Gunns writ largeBy JOHN HAYWARD
President of the Tasmanian Law Society,
Daniel Zeeman, Zeeman opined that the writ "did not impinge on free speech". Unfortunately, this was after John Gay had admitted the writ was aimed at those purveying "misleading information" (characteristically unspecified) about the industry. Tasmania seems to have a unique moral, ethical and intellectual environment. It is not everywhere that the president of a law society would deliver a view such as Zeeman's even though he somewhat confusingly admitted that freedom of speech might be a defence for the respondents. While even the Murdoch editorials generally deplored Gunns' action, we saw both the Premier and the Opposition leader join the usual forestry rent-a-crowd in expressing their support for legal bullying. By filing in Victoria, Gunns is inviting the involvement on the other side of lawyers with genuine commitments to civil rights and the environment, who will work for reduced fees or nothing, and who have no fear of retribution from the Hobart establishment. Gunns may well find the matter before a judge, not nominated by that establishment, and prepared to examine their record of veracity against that of the respondents. The matter may well be covered by journos who don't feel that forestry promotion is part of the job. It could even turn out cheaper for the respondents than Salamanca Place. Gunns as we know it could not exist without a government and opposition such as Tasmania's. It will be interesting to see how our Godzilla fares on a less insular island. AND, LINKS:
Gunns acts on spray claims,
The Sunday Tasmanian
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Sunday, December 19, 2004 |