Some readers of this blog have presumably inferred that I am sceptical about the paranormal and about divine powers or authority. That inference - substantiated by dismissive comments regarding the scientific basis of faith healing, precognition, reincarnation, the vagaries of pronouncements by exponents of different religious faiths, or the pretensions of self-described witches (eg the claim by a Geelong witch that she was not subject to earthly statutes) - is correct. (The scepticism is consistent with Australian law's disrespect for poltergeists, telekinesis, changing the weather through group meditation, 'mental radio' and similar manifestations of mystical belief systems.)
This blog features statements of opinion, which readers can and should evaluate on the basis of their own values, intellectual coherence and reference to the authorities accepted by the reader. If you are a fervent Scientologist you will thus presumably be unconvinced by my reference to John Rawls or to works on the history of religion and the sociology/psychology of religious belief. If you are concerned with human rights and with the rule of law you might feel some affinity with the blog's criticisms of problematical statutes and policy statements in NSW and South Australia.
Some readers may endorse the 'Commentary' by David Marks in 320 Nature (13 March 1986) 119-124 that
Parascience has so far failed to produce a single repeatable finding and, until it does, will continue to be viewed as an incoherent collection of belief systems steeped in fantasy, illusion and error.Others will not. So be it.
The tone of this blog is irreverent, often ironic and on occasion polemical. Readers seeking more austere prose can turn to work that appears in the Melbourne University Law Review, Privacy Law Bulletin, Local Government Law Journal and other publications. One task of legal scholarship (and more broadly of participation in civil society) is to engage with issues and not to shy away from 'speaking truth to power', a speaking that for example involves questioning hype about CCTV and the efficacy of 'knife-crime' statutes or examination - from a secular position - of particular dogmas.
A stance of saeva indignatio in response to cruelty and indifference, an indifference that on occasion (eg comments here and here) has involved leading institutions, is from my perspective quite legitimate. It is not antithetical to - or a substitute for - good scholarship.
Some readers will find the tone distasteful. Some - perhaps those who enjoyed David Rieff's review noted here - will shrug or will appreciate the text, however momentarily. Others may echo historian John Habakkuk, who as Neal Ascherson notes in a recent review of Adam Sisman's biography of Hugh Trevor-Roper, commented -
I find it difficult to decide whether T-R is a fundamentally nice person in the grip of a prose style in which it is impossible to be polite, or a fundamentally unpleasant person … using rudeness as a disguise for nastinessAs indicated on the front page of this blog, the text is independent of the University of Canberra and of the Law Faculty. Readers should exercise their judgment and read with discernment.
