The Official Organ of LaborNET
click here to view the latest edition of Workers Online
The Official Organ of LaborNET
Free home delivery
Issue No. 173 04 April 2003  

The Fog of War
As the War Without a Mandate proceeds apace, any notion of a domestic political agenda has become surplus to requirements.


Interview: Picking Up The Peaces
Walk Against the War Coalition convenor Bruce Childs outlines the challenge for the peace movement in the lead up to Palm Sunday.

Unions: The Royal Con
Jim Marr argues the Cole Commission can only be taken seriously by people kept ignorant of the way it actually operated.

National Focus: Around the Grounds
Unions maintain the pressure for peace as the upcoming organising conference takes on added significance, reports Noel Hester.

Economics: The Secret War on Trade
Overseas-based multi-nationals are coming after our film industry, electricity, water, pharmaceutical benefits and even childcare. Or are they? Nobody knows, as Jim Marr reports.

International: United Front
Workers and their unions around the world have possibly never been as united in their commitment to campaign together against the War in Iraq, writes Andrew Casey

History: Confessions of a Badge Collector
Bill Pirie has one of the largest collections of trade union badges in the world. After 20 years the collection now numbers some 6,000 badges.

Politics: Stalin�s Legacy
Fifty years ago last month Josef Stalin died. How could it be that a democratic and socialist revolution produced one of the monsters of the twentieth century, asks Leonie Bronstein.

Review: Such Was Not Ned�s Life
The life of Ned Kelly is what we in the world of journalism term a �ball tearing yarn� so why have writers of the movie adaptation felt so impelled to dress it up with fiction, asks Tara de Boehmler.

Poetry: Osama's Top Recruiter
Through our extensive intelligence networks, we have managed to track down the top recruiter for the global terror network of Osama bin Laden.

Satire: Woolworths CEO Denied Bonus After Company Posts Profit
Woolworths chief executive Roger Corbett was devastated today to report an 18.3% rise in profit under his management over the last year.


 Cole Launches Civil Rights Assault

 Protests Target Arncliffe �Shocker�

 Commerce Swallows DIR

 Abbott, Bosses Turn Guns on Low Paid

 Fat Cats Should Justify Salaries - LHMU

 Black Humour for a Dark Issue

 Minister on Threats, Coercion

 Bosses Stonewall Union Dues Ruling

 Private Hospitals Pay Out on 15 Percent

 Councils on Hotel Workers� Agenda

 Sharon Hammers Israeli Workers

 Shangri-La Blue Ends

 Inaugural Orwell Awards

 Activist Notebook


The Soapbox
Factional Free-For-All
Chris Christodoulou looks at the fallout from the selection of the new Carr Ministry and what it means to the factional warlords.

The Locker Room
The Best Season Since Last Year
Phil Doyle goes trudging through the mud in search of the heart of the matter beneath the corporate biffo

Books on Bombs
In times like these, reading inevitably turns to America and war. Chris White wades through Pilger, Chomsky, Eco, Moore and Vidal.

Postcard from Harvard
Labor Council's Michael Gadiel was elected to give the valedictory speech to this year's Harvard Trade Union Program.

 The Rule of Law
 Trots Bomb Back
 Tom's Turn
About Workers Online
Latest Issue
Print Latest Issue
Previous Issues
Advanced Search

other LaborNET sites

Labor Council of NSW
Vic Trades Hall Council
IT Workers Alliance
Unions on LaborNET
Evatt Foundation

Labor for Refugees


Letters to the Editor

The Rule of Law

Dear Peter,

Enjoy your editorials - even though you can't spell and have atrocious grammar! - I pretty much always agree with your views, or at least find them thought-provoking.

In this week's edition, you mention the Geneva Convention. Robert Hill let slip on TV recently that Australian troops would not do certain things, because Australia is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, but that US troops could do other things because the US had not signed up to that - clause? the whole thing? I don't know, but perhaps you might explore these differences for me and others concerned about this disgraceful war.

Please keep up the good work, including your relative distance from the Labor Party hack jackasses. Unions and their representatives, with all their flaws, are a lifeblood for any working woman.

best wishes

Peg Job


Dear Mr Lewis,

Jurisprudence lies outside of the narrow range of my legal competence, but as I endured the musings of a balding libertarian academic with more than a passing regard for Hayek over six months of my life, I would suggest that the following statement is misleading.

" There was a time when the Law was an absolute; in jurisprudence they

called it Natural Law. The equation was simple: The law reflected what

was right, therefore the law was in and of itself a good.

This principle reached its zenith in the years leading up to World War

II before the horrors of Hitler and the Nuremberg Principle broke the

link between law and justice for all time."

Natural law advances the proposition that an unjust law is not a law, or a variation thereupon. Whilst the passage of time has dulled both memory and sense, the slither of conceptual unity which defines natural law is that the law must be evaluated with reference to some normative standard, and that a failure to comply with that law will displace, modify, or render inoperative the particular provision which is offensive to that normative standard.

The alternative doctrine is legal positivism. The characterisation of natural law and positive law is of some significance although in substance their adherents have only limited areas of disagreement. One of the key features of positivism is the "separability" thesis, which is that law and morality are distinct. The course of action suggested as flowing from this concept differ.

Now for the contentious area where my memory fails me in the manner of a white collar criminal at a civil penalties proceeding. German lawyers tended to hold to positivism or a vague sort of sociological perspective which held law to be a cultural phenomena and that therefore in essence there is no absolute standard and then morality sort of runs out, at least that is my lapsed catholic understanding. Another group yet held to positivism, which is probably the only way to have a functioning legal system. Basically the Germans disappeared up there own fundamental orifice shortly prior to acquiescing when Adolf and his at least in Germany today, his imaginary friends, killing a lot of innocent people.

The holocaust caused considerable if remote pain to many German academic lawyers and is perhaps best recorded in the Hart/Fuller debate and surrounding academic publication in the 1950s on the topic of at what point one's obligation to follow the law ends.

Now as to the Nuremberg principle, what principle is that, that the victorious powers may retrospectively try individuals for crimes of such gravity that they may properly be regarded as crimes against humanity and as such regardless of the domestic legal framework, nations are consequently empowered to deal with these people if it is within their power to do so. Alternatively it could be that waging an offensive war is a crime. The Nuremberg Principle if anything reaffirms the nexus between law and justice, despite the procedural short comings of the trial process. Much of the criticism of America's war against Iraq is extracted from the Nuremberg principles (might I note that much of the debate surrounding its legality has been simplistic and ill informed, if your looking for a tool of the week look no further to Suri Rapatanala at UQ's law school who came out in support of the war against Iraqi.) A better analysis of this aspect of international law is found in Geoffrey Robertson's book "Crimes Against Humanity."

Perhaps a more valid criticism of the law is that the emphasis lies on negative and individual liberty, and hides essentially conservative concepts reflecting the prejudice and concerns of the author behind vague motherhood statements concerning the intrinsic value of the rule of law as defined by the establishment.

It would be fair to state that the Holocaust demonstrated the impotence of law without force, the injustice which occurs in the face of uncritical acceptance of the substance of the law, and that dogma is incompatible with an effective legal system. These are essentially political problems which reflect on and are reflected through the legal system. The desirability of this state of affairs is no doubt open to challenge, but I would submit that without the power to change laws, even if it creates injustice in some sense than you have hit stasis, and in stasis no one benefits, especially those already on the bottom rung of the ladder.

The law has done more for labour than it has to dash in over the past 100 years, and simply because the Cole Royal Commission was a witch hunt there is no need to simply engage in a formulaic, doctrinal and inaccurate critique of law. It is the sort of journalism one would expect to see in the opinion pages of the Australian and does your publication little credit. Stating that moral law postulates that the law is right and therefore good is unhelpful and inaccurate. Further the conclusion that the Nuremberg Principles render the law a speckled donkey is plainly incorrect.

I'm a financial member of the ALP, when I was able to joined a union so I'm not adverse to your usual editorial bias, but come on, it's the sort of thing that is going to bring your publication into disrepute.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Catchpoole


hi peter,

"The righteousness of Bush and of Abbott have a common flavour, it is the certainty of the powerful. Any notion of 'The Law' is an ass in their hands. Maybe the Anarchists have won after all ..."

glad to hear you think so ;)

thought your editorial was very well considered, anyway.



site maintainer,


One of the greatest problems with the Law today is the fast disappearing presumption of innocence until found guilty. It stems from the inability to differentiate between the deviant and the non-deviant.

Politicians are also ensuring work for lawyers - great insurance policy if there is a lawyer in the family.

Trouble is with the mindless making of laws for the sake of doing something people have had to question their ability to obey the laws of their country. Where is this going to take the Western world - into Stalinist dictatorships?

Anne Bradbury


*   View entire issue - print all of the articles!

*   Issue 173 contents

email workers to a friend printer-friendly version latest breaking news from labornet

Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue

© 1999-2002 Workers Online
Workers Online is a resource for the Labour movement
provided by the Labor Council of NSW
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005

Powered by APT Solutions
Labor Council of NSW Workers Online