Sunday 6 April 2014

TO GILLIAN TRIGGS Human Rights Commission

From: g87
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 2:45 PM
Subject: TO GILLIAN TRIGGS re Humbug at The Oz

 Dear Ms Triggs
I send this to you so you can look into my complaint against The Australian Editor.
Please appreciate I will have more complaints if I get around to it: even their current editorial at best has dozens outrageous manipulative items that are for now beyond this email.
Yours Sincerely
Geoff Seidner

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
From: g87
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 2:37 PM
Subject: Humbug at The Oz
Oh the humbug of it all!
How is the publication from the official spokesman from The League of Rights of a letter to the editor anything but outrageous if the The Australian’s Op Ed mentions


‘’The irrational rantings of such groups as the 

League of Rights’’?

Op Ed 5/4/14


But it is worse than that. Even as a stand -  alone item it is much worse than that. Without everything else that the Australian has written – it is much worse – impossibl=e to explain within 10,000 words.
You see, Nigel Jackson is of course taking the freedom of speech tangent – and the entity who prepared the Oz’s editorial readily gobbled up League of Rights hobbies – freedom of speech!
See Whatever it takes? 1
No need for morality – take even the plainly – anti semitic L.O.Rights 2 so long as support can be gleaned for THE OZ!!!



1


  • Graham Richardson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Richardson

    For the Canadian television journalist, see Graham Richardson (journalist). ..... Barron, a former Hawke political staffer—to do 'whatever it takes' to 'get' Hawke.
  • Whatever it Takes - Graham Richardson - Google Books

    books.google.com.au/books/about/Whatever_it_Takes.html?id...

     Rating: 3 - ‎3 reviews
    An autobiographical account of the life of one of the key figures in the Australian Labor Government during the last twelve years. It is written in a direct ...
  • Sticking with a slime goes beyond whatever it takes | The Australian

    www.theaustralian.com.au/...whatever-it-takes/story-fnfenwor-12264939...

    Oct 12, 2012 - I once wrote a book called Whatever it Takes, and that embodied my political style. ... Graham Richardson hosts Richo on Sky News at 8pm on

     

    2

    Letter The Australian 5/4/14
    THE proposal by Attorney-General George Brandis for the reform of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is being criticised for failing to adequately protect persons and groups from racial vilification.
    The opposite is the truth — that it still fails to adequately protect freedom of speech. The new clause sanctioning “incitement to racial hatred” is too vague and could easily be used, in a future Labor-dominated political climate, to censor certain intellectually substantial dissident views, especially if “community standards” were to be interpreted in a way favourable to leftist social engineering.
    Moreover, the Brandis exemptions are not too wide — they even need the addition of the word historical in order to ensure that historical incorrectness is not wrongfully censored and penalised.
    Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
    3
    How about the below?
    The Editor is even prepared to vitiate democracy – in spite of ‘’Peter Wertheim, said all the peak Jewish national bodies in Australia were united in opposition’’
    How is this possible?
    Let me see- the majority do not count because ‘’majority or official opinion among any group
    Then the pathetic threat:    ‘’including Jews, have learned, that lesson at vast and painful cost through history.’’.
    Then what to make of this sick line?
     ‘’Free choice, including opposition to cultural coercion, was
    for respecting dissenting views.’’
    ‘’Peter Wertheim, said all the peak Jewish national bodies in Australia
    Some within the Jewish diaspora disagree with the organisations’ official line. Such individuals know that majority or official opinion among any group is not necessarily always right. Many racial and religious groups, including Jews, have learned, that lesson at vast and painful cost through history.
     Free choice, including opposition to cultural coercion, was one of the 10 founding principles of Israel, which is also a good reason for respecting dissenting views.
    Replying to Mr Wertheim on the J-Wire online site, Professor Dershowitz noted that answering rather than censoring is the preferable response to bigoted speech. Words can and do harm. Freedom of speech, as he said, is expensive, but it’s worth the cost.’’
    I now send  a book review below 4 by the ABC re my earlier comment on blood libel – as indeed the above is similar.
    I send this to ensure all who read this understand what blood libel is!

    4

    The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews by Darren O ...

    www.abc.net.au/local/reviews/2011/10/20/3344170.htm
    10 November, 2011 11:01AM AEST. The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews by Darren O'Brien. Review by Rob Minshull. Rob Minshull produces ..

    Hate speech best defeated in a free exchange of ideas

    Censorship apologists are on the wrong side of history
    AUSTRALIA, as John Howard said this week, is not a racist nation but one that respects and cherishes an open, tolerant society. That understanding should be the starting point of the current debate over freedom of speech and the Abbott government’s proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. In their supercilious opposition to the changes, Fairfax commentators and other critics, including lobbyists who are normally more discerning, argue from the premise that ordinary Australians are ready to unleash a pent up tide of bigoted hate speech if and when Section 18C of the RDA is repealed.
    In reality, when extremist parties with racist leanings have emerged spasmodically in the prickle farmer backblocks of Queensland and Western Australia, they have attracted minimal support and failed to retain it from one election to the next.
    Well-meaning apologists for censorship, as Harvard law professor and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz wrote on Wednesday, are on the wrong side of history. Banning anti-black, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish, anti-gay or anti-feminist ideas or turning their perpetrators into criminals, he argued, was tantamount to providing them with a megaphone.
    Like Professor Dershowitz, this newspaper believes the best answer to bigoted speech is not to drive it underground, heightening discontent, but to respond and defeat it in the
    marketplace of ideas. The irrational rantings of such groups as the League of Rights and Citizens Electoral Council, for example, are abhorrent. And
    this is precisely why they should be aired publicly, in order to be refuted.
    Unlike the armchair critics of Attorney General George Brandis, Sydney resident and Holocaust survivor John Furedy understands the dangers of curbing free speech first hand. As reported on Wednesday’s front page, Professor Furedy confronted the practical realities of censorship as a boy in Soviet-dominated Hungary after World War II. That experience influenced his judgement that Australia should not stray further down the path of creeping “velvet totalitarianism’’ where it would no longer benefit from a genuine contest of ideas. The Nazi and Communist regimes that dominated Eastern Europe for decades did not spring from nowhere, as he said, but “always happen gradually, step by step.’’
    That said, there are other opinions. And The Australian has extensively reported the views of those opposed to the reform of the RDA. Such proponents include Warren Mundine, the head of Tony Abbott’s indigenous council and Peter Wertheim, Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Mr Wertheim has been quoted in five prominent news and feature reports in the past month.
    In a thoughtful article, columnist and former Labor Senator Graham Richardson said no ideal of free speech should ever be allowed to make a mockery of the degradation and despair of the millions who died in the Nazi concentration camps. And Jeremy Jones, director of international and community affairs at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, defended Section 18C of the RDA. It had, he said, proven to be “a means to have recalcitrant racists cease harassing others, of sending a message that bullying by bigots is unacceptable and providing a means for people to have their rights to live their lives free from harassment and intimidation protected.’’
    Unfortunately for Jewish Australians who hold a multiplicity of views, the main organisations dedicated to the defence of Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning democracy, have taken a narrow approach. On its website, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, published a rebuttal to Professor Dershowitz’s Wednesday article. The rebuttal, by Peter Wertheim, said all the peak Jewish national bodies in Australia were united in opposition to plans to alter the RDA. Their stand, paradoxically, is in line with many of Israel’s most trenchant critics from the left of the Australian media.
    Some within the Jewish diaspora disagree with the organisations’ official line. Such individuals know that majority or official opinion among any group is not necessarily always right. Many racial and religious groups, including Jews, have learned, that lesson at vast and painful cost through history.
     Free choice, including opposition to cultural coercion, was one of the 10 founding principles of Israel, which is also a good reason for respecting dissenting views.
    Replying to Mr Wertheim on the J-Wire online site, Professor Dershowitz noted that answering rather than censoring is the preferable response to bigoted speech. Words can and do harm. Freedom of speech, as he said, is expensive, but it’s worth the cost.
  •  is not necessarily always rght’’
  •  one of the 10 founding principles of Israel, which is also a good reason
  •  were united in opposition to plans to alter the RDA. Their stand, paradoxically, is in line with many of Israel’s most trenchant critics from the left of the Australian media.

  • No comments:

    Post a Comment