This isn’t going to be a piece about corporate careers versus social justice alternatives (although I have opinions on that, too). Rather, I want to talk a bit about the inherent bias within law schools as institutions that create lawyers, about the kinds of discourse on ‘social justice’ issues that are promoted and deemed acceptable.
On a hill not far from the Gaza border, Israelis gather in the twilight. Some perch on the edge of a shabby white sofa. Others pull up rugs, pull out binoculars and snacks. Polite conversation and the fizzing of soft drink bottles being opened fill the air.
When Id Software’s Wolfenstein 3D was released in 1992, it birthed video games’ most paradoxical genre: the first-person shooter.
In late 2013, a wall collapsed on Swanston Street in the inner Melbourne suburb of Carlton, tragically killing three innocent bystanders. If any journalists from the city’s tabloids (we can call The Age a tabloid now, right?) recalled the significance…
‘Atrocity’, ‘massacre’, ‘crime against humanity’: one thinks of Conrad’s reference to ‘the old, old words worn thin, defaced by ages of careless usage’. But there are times when such terms ring true – and we’re living through one of them. Whatever Hamas has or hasn’t done, attempts to justify a military assault on a city of millions necessarily rely on a terrorist logic: it’s the imposition of a collective responsibility that holds every Gazan guilty simply because they live in Gaza.
The mountain of reporting on the Israeli invasion of Gaza and the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 has buried discussion of new laws that Federal Attorney General Senator George Brandis is attempting to pass through parliament. The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (2014) will produce a significant shift in the way Australian intelligence agencies can collect information and collaborate.