Stereotypes, generalisations and assumptions are everywhere in our lives. I wonder how often we actually stop to think what exactly is the basis for most of our opinions? For instance, during most of history the majority of people thought that human flight was impossible.
A contemporary perception is lawyers are greedy ambulance chasers inciting people to litigate. This is one factor, amongst others, that erodes a sense of personal responsibility. When things go wrong, we look to blame others. The result is a litigation explosion which undermines community cohesion and trust. This may be true to a certain extent but is it the whole story?
Litigation: Past and Present and Professor Bryan Horrigan’s Adventures in Law and Justice are two books that deal with common misconceptions about the law. Given that big legal questions arise from so many political and moral problems, the breadth of Adventures in Law and Justice is wide, making it an excellent introductory book to the major issues facing the Australian legal system. It is also worthwhile reading for those more experienced with the law.
Horrigan has a broadly postmodern approach and applies a coherent philosophical method to his topics. To dismiss Adventures in Law and Justice on ideological grounds would be to miss the point, which is to delve into the big legal questions.
Many conservative commentators write endlessly of the divide between ‘elite’ and ‘common’ opinion. While it would be foolish to deny the existence of this gulf, it would be too easy to label it as a sign of how irrelevant ‘elite’ thought is. Instead, what I think it signifies is a gap, in Horrigan’s words ‘a nationwide gulf in public understanding about law and government’. Horrigan eloquently argues for a more rigorous and philosophical approach to resolving the important questions at a time when public debate is
sensationalised and shallow.
Questions of native title and the treatment of asylum seekers continue to be, two of the most divisive issues in Australia. One of the things common to both is the use of a perceived divide in opinion between ‘chardonnay socialists’ and the ‘battler’. This rhetorical device is used to manipulate existing prejudices and misconceptions for the benefit of powerful interests. Adventures in Law and Justice deftly deals with these and other major questions, such as the republic, a bill of rights, and the war against terror, sweeping away the sensational claims that tend to cloud