On Monday 24 July 2006 22:20, Ian Cheong wrote: > The rationale of the judge is clear in the judgement. This case is > *not* about scientific truth, but about the delivery of "justice" in > a case littered with competing commercial interests and a due > regulatory process.
No, not the "delivery of justice". It's about the "correct" interpretation and application of "the law" - entirely independent of the public perception of "justice". "The law" is something worded rigidly, devised at some time based on a given moral and political framework, biased by current cultural and religious trends. In Australia's legal system, the law is not revised in a regular controlled and predictable fashion regarding it's applicability and compatibility with *current* moral, political and cultural frameworks "Justice" is what justice feels. It is ephemeral by nature - what the general public perceives as "justice" one year, might be perceived as injustice the next (e.g. corporeal punishment, capital punishment) A good government tries to ensure that the legal system does not get top much out of sync with the perception of "justice". Sadly, we do not have a good government. Not even a reasonable one. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
