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:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)