GILLARD.

I THOUGHT THIS ONLY HAPPENED IN THE MOVIES?

EVERYONE WAS SO HAPPY WITH THE MAIL ORDER.

I DEFINITELY SHOULD HAVE GOT SOME NASAL SPRAY. ALL THE SINGLE LADIES. NOW PUT YOUR HANDS UP!

HOOK ME UP - THE VERONICAS.

THE BRIEF:

OUR WONDERFUL PHOTOGRAPHER CLAVELL LEE! THANKS FOR ALL THE PHOTOS THIS YEAR.
33

GET YOUR MAC ON

Competitions Corner
Semester 2 Competitions have commenced at Macquarie University, with the Piper Alderman Witness Examination, Mallesons Negotiations and Gilbert + Tobin Paper Presentation Competitions well underway. As always, the standard of competitors has been exceptionally high and we wish all competitors the very best of luck as they proceed through the competition.
Sir John Peden Contract Law Moot The Sir John Peden Contract Law Moot is run annually between Sydney and Macquarie Universities. Pishoy Gobran, Thomas Platt and Laura Pontin represented Macquarie University in the moot this year. They should be congratulated on their commendable performance before a daunting panel of judges, including the Honourable Justice Giles. Lexis Nexis Constitutional Law Moot MULS sent a two team delegation consisting of Cynthia Alberts, William Coote, Reece Corbett-Wilkins, Catherine Greentree, Jarrad Harvey and Christine Iacono to compete in the Lexis Nexis Moot. These students represented MULS before a panel of judges including French CJ, competing against law societies from across Australia. They are to be congratulated for all of their hard work. National Shine Lawyers Torts Moot In August this year students represented Macquarie University Law School at the 2010 National Shine Lawyers Torts Moot in Queensland. The team consisted of students Daniel Johnson, Vanessa Hubel, John Arthur and Pishoy Gobran. They defeated teams from the University of Sydney and UNSW. MULS would like to congratulate the team for all of their hard work leading up to and during the competition. Grand Final Dates As always the MULS Competition Grand Finals are a perfect way to wrap up each semester by showcasing the best student competitors, and allowing students to network with other attendees, including partners of each sponsor rm. Details on venues and start times will be provided in the next few weeks, but for now, pen in the following dates: Mallesons Negotiations Competition: Thursday, 11 November Gilbert and Tobin Paper Presentation Competition: Tuesday, 2 November Piper Alderman Witness Examination Competition: Wednesday, 27 October

SEMESTER TWO UPDATE

Acknowledgements MULS would like to acknowledge and thank the staff, students, lawyers and alumni who have kindly volunteered their time to judge, coach or assist with competitions at Macquarie University this semester. In no particular order they are: Derek Buchanan, Brenda Tronson, Iman Prihandono, Eli Ball, Awais Ahmad, Patrick Mahony, Peter Gaffney, Liam Cavell, Lise Barry, Angus Macinnis, Pamela Morgan, Vanessa Ong, Peter Radan, John Friedman, Margaret Kelly, Valerie GutenevHale, Benjamin Jiang, Ilija Vickovich, Ryan Harvey and Wande McCunn. Special thanks should also go to Pouyan Afshar, President of NSW Young Lawyers, for his assistance in sourcing judges. Please visit www.muls.org for more information about Competitions at Macquarie. If you have any questions or feedback, please do not hesitate to contact the Competitions Executive.

34

THE BRIEF:

GET YOUR MAC ON

35

Sponsors

36

The Brief
Volume 16 Edition 4, October 2010 Dangerous Ideas Macquarie University Law Society 2010 EDITOR: Amanda Richman SUB-EDITORS: Michelle Aitken Ben Dummett Mark Dunstan Samuel Hardman James Hoy Alison Malek Tim Patrick Michael Santos Julia Smith CONTRIBUTORS: Michelle Aitken Mandy Bendelstein Reece Corbett-Wilkins Jean Cuthill Ben Dummett Mark Dunstan Samuel Hardman Chris James Mike Kelly Christoph Liedermann Emilia Lukeman Alison Malek Kathy Molla-Abbasi Sascha Peldova-McClellan Charlie Pickering Prudence Roberts Michael Santos GRAPHIC DESIGN: Ryan Kirkpatrick ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The SOS II Party photos were provided by Clavell Lee. CONTACT US: thebrief@muls.org THE BRIEF ONLINE: The Brief can be viewed online at www.muls.org THE USUAL LEGAL STUFF: All views expressed herein are those of the individual authors and do not reect, in any way, the attitude of the Macquarie University Law Society. The Macquarie University Law Society does not accept any responsibility for losses owing from the publication of material in The Brief.

THE BRIEF:

VOLUME 16, EDITION 4

37

rief
THE
Volume 16, Edition 4

DANGEROUS
38

www.muls.org