Info

The Election Nerds

The Election Nerds is a regular podcast on Australian Politics recorded in the studios of radio 2Ser in Sydney, Australia. Established in 2013, the show is hosted by Doctors Amanda Elliot and Stewart Jackson, the Nerds discuss all things Australian and international politics with an array of political scientists and other experts from Australian universities. #auspol. www.electionnerds.info
RSS Feed
The Election Nerds
2017
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February


2015
December
October
September
August
June
May
March
February


2014
December
November
October
July
May
April


2013
December
September
August


All Episodes
Archives
Now displaying: Page 1
Feb 5, 2017

A full length interview with Dr Kcasey McLoughlin (University of Newcastle), recorded at the 2016 Australian Political Studies Association conference at UNSW Australia.

The subject of the interview was his paper, titled "Offensive intrusions and protected spaces: The personal, the public and the political" with Jim Jose (University of Newcastle).

The abstract for the paper is:

In 2013 the High Court ruled on whether the application of s.471.12 of the Criminal Code 1995 to prosecute Man Haron Monis (and his partner, Ms Amirah Droudis) for sending offensive material through the postal services contravened their right to free speech. All members of the High Court agreed the material was offensive but in an historic first the Court split on gender lines—the three women judges upheld the constitutional validity of the Criminal Code, whereas the three men judges found for Monis and Droudis. The divergent opinions adopted by the men and women judges in Monis are revealing about contemporary judicial understandings of the public and private spheres, and perhaps the political nature of the personal. We argue that these judicial opinions signal a seismic shift in how at least half the court thought about what properly belonged in which sphere. When these judgments are interpreted in the context of the political discourses which permeated the decision, both within and beyond the High Court, these judicial understandings of the contours of freedom of communication and notions of ‘harm’, ‘home’, ‘private’ and ‘public’ mean that offensive intrusions are protected, the private space of one’s home is not. Further, we argue that the judgments in Monis reveal a propensity to embed linguistic violence within judicial language and in effect give licence to antisocial, violent behaviour. In consequence, the judgments endorse a return to masculinist understandings of political behaviour and democratic practice.

0 Comments