On Friday, Ms O'Shane threw out the assault charges laid against an African man, accused of punching and spitting on a NSW Ambulance officer, after she learned the paramedic had called the accused a ''filthy pig''.
In questioning ambulance officer Christopher Martin, Ms O'Shane asked him if it would be correct to infer ''that you don't like blacks''.
Mr Martin rejected the suggestion, even as Ms O'Shane asked ''are you sure about that?''
''I'm positive,'' he told Downing Centre Local Court.
Nonetheless, Ms O'Shane dismissed the case, finding the ambulance officer had tried to have the man removed from the vehicle unnecessarily.
Kasian Wililo was accused of punching Mr Martin in the head, spitting on the floor of the vehicle, and throwing an ice pack and ambulance record book at him and his partner.
Mr Martin told the court he was abused by Mr Wililo, the patient, who was becoming ''very agitated'' and abusive while transported to hospital.
Ultimately, Mr Martin said he ordered his partner to pull over because he feared for their safety.
It was there that Mr Martin said he was punched to the left-hand side of his head.
An off-duty police officer came to their aid, and Mr Wililo was restrained until police arrived.
Mr Martin was challenged about his decision to throw Mr Wililo out of the ambulance and call him a filthy pig. (Extracted from Sydney Morning Herald 24/1/2012)
Pat O'Shane一向是警察及控方的眼中釘,本身是澳洲土著(Aboriginal)的她,一直都為土著權益發聲。作為裁判官,她最具爭議之處是每每判土著的被告無罪,理由是警方的檢控是種族壓逼。以本案而言,看報章的報導,法官給人一種帶偏見的印象。證人不否認講過侮辱性的說話,法官似乎要逼他承認歧視黑人,也不肯再聽審下去。州政府表明會向司法敘用委員會投訴,繼而轉介她到州議會聽證,考慮罷免。
澳洲毫無疑問存在種族歧視,土著在社會中地位最低,最受歧視。O'Shane的做法卻屬矯枉過正,喪失法官應有公正不阿的立場,偏見沖昏了頭腦,反種族歧視過了龍,也屬另類的種族歧視。其實真的要弄權,也要弄得其法。只有愚昧的人,才像她這樣做。她使我想起崔志英,也使我想起孔慶東,一個不懂弄權,一個不懂罵人。Pat O'Shane及崔志英都比孔慶東好,起碼這兩個女人不是烏龜。看到明報今天的報導「四千字網誌「補鑊」 孔慶東大讚港人」一文,更加使我鄙視這個人。魯迅的橫眉冷對千夫指去了哪?看來只有「一闊臉就變」(魯迅詩《贈鄔其山》)。也罷,以後不再罵這種孔夫子《論語陽貨篇》所講的,「近之則不遜,遠之則怨」的人。
Remark: An article written by Paul Sheehan is published in SMH this morning (26/1/2012, Australia Day) on Pat O'Shane. I paste it below. He has good observations though I do not entirely agree with him.
For the sake of Her Honour and ours, no more double standard
January 26, 2012
Opinion
Attracting controversy ... magistrate Pat O'Shane. Photo: Brendan Esposito
At 6.17am on Tuesday, very early in the news cycle, the Premier's office released a statement saying Barry O'Farrell had instructed the Attorney-General to lodge a complaint to the Judicial Commission of NSW about the magistrate Patricia O'Shane after yet another controversy in her court. It was unusual, and also good politics and good policy.The statement elaborated: ''Mr O'Farrell told cabinet yesterday … Ms O'Shane had been at the centre of a series of controversial decisions and it was time the Judicial Commission reviewed her performance.''
The pattern is well known. O'Shane has attracted controversy on numerous occasions. Her most spectacular failure was her dismissal of charges against the triple murderer Michael Kanaan while criticising the police who risked their lives arresting him after a shoot-out.
No other magistrate has a notorious reputation for denigrating police evidence. No other magistrate has been the subject of so many complaints to the Judicial Commission. No other magistrate has been subject to two apprehended violence orders.
But O'Farrell should not get his hopes up. The Judicial Commission is worse than useless. It does nothing of consequence and does it slowly. It protects judges and magistrates via an opaque process deeply biased towards rationalising errors.
If there were more truth in government, the Judicial Commission would be named the Judicial Feather.
Pat O'Shane is also highly unusual among judges and magistrates in that she has been able to place great store on her Aboriginality. There is a widespread perception, which I share, that her outspoken Aboriginality has been relevant in the latitude she has been able to exercise over the years.
There is an abundance of evidence that different standards are applied to Aborigines by the law and by society as a way of compensating for past injustices. Customary law, special sentencing forums, the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle and indigenous-only programs are examples. The intent is pure but the outcome has often been counter-productive.
Just this week, the Institute of Health issued a report saying indigenous children were 7.6 times more likely than non-indigenous children to be put on protection orders and 10 times more likely to be in foster care. It is a disgrace to the status quo, especially as disproportionate child abuse in indigenous communities has existed for decades.
Yet I don't think the central flaw in the national project of improving the lives of Aborigines is being addressed or even spoken about. That flaw is the moral apartheid we accept in the name of cultural sensitivity and/or white guilt.
On Australia Day, we can ask what it means to be Australian and only the original Australians can define themselves as Australian by race. But in the thousands of years in which indigenous culture evolved, ''Australia'' did not exist. Australia is an entirely modern concept. So the modern definition of what it is to be Australian is post-racial. We are all Australians. We should all be treated the same. But we are not.
When it comes to indigenous issues, our legal and political system has monetised race. It has racialised the law. In doing so, it has created a problem about identity: who is an Aborigine? There is money involved in the answer. This is why the expert panel, appointed by Julia Gillard, which produced the 300-page Report on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous People has come up with a monumental blunder.
The panel has overelaborated its brief by advocating that an ''advantage'' clause be inserted into the constitution which reads: ''Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.''
This clause is the embodiment of monetising race. It enshrines moral apartheid. It invigorates the problem of defining Aboriginality. It invites the kind of racial activism and exceptionalism which the electorate despises. It dooms the referendum.
沒有留言:
發佈留言