Jesus was a terrorist: Solicitor for Commonwealth of Australia
Posted by Dave Bath on 2007-02-22
A recent transcript from the High Court of Australia shows that the Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia, arguing for defence powers to issue a control order over an individual released from court without a guilty charge, indicates that Jesus was a terrorist when he whipped moneylenders in the temple, as were Joshua and the Children of Israel when they invaded Canaan. Just how far will the Coalition of the Warring go? How many of the liberties they supposedly stand for are they willing to dispense with? Are these the folk who supposedly stand for Christian values, are proud Christians, yet have their solicitors spit upon their Messiah in the High Court? Excerpts of the transcripts follow.
(Note: Bennett is the Commonwealth solicitor, Gleeson (Chief Justice) and Kirby are two of the High Court Judges, apparently skeptical of the validity of the Commonwealth’s grab for extra powers.)
MR BENNETT: Yes, precisely, your Honour. The second element is paragraph (b) of the definition which is that: the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.
Now, that definition can be very loosely – I do not suggest accurately – but very loosely summarised as ideologically motivated violence.
GLEESON CJ: It is loose. Was whipping the moneychangers in the temple an act of terrorism?
MR BENNETT: Your Honour, it might depend on a number of matters. The question of whether paragraph (c) would have been satisfied might have been involved there. Whether it is down to coerce or influence by intimidation, government, or whether to…
KIRBY J: It is intimidating a section of the public. It was certainly intimidating a few moneychangers. They would not have liked it at all.
Guess this means that the Australian PM, through the mouth of the Commonwealth Solicitor, indicates the Romans were perfectly justified when crucifying Jesus as a terrorist/seditionist.
OK, and now to Joshua and the “Genocide Chapters” of the Old Testament:
BENNETT: History provides numerous examples of situations where it has been necessary for a polity to defend itself against a body other than a sovereign state. One could start with the book of Joshua in the Bible. If the Canaanite cities had had a federation with section 51(vi) in it there is little doubt that it could have been invoked against the children of Israel, although at that stage one could hardly describe them as a sovereign state in the traditional sense. Their only territory was the territory they were about conquer.
KIRBY J: What was the defect of the Canaanites on this theory?
MR BENNETT: There is no relevant defect except they lost.
Well, that’s clear: not only is History written by the victors, but legal philosophy too!