James Allan (law professor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Allan (born 1960) is a Canadian-Australian law professor and writer. He is the Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.

Allan has degrees from Queen's University, the London School of Economics and the University of Hong Kong. He qualified as a barrister and solicitor with The Law Society of Upper Canada in 1988. Prior to his appointment at the University of Queensland, Allan taught at the University of Otago.[1]

As a legal scholar, Allan is well-known for his skepticism regarding bills of rights.[2][3][4]

Allan writes opinion pieces in The Australian newspaper. He is author of Democracy in Decline: Steps in the Wrong Direction, occasional contributor to Quadrant magazine and The Spectator and editor of the University of Queensland Law Journal.[1] As a columnist for The Spectator Australia, he has supported the view that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 US presidential election was marked by voting irregularities; that the election was potentially flawed because of extensive mail-in voting and a lack of ballot security.[5][6]

References[]

  1. ^ a b "James Allan". TC Beirne School of Law. Retrieved 3 October 2014.
  2. ^ Allan, James (2001). "Take Heed Australia — A Statutory Bill Of Rights And Its Inflationary Effect". Deakin Law Review. 6 (2): 322. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  3. ^ Allan, James (2006). "BILLS OF RIGHTS AS CENTRALISING INSTRUMENTS". Adelaide Law Review. 27: 183. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  4. ^ Allan, James (26 September 2005). "Let's draw a line through a bill of rights". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 6 December 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  5. ^ Allan, James (24 December 2020). "Happy Xmas (woke is over)". Spectator Australia. Archived from the original on 3 January 2021. Retrieved 4 January 2021. 1. Whatever else we can say about the recent US presidential election we know for certain that whole mountains of mail-in votes appeared out of the blue; we know counting in some of the key states was suspended for hours without explanation; we know that party scrutineers (or whatever the Americans call them) were denied access to seeing the ballots and the count for significant periods of time; we know the counting just went on and on in a way that would embarrass a poverty-stricken country in the Third World; and we know that there are statistical anomalies that pile up one on another, all of which cut in favour of Mr Biden. None of that is really debatable.
  6. ^ Allan, James (14 November 2020). "The Marquess of Queens, buried not yet". Spectator Australia. Archived from the original on 21 November 2020. Retrieved 4 January 2021. Heck, without gaslighting from much of the media it didn’t meet the second test. Meanwhile there is plenty about these election results that falls down when held up against the second test. Why does Biden have so many more votes than Democrat Senators in swing states, but not other states? Why did Wisconsin, and especially Milwaukee, tally near on record turnout levels and more than continguous and other States? Is it in fact the case that the Republican allegations of up to 10,000 ballots being counted after election day in Arizona are true? Because in Arizona – all states electoral laws are different recall – that is illegal. Plus, no one doubts the numbers of mailed Biden votes was expected to outnumber Trump’s significantly. But the vote totals and the ratios now being counted/reported look so high for Biden as to be statistically extremely unlikely to be explained by voting prefences alone. And then there are the hundreds of thousands of people in the swing states who voted only for Biden and didn’t vote further down the ticket. That’s an anomaly.
Retrieved from ""