Quote of the week

Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.

L'Heureux-Dube and McLachlin JJ
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288
14 March 2016

On the white Aids denialists

Enter the Mbeki-defending goons that Tandwa quotes. Like Matthias Rath (the vitamin salesman), and Peter Duesberg (an academic who cannot get published in a peer-reviewed journal), Anthony Brink (an advocate) and Chris Rawlins (an accountant) are not recognised by any scientific forum as “experts” on HIV. To confer on them the title of “independent researcher” when they obviously do not have the skills to conduct such research, is an egregious error. The irony is that the privileged, old, white, and male AIDS denialists, while relying on the gullibility of young journalists, claim to be advancing a decolonial agenda.

2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest