PROCESS, LAW, CONSEQUENCES

 

[An opinion from one somewhat picky cook]

A ‘process’ or procedure’ has little to do with the law itself other than to provide a ‘fair’ time and a vehicle / platform for defence and/or accusations and/or rebuttals. 

If that process follows and upholds the law then good but, the process is always secondary to the law itself.  This is a no-brainer.  The opposite being disquiet and even anarchy.

The whole point of ‘process’ is to enable and action the law and its intent from its written form.  Therefore deliberate deviations from that process must be deemed unlawful as they attempt to obfuscate or ignore the law.  The only defence could be that the law/process is duplicitous or unclear or subject to multiple interpretations.

Indeed, good procedures or processes are put in place to allow an orderly pathway from clear thinking to focused action and appropriate solutions.

In a recent decision by the Federal Circuit Court the judge seemed to allow a flawed process to obviate the law in that, the law was ignored because of deemed flaws in the process.  This was later overturned by the Federal Court as they ordered the law was to be followed despite a possibly flawed process.  In this case the law was clear but ignored by the first judge because the process was hijacked by people with a commercial agenda attempting to confuse the law through arguments that were proven irrelevant.  This makes the perpetrators guilty of trying to subvert justice.

This is where logic, deductive argument and clear thinking must rule.  Argument in tautologies is a good start providing the associated premises are proven valid.  Rogerian argument has no place as compromise has no place -  that is, unless the law itself is unclear or contradictory and there must be room for actions taken in ‘good faith’ or perhaps where actions are mitigated by circumstances of ‘no fault’ disenabling compliance then, intent being really important as a decider of appropriate punishment.

So, does this mean we are bound to uphold the law?  Absolutely!!  Nothing stopping us disagreeing and being vocal with our opinions attempting the change the law but, loud brain-dead disobedience is no rod for change!  Instead go with clear thinking emotion free tautological discussion [not mere Rogerian conversation] leading to appropriate laws which can be ‘processed’  through a procedure which is also clear and succinct and time efficient.

Take for example our laws on vaccine compliance for international visitors.  Simple, covid positive by test – no entry and no jabs – no entry.  However, there is mitigation by exemption based on being physically unable to be vaccinated [leading to quarantine and testing etc].  Note that there is no ongoing exemption for not having to get jabbed following a ‘serious’ bout of Covid as a condition to stay is to get jabbed after recovery and, quarantine still applies.  Those refusing vaccination on other grounds are excluded.  Simple and clear despite Tennis Australia and the Victoria State Government offering unlawful exemptions based on personal monetary agendas and ignoring the fact that they actually can’t offer those exemptions as only the Federal Government controls the borders.

In this case the ‘process’ failed because it allowed people to obfuscate through media by-line even though the law is clear [Federal Court].  As a matter of fact, letting into our country a sporting megastar et alia who refuses to be vaccinated when Victorians have been locked away is beyond stupid and needs to be addressed as deliberate attempts to subjugate the law.