Talk:Michael Kirby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Michael Kirby is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law. | ||
|
WikiProject Australia To-do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] His age
Ummm, there was a discrepancy between his age at the top and at the bottom of the page. I've fixed it up based on a quick google, but can someone confirm? Psychobabble 04:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Don't have a Who's Who handy, but the Law Society of Australia page (via Google cache)[1] quotes Kirby referring to "back in 1939 when I was born". I looked for material supporting the 1935 date, but couldn't find anything but derivatives of this page. I wonder if it might have come from a misreading of [2], in which Michael Kirby talks about Michael Hill having been born in 1935? --Calair 23:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It mus be 1939 because if he had turned 70 in 2005 he would have had to retire. Fat Red 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pædophilia
Robert, a good article. Two points. First, I don't think the word paedophilia was used in relation to the allegations against Kirby. The alleged rentboys were teenagers, not children (also I am pained to see the American spelling pedophilia). Second, I don't recall Heffernan being formally censured by the Senate. Do you have a reference for that? Dr Adam Carr
- For a reference for the censure, see [3]. As to whether the allegations were of paedophilia, the speech [4] is peppered with references to "child sexual abuse" and the like, the potential for "a conflict of interest" when judging such matters, and accuses Kirby of "trawling for rent boys", though the ages of such are not specified in the speech. The implication that Kirby was accused of paedophilia was widely drawn in the press, IIRC, and Kirby's defenders pointed out that Heffernan seems to be hopelessly confused about the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia. --Robert Merkel 07:44, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The discussion of Heffernan's allegations is good, but I wonder if the meat of it shouldn't be at Bill Heffernan rather than here? Obviously this page needs to make mention of it, but IMHO the fact that Heffernan attempted to destroy Kirby on the strength of forged evidence and unreliable witnesses says more about Heffernan than it does about Kirby.
I'll confess to some bias here: many of Kirby's detractors, Heffernan among them, seem to be working on the principle that "if you throw enough mud, some of it's bound to stick". IMHO, this sort of strategy is best countered by associating the mud with the thrower than with the target, even after it's been debunked. --Calair 23:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. It needs some mention here, but the majority of it should be at Bill Heffernan. Ambi 00:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Richardcavell 09:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC) - I think it's sad that Kirby J has to put up with this crap from Heffernan, but it's definitely one of the most newsworthy things that has happened to him as far as the mainstream media is concerned. What's more important from a legal perspective is his unusual judgments. I've added a brief amount about that; see what you guys think.
[edit] Depth of research
I'm a little uncomfortable with wording like "He is also renowned for the depth of research into past cases that goes into his judgments" - it's a bit on the subjective side. Something concrete would be good here, e.g. "In Barnacle and Sawnoff vs. City of Tooraloo, Kirby's judgement drew on thirteen past cases going back seventy-two years" or "Legal historian Bunyip Bluegum described Kirby as 'famed for the depth of his research'".
- But yes, considering that he's a judge, this article could do with a lot more on his judgements :-) Will see if I can add one or two things, but I don't really have enough. --Calair 22:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Richardcavell 10:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) - Calair, I don't have any jurimetrics to support my statement. I'm sure there'll be plenty of opinion out there to support the idea that Kirby J is a maverick, or too left-wing/activist.
[edit] "No" case support
Kirby publicly supported the "no" case in a prominent role with Australians for Constitutional Monarchy in the 1999 Republican referendum - see republicanism in Australia for more information - a position perhaps superficially at odds with his "progressive" views on many other issues. Superficially at odds, but...? — MikeX (talk) 09:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Presumably it is "superficial" to distinguish support for a Republic/Monarchy as a progressive/conservative or left/right split. Kewpid 17:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] judge vs justice
Note that in court, you call them high court justices, but outside of court, they are judges. User:Enochlau 05:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes this is me. I wrote that while at uni, forgetting to sign in. Enochlau 01:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cites
I think the article already documents Kirby's activist stance, and it certainly documents his frequent-dissenter status in the court, so I'm not clear on why those were tagged as needing cites. OTOH, I agree that the other two bits Ashmoo tagged could do with cites - I remember several of Kirby's critics suggesting that in his self-outing he'd effectively admitted to breaking the law, and that this made him unfit to be a judge, but my memory isn't a valid cite. Therefore restored half the tags and left the others. --Calair 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Does 'judicial activism' have an official definition? My perception was that it is a slighty derogatory term used to characterise rulings the speaker disagrees with? I added the tag because I thought it would be good to add a bit on context to the characterisation as 'activist'. Does he self-describe as activist? Commonly described as such in legal journals? etc. Ashmoo 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's usually derogatory, but it's more specific than just disagreement with the rulings; it's about a departure from legalism/strict constructionism. (Basically, the idea of 'judges making law' rather than enforcing the laws made by governments.) I think just about anybody who believes there is such a thing as 'judicial activism' would take this speech as an expression of it.
- That said, that's probably interpretation; I've tweaked the discussion a bit so it still points at judicial activism and explains Kirby's stance but now leaves readers to decide for themselves whether A=B. Also moved material relevant to this into the jurisprudence section where it belongs. --Calair 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we are basically in agreement here. It is unclear from the 2 cited speeches whether Kirby disagrees with the attribution 'activist'. Do the people who disagree with 'strict constructionism' have a name for their position? Is so, we should use that, if not, we should mention who characterises him as an 'activist'. Ashmoo 07:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- As it stands, the article doesn't say that Kirby is called an activist (I took that out, largely because I couldn't find any great sources - quite a few blogs and letters to the editor, nothing tremendously notable). But I did find an interesting speech by Kirby, which I'll add to the coverage in the article - it fairly strongly suggests that he's willing to describe the approach he favours as a form of 'judicial activism'. --Calair 09:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed material both on Kirby's being criticised for having had a gay relationship while male-male sex was illegal and on the widespread 'who cares?' response - while I recall both of those things happening at the time, they've been sitting there with citeneeded tags for too long. Without those, I'm not sure whether the article should be pointing out the date issue; while the individual facts are verifiable, the combination comes across as a fairly loaded statement that could be considered OR. (Not entirely solid OR either, since AFAIK the Who's Who entry said 'partner', not 'sexual relationship'.) I've left it in for now, but won't object if somebody feels like removing it. --Calair 07:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
