Why Triggs should be sacked.

[Rorschach]

http://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Communi ... -p/1464397

THE Human Rights Commission president must resign after turning her inquiry on children in detention into a political witch-hunt last week.

Gillian Triggs’ behaviour was unforgivable for someone with semi-judicial powers, able to force witnesses to appear under threat of jail.

We cannot have the head of an inquiry showing such bias, heckling witnesses and making false and emotive claims from the bench to make the Christmas Island detention centre seem a hellhole.

Nor can we have an inquiry head giving media interviews attacking witnesses and summing up the issues before hearing all the evidence.

We also cannot have an inquiry head refusing to correct explosive claims about suicide attempts in detention when they’ve been debunked.

It is now impossible to have confidence in Triggs’ impartiality.

In fact, it’s hard not to suspect her inquiry is designed to reach a prejudged conclusion — to damn the Abbott Government’s successful border laws.

The very fact that Triggs, a law academic, called this taxpayer-funded inquiry is highly suspect.

The last time her commission looked into this issue was 2004 — which, what a surprise, was when the Howard government was stopping the boats, too.

No further inquiry was held in the seven years of Labor’s Rudd and Gillard governments, during which the border laws were weakened, luring more than 1200 men, women and children to their deaths and filling detention centres to bursting.

No, Triggs, appointed by Labor in 2012, waited until another Liberal government was back in power, stopping the boats and emptying the detention centres.

Sev Ozdowski, the former human rights commissioner responsible for the 2004 inquiry, calls this timing “very odd”.

“When the boats were arriving in large numbers and Labor was at its peak of cruelty towards the boat arrivals, (the commission) almost did not see the problem.”

But Triggs is now on the case, seemingly filled with a righteous anger at the Abbott Government, even though the boats have now stopped and the number of children in detention more than halved.

[Rorschach]

Last month, for instance, she claimed “we’ve had reports that have been confirmed during the day that 10 women have attempted suicide” on Christmas Island.

False. There has been only one case of self-harm by a woman that could with any credibility be described as “attempted suicide”. And, no, Madam President, sipping some shampoo does not qualify.

Triggs also claimed last month she’d visited the detained children on Christmas Island and “almost all of them, including the adults, were coughing, were sick, were depressed, unable to communicate (and) weak”, which made her want to ask: “What’s going on? Why is this child not being treated?”

False again. Sick children are indeed being treated and the Government hotly disputes Triggs’ claim that almost every detained child on Christmas Island is sick.

Told this, Triggs — with her inquiry still to hear from Immigration Minister Scott Morrison — gave another media interview rebuking Morrison as needing “to be better advised”, and insisting “all children should be removed from the detention centres and placed in the community”.

Er, isn’t that the very thing the inquiry is meant to determine at the end of the hearings, and not near the start? Should an inquiry head really be attacking witnesses even before they’ve given their evidence?

But if all that was bad, last week was a disgrace.

Morrison appeared before her inquiry and Triggs flew for his throat: “How can you justify detaining children in these conditions for more than a year when there is no evidence that this is the policy that is stopping the boats but rather Operation Sovereign Borders, however you define it, with three-star generals or civilian authorities, whatever name you put to it, the reality is that physical force and power have stopped these boats?”

Not biased? Triggs?

On it went.

Triggs insisted “the people on Christmas Island are being detained in a prison effectively” because on her three visits she had noticed “you cannot get into any of the sections without going through armed guards”.

That infuriated the Immigration Department secretary Martin Bowles, who protested at Triggs’ “emotive statements”.

“It is not fair to characterise the detention system as a jail,” he said, and Triggs should correct a falsehood.

“We do not have armed guards, President. I would like you to acknowledge that.”

Triggs would not, despite being repeatedly challenged on her “facts”.

But if the head of an inquiry can see armed guards where there are none, and a prison where there are only pool fences, what else is she imagining about what she’s supposed to impartially judge?

No, Triggs must resign. She is meant to confront injustice, not commit it.

[Black Orchid]

The fact that she wants to hand out 6 figure compensation packages to murderers was enough to convince me that she has no concept of reality, nor human rights, and should not be in the position she is.

[Neferti]

I hate these do-gooders (like Triggs) with other people's money to spend. Meanwhile siphoning off the cream from the top for themselves.

I read an article in the Herald Times (Melbourne) earlier about The Homeless migrating to Melbourne because the rest of Australia doesn't have the "capacity". Huh?

I thought that Centrelink was a Federal Department as are several other Departments associated with the less well off.

ALL Journalists should be SACKED IMMEDIATELY and sent to a town/suburb, somewhere, with a backpack and a bottle of water and $50 in coins, to set themselves up ... and report how well they can LIVE for a week.

Seriously.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Apparently Commissioners can only be sacked for gross misbehaviour, of which Triggs is clearly guilty on numerous counts.
Some media mouths claim if sacked Triggs would be elligible for compensation, but I digress.
Infact I think her conduct should be refered to the ICAC, and she be compelled to pay compensation for being a public nuisance.
I also think the ALP appointed her because they knew she is a phukwit. They knew they were going to be tossed out of govt, so put partisan phukwits in as many positions as possible just to phuk things up for the incoming Lib govt.
I call it contingency sabotage.

[Black Orchid]

This idiot just keeps on 'giving' ...

There are various ways in which religious law affects the private lives of people. The views of the Vatican affect the lives of Catholics in this country.

Professor Triggs’ likening of Sharia law, which secular Muslims reject, to Catholic canon law comes a month after controversial Muslim psychologist Hanan Dover made exactly the same argument. “Australia’s liberal democracy prides itself being accommodating to different codes of law for different groups: halacha law for Jews, canon law for Catholics, tribal law for the Aboriginal communities, Islamic law for Muslims,” Ms Dover said on Facebook in July. “These are where the double standards we have to face from politicians/media commentators and bigots.”…

Professor Triggs also said Sharia divorce courts should be allowed in Australia, under a system where a Muslim man can leave his wife by saying ‘I divorce you’ three times. “If it’s a matter of private law within the Muslim community and they want to manage their affairs in that way, and they believe in those rules, that’s reasonably acceptable,” she said.

Later, she told Daily Mail Australia that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s policy of banning the burqa could be unconstitutional and would be likely to fail in the High Court. “It could be. It’s going to be a matter for the High Court. Wearing an external representation of your religious faith is something that we respect in Australia,” she said.

She is insane!

What a load of absolute tosh. Dr Triggs (for a doctor she is) fails to understand that the Catholic Church’s canon law has no legal standing in Australia.

Canon law applies to the Church – not to the state. Sharia law, on the other hand, envisages an alternative system of government where theology determines the rules of civic behaviour.

Take marriage, for example. The marriage of Catholics in Australia is in accordance with the Marriage Act. Catholics do not – and cannot – marry under canon law. Any Catholics who divorce in Australia do so under the civil law – not with respect to a religious law.

It is simply intellectually dishonest to equate a marriage conducted at a Catholic Church with the implementation of sharia law with respect to marriage in Australia – whereby a husband could dissolve a marriage by saying “I divorce you” three times.

Also Dr Triggs’ claim that the views of the Vatican affect the lives of Catholics in this country overlooks the fact that no one has to belong to the Catholic Church – and no one has to follow the teachings of the Vatican.

As to Dr Triggs’ view that wearing a burka is an expression of religious faith – this has been challenged by Dr Elham Manea, the author of Women and Sharia Law. Dr Manea was interviewed by Andrew West on ABC Radio National’s The Religion and Ethics Report on Wednesday. See today’s Five Paws Award segment.

MWD reckons that if Professor Triggs believes that wearing a burka is only an expression of Islamic faith, perhaps – as a gesture of religious solidarity – she could rug-up in one for a Q&A panel on sharia law. Tony Jones could present a Q&A discussion with Gillian Triggs (wearing a burka as a gesture of support) and Senator Pauline Hanson (wearing a burka as a stunt). Just a thought.

I absolutely begrudge having to pay morons, such as she, pensions for life. I would prefer to pay for her jail time.

[Neferti]

I made comment about Triggs to a friend last time she was raving on .... his reply was "She's OK". I always thought he voted Liberal .... apparently not. Then, both his parents were Professors at Sydney Uni ...

[cods]

she certainly isnt pro Australian thats for sure... never heard her say a good word for this wonderful country..

what a hypocrite....their monies ok though....bahhhh humbug..

[Black Orchid]

Maybe she has a brain tumour and should be hospitalised on her own dime. She is absolutely useless and against anything good for this country.

Where do they find these people?

[boxy]

Well, she's not wrong. just unpopular.