unfortunately, your honours, even though i am engaged in ‘political activism’ of the most earnest and sincere nature, i do still happen to possess some variety of a sense of humour.
this sense of humour of mine, while it couldn’t possibly be to everyone’s taste, is one of very few remaining sources of pleasure (namely, the pleasure of merriment, or mirth, or whatever ye-old-english-speak you lot would care to use to describe some good-old-fashioned jolly gaiety) in my otherwise pitifully depressed and anhedonia-defined existence — so i am loath to give it up or exclude it from any element of my life.
this sense of humour forces me to make light of situations and characters not accustomed to being made light of — it makes me enjoy saying ‘irreverent’ and ‘inappropriate’ things, sometimes even utilising ‘swear’ words (heavens forbid, god save the jesus).
compounding the disasterous impact of this ‘sense of humour’ is my personal policy of speaking directly to the point regarding my experience of kafkaesque absurdity and my feelings about the people making it happen with their ‘my-hands-are-tied’/’just-doing-my-job’ schtick.
it has been brought to my attention by certain members of the legal world that certain members of the judiciary may not appreciate my cyber-expressions and will either:
— initiate some kind of legal proceedings against me and my website: or
— be deeply personally offended by my ‘disrespect towards the judiciary’ and use that as a major reason for finding against me (disguised as emotionless, black-and-white interpretation of legislation — as the personal and political motivations of the judiciary always are).
so, member of the judiciary, if you have for some reason come to this site and read things, consequently becoming offended by something on this site: let me assure you, it is a joke, of course it is a joke — if you don’t find it funny, that is because you don’t like or understand my sense of humour, or perhaps you don’t have a sense of humour at all, which may go a long way to explaining any deathly political views you may, or may not, hold.
if you don’t mind me saying, you do make yourselves irresistible targets of mirth with the ridiculously pompous way you conduct yourselves and the absurd levels of ‘respect’ you demand from those lowlings, professional or othewise, that appear before your high chair of glory — while often hypocritically exhibiting the most cantankerous and rude behaviour yourselves.
nothing on this site is a untrue — except the bits that are untrue — no responsibility will be taken for the inability of observers to distinguish between truth and untruth.
my personal opinions are just that — except when i am making up a personal opinion that is not mine and pretending it is mine for comedic effect, which is quite often.
if you don’t like the ‘disrespect’ of jokes about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the whole system, you should just try get used to it — the ‘off with his head’ days are over, you are not kings, and people who disagree with the powers that be are allowed to make jokes and mock those who behave like unbelievable prats — you and your ideological ancestors were right to try and prevent the spread of democratic ideas, the unwashed masses are now full of themselves and flapping at the jaw, and nobody can stop them.
i’ve even heard that a lawyer once said (to someone else, who relayed it to me) that i should remove all reference to my past drug use, saying that could bias a judge against me, can you believe that judgey? doesn’t that just sound totally ridiculous? i mean who hasn’t had a little taste of the good stuff? (i’m clean now for years, your honour, haven’t even had a drop of booze, despite how un-australian of me that is)
while i’ve got you here judgey, i’d like to say something about the respect you lot demand so much of.
respect is both of these things:
— a two-way street – meaning you have to give respect in order to receive it in return.
— an individual’s to give freely to those he/she feels are worthy, based on their performance as a human being.
respect is not these things:
— the just reward and inalienable right of those appointed to a powerful judicial position.
— something practiced by the powerless out of fear of the power of the ‘rightfully respected’ – a fear that is legitimised by the vengeance with which those ‘rightfully respected’ will use their power against anyone who dare show anything other than kowtowing, simpering ‘respect’.
while i personally like to show a courteous respect to all before they have a chance to influence me either way, the default level of respect that i would show to any stranger (such as a magistrate or judge i’ve never met before and know nothing of) is nowhere near the levels of ‘respect’ demanded by you anachronistic lords of social and political stagnation and decay (oh dear, there goes that ‘sense of humour’ again).