The modus vivendi of this blog is plainly self explanatory. Pathetically,'progressives' regularly promote implausable, impractical or plainly asinine ideas. Who but socialists could for decades abuse the term 'economic rationalism' - without humiliation? THIS GOES TO THE VERY HEART OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND RATIONAL GOVERNMENT: TO WIT TO NOT CRITICIZE THE CONSERVATIVES AS BEING 'RATIONAL'!
My other main blog:
Sunday, 30 March 2014
VER 2 Shame on The Australian! AND ON THE PRESS COUNCIL!
YOU HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING YET- you are disgraceful re that
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
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
But there is
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,
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
Excuse me? Sensible argument with those that you admit
promulgated ''racist violence''?
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
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?
I have not seen stupider examples in Der
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
I dare you to publish it!
Geoff Seidner East St
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 theairing 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????
news with your friends.
Give it a
get going, simply connect with your favourite social
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
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
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
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
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
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