OPINION
As George Orwell once wrote, far too much obvious nonsense, and worse, is allowed to pass without comment because too many people never bother to examine catchphrases.
Consider, for instance, the pro-Hamas catchphrase, “From the River to the Sea”. This catchy little phrase is parroted to thousands of lackwits like the Greens’ Ricardo Menendez, who never actually stop to parse what it means.
What it means is: from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the entirety of Israel. It’s an explicit call to genocide, to the erasure of the Jewish state.
At least the barely literate knuckle-draggers in South Africa’s parliament actually understand what they’re saying when they sing Kill the Boer.
In Australia, we have more than our fair share of midwits who parrot catchphrases that they apparently haven’t really thought through.
Or, what’s worse, perhaps they have.
As the nation confronts continuing demands about sovereignty and treaty by some Indigenous people after the failed voice referendum, [Chief Justice of the ACT Supreme Court Lucy McCallum]’s extrajudicial comments warrant close scrutiny. Not because we care about her personal views. What McCallum says in private is her business. But we should care very much if she, or any other judge for that matter, uses a privileged and powerful judicial position to air personal political views that may come up for decision in their court or that raise questions about potential biases.
At issue is McCallum’s increasingly provocative twists on the dreary ritual of “traditional acknowledgement” that pollutes every public, and too many private, events in Australia. McCallum, though, goes beyond the usual banalities and elevates her virtue-signalling to sinister political calls to arms.
Since taking up her senior role at the ACT Supreme Court in March last year, McCallum has begun addresses in her courtroom by saying: “I acknowledge the First Nations people.” Then she goes further, saying: “I acknowledge that the land has never been ceded by them.”
Remember, this isn’t some prattling Greens activist or cretinous journalist — it’s one of the most senior legal officials in the country.
The difficulties raised by the Chief Justice’s comments are as much about what she says as what she doesn’t say. When McCallum says she acknowledges “this land has never been ceded” by Indigenous people, does she mean the law ought to recognise their claim over Australia?
Is the Chief Justice offering a tantalisingly different position to the clear and unambiguous legal position, as stated by the High Court in Coe v Commonwealth in 1993, that there is no legal justification for “the notion that sovereignty adverse to the Crown resides in the Aboriginal people of Australia”?
These are the questions that must be asked about anyone who blatherskites about “Aboriginal sovereignty”: do they know what “sovereignty” means?
Sovereignty is not just a cute catchphrase, it’s a legal term, with a well-defined and crucial meaning.
Sovereignty is the sole, supreme, and indivisible law-making power within a defined territory.
The Machiavellians among us may wonder if an ersatz legal brief of sorts is being compiled where activists will point to McCallum and other judges recognising that sovereignty has not been ceded […]
Does McCallum mean, if such a matter came before her, she would prefer a different view to the High Court stated position in that case that “the (Mabo decision) is equally at odds with the notion that there resides in the Aboriginal people a limited kind of sovereignty”? When she says wrongs have been done in the name of the rule of law, does she mean the rule of law in Australia remains a problem for Indigenous people? Is she signalling that there should be a separate, different kind of legal system for Indigenous people?
McCallum’s extraordinary, provocative witterings not only raise questions about her fitness as a judge but where the Albanese government might go, having lost a democratic referendum.
McCallum’s comments came at an interesting time. A divisive and heated debate about the proposed voice referendum was well under way, the voice being the first part of a three-part set of demands along with treaty and truth-telling, with many Indigenous activists and academics claiming joint sovereignty.
The Albanese government, leading the charge for the Yes case, would soon make two new appointments to the High Court.
The timing of McCallum’s comments led some legal insiders to wonder whether she was showcasing her opinions for future use on the highest court in the land. Given her political comments as Chief Justice, it shouldn’t surprise that many lawyers in the ACT and beyond were relieved that she was not appointed to the High Court.
The Australian
But if there’s one thing we know about the left, it’s that they never take No for an answer.