The Imperial Judiciary.

Isn't it instructive that the leader of the lawyers comes out in favour of drugs?

But even more crassly opportunistic than Rudd last week were Australian drug legalisation advocates declaring the boy’s arrest proved that the war on drugs was failing.

Australian Lawyers Alliance president Greg Barns issued a statement, describing the arrest as “ludicrous. Too many of the wrong people are being jailed as a result of a policy that keeps the drug trade underground.”

When various negative issues plaguing Western society are examined dispassionately, often we discover lawyers and their elder 'brothers' judges, positioned at the core of the trouble-making.
Why is that?
Why do we observe judges making the law rather than interpreting what the government has decreed?
What does it mean?

It means the disenfranchisement of the electorate.
It means that the people who have been elected by the majority of the population for the express purpose of debating, making and defending those laws deemed most suitable by the representatives of the majority are over-ridden by an unelected elite:

“In a shocking and historically unprecedented suppression of political expression, a staggering four thousand five hundred Australians have had their voices silenced by Australia’s political elite in the Labor-dominated Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation.”(11/10/11)

What we are witnessing throughout the western world is an insidious revolution by an unelected elite or as Francis Schaeffer put it; rule by an Imperial judiciary.
However, in Australia we have the added wrinkle of a sympathetic political 'overseer' who is not only keen on rule by elite, but he wants the elite to be centered in another country altogether; i.e. The UN.

UPDATE 11.10.2011

Further evidence that the 'elites' seek to curtail voices raised against their excesses:

Just listen to the tone in which Greg Barnes, a barrister and president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, dismisses the claim that the Federal Court’s ruling against Andrew Bolt represented a serious threat to the exercise of the right to free speech. “Has it not occurred to Bolt and those who are busy mouthing similar platitudes that freedom of speech is not an absolute right?” he asks.

The tendency to treat free speech as a platitude and to mock those who take this right seriously as puerile is symptomatic of a fundamental shift in the conceptualisation of the relationship between freedom and the state....