Monday, 31 March 2014

I am pleased to inform you of my conversation with Shyakira – obviating same

 
 
From: g87
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: The Australian
 

Thank you.
I am pleased to inform you of my conversation with Shyakira – obviating same See email and details sent a minute ago..
 
Kind regards GS
 
From: Complaints
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: The Australian
 

Dear Mr Seidner,
Re: The Australian
We acknowledge the receipt of three emails sent to complaints@presscouncil.org.au and jdisney@unsw.edu.au yesterday, Sunday 30 March 2014.
If you wish to register a complaint with us, please note the following information.
Our complaints handling process is initiated by the submission of a Complaint Form, located at the following address: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/complaint-form/.
This process operates for our member publications, such as The Australian, in accordance with our Standards of Practice: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/.
As such, if and when you submit a Complaint Form, please ensure the following details are included:
·         the specific article/s and aspects of the article/s you believe breach our Standards of Practice, for instance, the headline, specific words, phrases, photos and captions; and
·         the Standards you believe are breached, for instance, General Principle 1 in relation to accurate, fair and balanced reporting.
Also note our general time limits on making complaints, which is thirty days from the date of first publication: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/making-a-complaint/.
Yours Sincerely,
Justin


Justin Levy | Complaints Officer

cid:4B976155-5979-488C-9D18-00EC707D6970

Australian Press Council
Level 6, 309 Kent Street
GPO Box 3343
Sydney NSW 2000
T    02 9261 1930
F    02 9267 6826
www.presscouncil.org.au

Posted by at No comments:

herein - I wish to formalize herein my complaint against The Australian and the Press Council.

 
 
From: g87
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:03 PM
Subject: FORMAL INVESTIGATIVE REQUEST TO Tim Wilson Human Rights Commission
 

 

TO

Australian Human Rights Commission

Address 
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Telephone: (02) 9284 9600
Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419
General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711
TTY: 1800 620 241
Fax: (02) 9284 9611

Tim Wilson, Human rights Commissioner and

Shyakira

c/ Human Rights Commission
Dear Shykira
Thank you for helpful conversation this morning.
  • I wish to formalize herein my complaint against The Australian and the Press Council. Thank you for not forcing me to do this through your on – line processes – it would have made it more difficult for everyone.
  • I also expect to proffer my thoughts on the major issue running in the media – the Racial Discrimination Act / RDA / reg 18c. As stated in an earlier email, it is very likely that my SHORTHAND proposal will suit all parties.
All of my complaints are on my blog. As indeed is the effectively cryptic alleged solution to the 18C.
You are kindly requested to look at earlier posts / links on my main blog Socialist Dystopia.
 
Overview
 
 
THE PRESS COUNCIL
The Australian – in collusion / through The Press Council has written to me claiming that it is acceptable to depict the Prime Minister Of Australia as being strangled by a STAR OF DAVID AKA THE JEWISH LOBBY. The Australian refused to communicate with me at any time, by the way.
My communication with the Press Council was extensive. I even had to write to Walt Disney at his university address to get what is mere attention! Julian Disney decided that morality could not win out: what a disgrace of a man!
Three times they claimed that the Australian was fair in what they did.
TWICE I forced them to discredit themselves by forcing them to reconsider because of prolix garbage they thought they could get away with.
Pathetically – in the end the implied debt they owed to The Oz vitiated any moral finding: the entire correspondences – most of them remain UNINDEXED on my blog – must be sent to you to enable you to make a correct adjudication.
It is just a matter of time before I can index them all: in the interim the Press Council should be forced to send the entire correspondences to you. Oh – and The Oz too – if merely to confirm that other than immediately taking down the cartoon – they refused to communicate with anyone from mainstream Jewish bodies – or my person of course!
This in itself is guilt writ large.
 
THE OZ RE LYONS
 
I asked the Australian to apologise to our Jewish community for the behaviour of their in - house anti Israel warrior / anti semite John
Lyons.
I wrote even to Rupert Murdoch – to no avail. See merely some of the links below: they will lead to other matters over the years – the
 
Australian to insult us has made many outrageous defence attempts of the indefensible.
 
 
THE OZ EDITORIAL SAT. 29/3/14
 
Kindly note that the current matter evolves around the editorial published on Saturday In The Oz. The sheer stupidity of the article is of little concern to me: I could write a thesis on the imbecility of it al in arguing their issue de jour re the 18C But look at the ‘huge’ anti – semitism explicit here!
  SHORTHAND ONLY HEREUNDER!!!
’’You blame Jews as being responsible for the violence of violent criminals!
 
   How can any responsible newspaper's editorial writer insist that racist violence against Jews need to have their [alleged] 'reason' ''open to debate and the airing of grievances, to allow them to be dealt with by rational, sensible argument''?
 
  This obscene tangent states that Jews are guilty of having this violence bought on themselves by plainly no more than walking the streets of Sydney at night.
  Understand that this theme was mentioned some time ago in your paper but never under your masthead! Eternal shame on you people.’’
 
Oh by the way – look at what The Oz published as their lead letter today!
Just to put me in my place!!
 
18c ... not an issue at all, essentially.
As I have opined – I have a solution which when properly rewritten, all parties from Andrew Bolt  to the so called multi – cultural lobby, to Tim Wilson – and dare I say it – The Oz editor – will all find an excellent solution. Look at this criptic version – which reall;y does not matter – except that intelligent appraisal will satisfy as being a rare beautiful solution.
I look forward to being able to formally put it in your hands another day.
 
Of interest to me:
 
 
MY RECENT RELEVANT LINKS:
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, 30 March 2014

VER 2 Shame on The Australian! AND ON THE PRESS COUNCIL!

 
This has been rewritten

VER 2  Shame on The Australian! AND ON THE PRESS COUNCIL!
  • LINKS HERE TO:

      https://www.google.com.au/#q=press+council+julian+disney+socialist+dystopia++


Chris Mitchell, Editor In Chief The OZ

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

TO THE DISGRACED PRESS COUNCIL!

YOU HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING YET- you are disgraceful re that cartoon!
MEGA SHAME ON YOU!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
TO THE ESTEEMED RUPERT MURDOCH
Dear Mr Murdoch
I understand you are not anti semitic: DO SOMETHING LIKE YOU DID LAST YEAR AGAINST THE TIMES CARTOON!
Geoff Seidner

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Shame on The Australian!

RE EDITORIAL 29/3/14


How infantile for your editorial writer to blame Section 18C of the RDA [Racial Discrimination Act] for not having prevented a 21 per cent increase in the number of reports of racist violence directed at [Jewish] individuals or Jewish facilities in the past year. This is the stuff of kindergarten playtime; you should not play with simple minds so blatently.
But there is worse.

You blame Jews as being responsible for the violence of violent criminals!

How can any responsible newspaper's editorial writer insist that racist violence against Jews need to have their [alleged] 'reason' ''open to debate and the airing of grievances, to allow them to be dealt with by rational, sensible argument''?

This obscene tangent states that Jews are guilty of having this violence bought on themselves by plainly no more than walking the streets of Sydney at night.
Understand that this theme was mentioned some time ago in your paper but never under your masthead! Eternal shame on you people.


  1. Excuse me? Sensible argument with those that you admit promulgated ''racist violence''?
  2. You have no shame or common sense. Are you seriously suggesting that your excuse for a blanket blood libel is somehow justified because there has been as many as 21% increase of attacks against Jews? You are streching my repertoire of abuse.
  3. What sort of variation would you postulate is acceptable so you do not unilaterally and idiotically find it justifiable to blame Jews for violence committed by criminals?
  4. I have not seen stupider examples in Der Sturmer.
  5. Yea I tell you when the storms of the BDS haters do not cloud the issues I have seen examples of Jew hatred in The Australian. On 18 January 2013: cartoon of Julia Gillard being strangled by A STAR OF DAVID in Parliament House by the Jewish Lobby. 
Thi matter is going to the Press Council and Rupert Murdoch!
I dare you to publish it!
Geoff Seidner East St Kilda



Of course the entire article is imbecilic and trite in no particular order. How trivial the contrived situations you create to go with the anti 18C agenda that you have persued all week. It is painfull to see skilled journalists having to repeat the same dogma.
At best they are boring: look what you did to Janet Albrechtsen – the brilliant lady having to repeat what you effectively created for her.  With no consideration that it is forced, at best childish. At worst morononic and catatonic.


Comment from gs:this article is imbecilic at best! My extreme language is justified - not the least because of this:

Nor, in Australia, has the controversial Section 18C of the RDA prevented a 21 per cent increase in the number of reports of racist violence directed at individuals or Jewish facilities in the past year. That disturbing trend is a good reason for open debate and the airing of grievances, to allow them to be dealt with by rational, sensible argument.

Who do you allow to air grievances? Those who initiate racist violence? HUH????


  • LINKS HERE TO:

https://www.google.com.au/#q=press+council+julian+disney+socialist+dystopia++

https://www.google.com.au/#q=press+council+julian+disney+socialist+dystopia++

YOU SHOULD SEE THIS FULL - SIZE!
THEY 'IMMEDIATELY' TOOK THE CARTOON OFF THE WEB!! Jan 18,

Smothering free exchange of ideas a dangerous path

SHARE

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

Hi Geoff Discover news with your friends. Give it a try.
To get going, simply connect with your favourite social network:
  • Facebook
IF freedom of speech is taken away, George Washington said in 1783, then “dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter .’’ However well meaning the views of opponents to the Abbott government’s changes to race discrimination laws, many have a poor understanding of the inviolable place of free speech in our democracy.
Retired indigenous magistrate Sue Gordon was right this week when she said the attempted suppression of racism tends to make it worse, driving it underground where it cannot be rebutted effectively. In the isolated pockets of our culturally diverse nation where racism is a problem, stifling discussion has been demonstrated to create a sense of grievance, similar to what propelled Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party in the mid 1990s.
Far from being a hotbed of racism as some Green Left commentators believe, Australia, a nation of immigrants, has been enhanced by the generally harmonious blending of successive waves of newcomers to these shores. Where serious issues of racial abuse arise, redress is available through defamation laws. The Abbott government’s new, broad provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act will also prohibit the incitement of racial hatred and threats of physical harm.
Wesley Aird, a former member of John Howard’s indigenous advisory council, is correct in arguing that no amount of legislation can stop some people saying stupid things. Writing today, Aird shines a light on some of the robust conflicts within Aboriginal Australia, pointing out it is simplistic and disingenuous to suggest it is only Aborigines who need protection from the rest of non-Aboriginal Australia.
The opposition of Jewish groups to the changes is understandable. People such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement have driven anti-Semitism in the West. We respect the opinions of holocaust survivors who have voiced their opposition to Attorney General George Brandis’s proposed changes. It is undeniable, however, that the murderous excesses of Nazism and Communism were aided and abetted by a chilling public silence brought about by totalitarian censorship.
Post-war Europe has a long tradition of banning hate speech. But as Israeli political adviser Gabriel Sassoon writes today, such laws have not prevented racism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and anti-Muslim abuse reaching fever pitch on today’s discontented Continent.
Nor, in Australia, has the controversial Section 18C of the RDA prevented a 21 per cent increase in the number of reports of racist violence directed at individuals or Jewish facilities in the past year. That disturbing trend is a good reason for open debate and the airing of grievances, to allow them to be dealt with by rational, sensible argument.
Rather than being viewed as a one-off, Australia’s debate over racial vilification needs to be understood within the context of international trends. In a drive to clamp down on statements perceived as offensive, freedom of speech is being trampled across much of the world. Australians would not want to emulate the Danish, where “mocking or scorning’’ a lawfully existing religious community can result in four months jail. Nor would we tolerate a recent ruling by a British Court of Appeal judge that using the word “golliwog’’ in front of a black person, whatever the context — even when mentioning a jam label — was racial harassment. In Europe and the US, environmentalists want climate change denial to be declared a crime against humanity, to give themselves the upper hand in debate.
In addition to stifling the argy bargy that is central to democratic life, heavy handed discrimination laws undermine democracy by entrusting inordinate discretion to unelected judges. Justice Mordecal Bromberg, for example, who ruled against News Corp Australia columnist Andrew Bolt under the Section 18C of the RDA in 2011 has been upfront about the fact he sees the judiciary as a way of delivering what he describes as “social justice’’.
At heavy public expense, such legislation creates lawyers picnics, mostly of little benefit to taxpayers. Canadian lawyers, for example, do well squabbling over what constitutes “hateful or contemptuous” expression about ethnic minorities and faith groups under their Human Rights Act.
Australia has no reason to be complacent about freedom of speech. Hundreds of prohibitions govern the things we are not allowed to know. And we rank 28th out of 180 on the World Press Freedom Index. The further erosion of freedom of speech is too high a price to pay for legislation erroneously intended to stifle the rougher edges of our robust debate. Trying to legislate for good manners or to prevent hurt invariably backfires. The government is right to abolish Section 18C of the RDA.
Posted by at No comments:

Dear Tim Wilson Human Rights Commission

From: g87
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:51 PM
Subject: Dear Tim Wilson Human Rights Commission

Dear Tim Wilson
Hello Tim
I herewith request that you investigate The Australian for that editorial in The Oz on Saturday.
The cartoon also warrants a heady look at.
Oh – and while you are about it – have a decko at the disgraceful Press Council.
I would also like to make a formal submission re the 18C
Kindest Regards
Geoff Seidner
  March (20)
Posted by at No comments:

I direspectfully demand...to PRESS COUNCIL

 
 
From: g87
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:38 PM
Subject: I direspectfully demand...
 

RE EARLIER EMAIL...I direspectfully demand that you review that sick cartoon before you are forced to do so!
GS
 
Posted by at No comments:

18C - Supplementary note Sunday 11.12 am 30/3/14

18C - Supplementary note Sunday 11,15 am 30/3/14
RE: http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/everyone-wins-my-way-on-18c.html

I have too many projects going and expect to revisit this '18c' in due course.

When the previous post on 18c is edited properly and significantly extended, it is expected that even the hurriedly - written comments therein will remain credible.

In the interim note what the outrageous editor at The Australian has done - see next post!

G S
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 29 March 2014

Everyone wins my way on the 18c

Background
The Abbott Liberal government through the auspices of the esteemed Attorney General George Brandis has been / may be trying to revoke / change the 18c

Currently it is [apparently] unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate ...basis race or ethnicity....

''unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate'' Brandis will try to delete – replacing with vilify.

This over – simplistic introduction will have to do. I have my reasons for writing this at such an unusual time – and demonstrating brilliant style is not one of them.
The reader can easily inform himself of the details and respective merits and demerits of the state of play through the media.

This background briefing is of little value per se. Except to suggest that so much rubbish has been written on this that caveat emptor applies.

Look at the pathetic editorial in The Australian editorial March 29,2014.
Inexplicable rubbish: The Oz editor has discredited himself!

OVERVIEW - My Solution
The following is merely a cryptic essay; it is plainly an original piece of work that the best lawyers in the country should have thought of .###############################################################
THE POSTULATE:
  • Let us assume that a person stands in the city square and screams that the Hindus prayer book is anti Christian.
  • And Hindus are so as well.
  • The Hindu leader sues under 18c


##############################################################
HERE IS MY PROPOSAL: IN SHORTHAND
  1. Leave 18c as it is.
  2. Add the need for TRUTH to be proven or disproven.
  3. Add the need for REASONABLENESS ditto.
  4. Possibly add PUBLIC INTEREST.
  5. Add the possibility of impugning the MOTIVATIONS / INTEGRITY / PURPOSE OF PERSON FOR MAKING THE INITIALCOMMENT... ie the person being sued.
################################################################################################################################
    1
    Leave 18c as it is.
    Self explanatory

    2
    Add the need for TRUTH to be proven or disproven.
    Really this is delightfully simple which works both ways. Ie both parties will think very carefully before initiating the insult or defending themselves unless they are confident of the outcome.
    Indeed that is the classical disincentive for both entities – so peace may reign. Which of course is irrelevant.
    The loud mouth will take responsibility and the law will take it's course.
    TRUTH PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. Just like in defamation / libel.



    3
    Add the need for REASONABLENESS ditto.This is a major theme for another day.
    4
    Possibly add PUBLIC INTEREST. Similarly - another day....
    5
    Add the possibility of impugning the MOTIVATIONS / INTEGRITY / PURPOSE OF PERSON FOR MAKING THE INITIALCOMMENT... ie the person being sued.
    This is one of my major themes in another realm.
    No need to go into it - which is a shame.

This is the crux of it.
If the initiator has to prove that he is being
REASONABLE,
IS ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND HAS MOTIVATIONS THAT ARE HONOURABLE –
THEN MATTERS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND / OROTHER MATTERS OF CURRENT   ESSENTIALLY DISSAPPEAR!
NO MORE DISPUTE CAN BE HAD FROM EITHER / ANY PARTY!
Why has no one thought of this?

And furthermore let me here nothing from the professional smart alecs who claim the shallow shabby thing often heard that
how do you prove good faith?
Or any derivations that the above throws up?

GUESS WHAT?
THE LAW HANDLES THIS EVERY DAY! If some disingenuos twirp decides to initiate or defend an untenable action – than the consequences will be extant.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO!
Why should anyone throw up hypothetical problems that in reality not only does not exist – well, I do not know. See above; it will cost them – or will be stopped by the judge hopefully.

I repeat: the above will / would be a brilliantly simple solution by being a classical disicentive against both the so – called racist taunt and defence of the indefensible.

Gee _ I hope I have not made any errors – it is late at night and I write this as a favour for a party who is involved in matters semi – related and for my own curiosity if someone disagrees.

Geoff Seidner Saturday night 29 March 2014
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

How quickly we forget - how little is understood.#1

#1  How quickly we forget - how little is understood.
     Links:

The human brain is not innately capable or interested in coping  with any complication / prolixity. Intelligence has little to do with it, surprisingly. The classical  attention-span-statistics/ are worth viewing 
 http://www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-statistics/

 Sadly the default position even for many who are responsible, rational and in many ways blessed with the ability to contextually understand the bizarre games the left play - is to quickly tire of a theme. 

 Any theme. 

 I attempt to write in this brief essay an explanation how the socialist Clique seemingly
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique  get away with the most ridiculous, untenable things. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS - LIKE ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT THEY DID AND PLAINLY CONTINUE - WITH NE'ER ANY GUILT. 
OR CHANGE. You can see this pathetic syndrome almost everyday. It is the way they are made.

 THE  MAIN THEME ABOVE WILL BE CONTINUED OVER TIME: HOWEVER THIS BLOG HAS MANY SUCH THEMES FOR THOSE WHOSE CURIOSITY GETS THE BETTER OF THEM.

 AS I WRITE THESE IDLE WORDS - WHICH ARE SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THIS PREAMBLE TO A MANAGEABLE SIZE - I DO HAVE SOME FAVOURITES WHICH ENCOMPASS MY PHILOSOPHY:   https://www.google.com.au/#q=NOLO+CONTENDERER+seidner+albenese

  There are hundreds of these themes - any / all of them should ensure that socialist utopian dystopians should cease being so. It will not happen. 

 The more information that is available - the more complicated individuals' life at least potentially becomes - and the less likely anything is absorbed. Indeed - I  think about it this way: do I recall any of the themes I created a week ago? If not - then how can I expect others to do something if everyone is so ensconced in their own world that it is impossible almost impossible - to elicit outrage?

 THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT PROBABLY UNDERSTAND.
AND ENDLESSLY USE TO ADVANTAGE!

 I put to you that a Watergate type scandal - even in it's completed form - would / did not bring Obama down.

 Nor did any of the pathetic lies and distortions of Rudd - Gillard - Rudd.

 SO MY SOLUTION IS TO CREATE THIS THEME WITH THE INTENTION OF BY  CREATING A FORMAT THAT MAY BE MANAGEABLE, MAY IN TURN BE  ABLE TO BE USED TO ADVANTAGE.

 I have no idea what 'to advantage' is supposed to mean. Nor have I a plan of  how to overcome the indubitable impossibilities that will remain no matter what path I choose in future. Irrespective I obviously intend to enjoy myself with many other interests.

 For now, contemplate that no matter what the imbecilic previous government managed to destroy, the Labor Party remain the preferred choice of approximately 50% of the electorate.
 At the nadir in the electoral cycle - at least 45% were inclined their way! Go figure? Well it is explicated by contemplating that Jonathan Rosenblum was right in his masterly essay: 

The other option is vagaries of  the IQ test - but I prefer Rosenblum's idea in 2002 above. 

 But we start with the links to my 'Cognate' blog above - where I have taken the reader to the TOP 60 CATASTROPHES of RUDD - GILLARD - RUDD: A Liberal Party creation of great value.
I have always dreamed of creating the ultimate list that should force the cessation of all socialist/ Marxist ideas.

 But who will read it?
Who can absorb or show interest in any list?

 So what do I do here? In this essay of sorts?
START A LISTOF COURSE!

 I have always thought that there is a certain logical elegance to lists. The expectation in my tiny brain is that I can encourage the reader to see this logical elegance.

Who can readily appreciate that the more garbage used to conflate issues - the more the left use their favourite media tool?
THE snow+job 
 https://www.google.com.au/#q=geoff+seidner+snow+job

 May we live in less interesting times. WIKIPEDIA: May you live in interesting times
Ho Hum.

 Geoff Seidner


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)