Law Society of NSW … Junior VP voted off the executive … Desperate fight from marginal Catholic and evangelical lawyers to preserve marriage inequality … Where to now with threats of an EGM and “legal action” against the law society? … Civil and political rights in contention 

Coralie remains as a councillor but the position of junior vice is now vacant. The aim has been to stop Kenny moving up the greasy pole to senior vice president and thereafter automatically assume the presidency of the Law Society. 

However, this morning’s (Thursday) move does not really guarantee she is out of the race. The new council, come November, might vote her in as senior vice, although this will be much harder since four of her rock solid supporters are not standing again for election to the society’s council. 

The meeting this morning (Sept. 7) heard speakers from both the pro and anti-Coraline camps

The long serving councillor has attracted plenty of resistance over the years. 

Happily, just over a year ago Coralie finally landed a spot on LegalSuper’s board. 

In July she got an interim injunction from Justice Monika Schmidt after the council sought to move against her. Allans advised the Law Society that the council has all the power it needs to remove someone from its executive body. 

Later that month the injunction was dropped after she failed to get the council to produce reasons why she should be dumped from the inner sanctum. 

It was assumed there might be a settlement, as Justice Schmidt suggested. But the meeting this morning settled it once and for all and in the process the council has reminded everybody that it is the ultimate law society authority. 

What are Robin Speed and his Merry Men going to do next? 

Robin, from the tax shop Speed & Stracey told Chris (The Tamil) Merritt at The Australian that he’s been “overwhelmed” with support for his move to get the Law Society to publicly disassociate itself from its endorsement of same sex marriage.  

It’s odd, because Justinian understands that there have been hundreds of messages of support into the Law Society for its president Pauline Wright and the council. 

Around 10 or so members have expressed their opposition directly against the society’s endorsement of SSM. 

The Speedster first of all promised “legal action” if the society did not ditch its endorsement of marriage equality and/or for Pauline Wright to resign “immediately”. 

He set Friday September 1 as the deadline to commence this anxiously anticipated action. Now he’s “considering” legal action and the deadline has blown out to Friday, September 8. Speed is also “examining the requirements for convening an EGM”. 

Quite what legal position Speed has in mind is a mystery. The constitution of the Law Society gives the council ample authority to made resolutions supporting or opposing social and political positions. Marriage equality has been the council’s position for the past five years. 

See also the joint statement from the NSW Law Society, Bar and AMA in support for marriage equality 

An extraordinary general meeting is unlikely to have the numbers to rescind the society’s support for SSM, so all the angst is likely to amount to little more than a storm in a teacup.  

Pauline Wright said in the joint statement that failure to recognise SSM, “may amount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which is contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory”. 

The Tamil has produced his small crop of usual suspects to contradict Wright and to say she is wrong about this. 

“I would have expected the Law Society to be legally accurate and it is disappointing in this case that they were not legally accurate,” Prof Patrick Parkinson grandly announced, mashing his pronouns in the process. 

Parko is a well known opponent of same sex marriage and the safe schools program as well as being a speaker at Australian “Christian” Lobby events and researcher for ACL projects. 

Say no more. In nitpicking about the ICCPRC he came up with a decision from the UN Human Rights Committee, Joslin v New Zealand, in which the committee said there was no positive obligation on member states to recognise SSM, which is not the same as saying the ICCPR prevents SSM. 

Joslin was in 2002 and the world has moved on a bit since then – none of which is to suggest that the UNHRC has the status of a court. It describes itself as a body of “independent experts”.  You can see the “experts” here.  

It is so amusing to see The Tamil clutching at straws, quoting findings from the committee with enthusiasm, while he has been a vocal campaigner against formalised arrangements for human rights. 

What seems to be conveniently forgotten is that the ICCPR provides protections against sexual discrimination. If the UN Human Rights Committee is going be bandied about as an endorsement for anything, let’s not ignore its statement on discrimination: 

“… the [UN Human Rights] Committee believes that the term ‘discrimination’ as used in the covenant should be understood to imply any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.” 

“The right to equality before the law guarantees equality with regard to the enforcement of the law. The right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination is directed at the legislature and requires State Parties to prohibit discrimination and take action to protect against discrimination.” 

This is exactly what Pauline Wright is on about – which one would have thought left little room for fuss. 

Prof Parkinson has been joined by a group of Catholic and evangelical legal academics under the umbrella of the William Wilberforce Foundation, led by Prof Quinlan from Notre Dame University. 

The Tamil says the foundation promotes “common law values, rights and freedoms”, although its website gives a different focus on its interests.  

Curiously, the NSW bar has not been under the same attack, even though president Arthur Moses said: 

“Discrimination in the Marriage Act on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is contrary to the rule of law.” 

We thought Robin Speech has a monopoly on the “rule of law”, through his eponymously named “institute“.