Jean Baptiste Francois Pompallier, Thomas Arnold and Julian Edmund Tenison Woods and their contribution to the formation and development of Catholic schooling in Australasia

Histories of Catholic education have received little attention by Church historians and are usually written by members of the Catholic clergy, with a strong emphasis placed on the spiritual and building accomplishments of the bishops. This thesis examines the provision of Catholic Education in Australasia, with a focus on the contribution of three men, Jean Baptiste Francois Pompallier, Thomas Arnold and Julian Edmund Tenison Woods. These men received support from the female religious orders in the regions where they worked, frequently with little recognition or praise by Catholic Church authorities. The tenets of their faith gave Pompallier and Woods strength and reinforced their determination to succeed. Arnold, however, possessed a strong desire to change society. All three believed in the desirability of providing Catholic schooling for the poor, with the curriculum facilitating the acquisition of socially desirable values and traits, including obedience, honesty, moral respectability and a strong adherence to Catholic religious values. The beneficiaries included society, future employers, the Church, the children and their parents. With the exception of promoting distinctly Catholic religious values, Roman Catholic schools and National schools in Australasia shared identical objectives. Historians have neglected the contributions of these men.

Abandoning the Magic Circle

As a concept, the magic circle is in reality just 4 years old. Whilst often accredited to Johan Huizinga (1955), the modern usage of term in truth belongs to Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. It became in academia following the publication of “Rules of Play” in 2003. Because of the terminologyused, it carries with it unhelpful preconceptions that the game world, or play-space, excludes reality. In this paper, I argue that Salen and Zimmerman (2003) have taken a term used as an example, and applied a meaning to it that was never intended, based primarily upon definitions given by other authors, namely Apter (1991) and Sniderman (n.d.). I further argue that the definition itself contains a logical fallacy, which has prevented the full understanding of the definition in later work. Through a study of the literature in Game Theory, and examples of possible issues which could arise in contemporary games, I suggest that the emotions of the play experience continue beyond the play space, and that emotions from the “real world” enter it with the participants. I consider a reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiment (2006), and what that tells us about human emotions and the effect that events taking place in a virtual environment can have upon them. I evaluate the opinion espoused by some authors of there being different magic circles for different players, and assert that this is not a useful approach to take when studying games, because it prevents the analysis of a game as a single entity. Furthermore I consider the reasons given by other authors for the existence of the Magic Circle, and I assert that the term “Magic Circle” should be discarded, that it has no relevance to contemporary games, and indeed it acts as a hindrance to the design and study of games. I conclude that the play space which it claims to protect from the courts and other governmental authorities would be better served by the existing concepts of intent, consent, and commonly accepted principles associated with international travel.

Rendering to Caesar and God : St Paul, the natural law tradition and the authority of law

The question of the authority of law has occupied and vexed the literature and philosophy of law for centuries. Law is something that characteristically implies obedience, but the precise nature of law’s authority remains contentious. The return to the writings of the Apostle Paul in contemporary philosophy, theology and jurisprudence begs attention in relation to the authority of law, and so this article will consider his analysis and critique of law with a focus on his Epistle to the Romans. It argues that Paul’s conception of the authority of law is explained on the basis that the law is from God, it externally sanctions obedience by virtue of the civil authorities, and it convicts internally in conscience. This triad is justified by the law of love (‘‘love your neighbor as yourself’’), and will be explained in relation to the natural law tradition as well as converse ideas in positivism. Hence, considering the reasoning of Paul in relation to traditional jurisprudential themes and the law of love provides a useful alternative analysis and basis for further investigation regarding the authority of law and the need for its obedience.

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

Sovereignty, surveillance and speeding: Considering the Panopticon as a method of policing

This paper argues that the Panopticon is an accurate model for and illustration of policing and security methods in the modern society. Initially, I overview the theoretical concept of the Panopticon as a structure of perceived universal surveillance which facilitates automatic obedience in its subjects as identified by the theorists Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault. The paper subsequently moves to identify how the Panopticon, despite being a theoretical construct, is nevertheless instantiated to an extent through the prevalence of security cameras as a means of sovereignly regulating human conduct; speeding is an ordinary example. It could even be contended that increasing surveillance according to the model of the Panopticon would reduce the frequency of offences. However, in the final analysis the paper considers that even if adopting an approach based on the Panopticon is a more effective method of policing, it is not necessarily a more desirable one.