19 April 2016

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist

| John Hargreaves
Join the conversation
73
Zacky Mallah

Last August I wrote about the application of the political paradigm known as the state of fear. It has been employed by bodies politics and dictators since Persian times, reaching a perfection in the days of the Inquisition.

It is the notion that a government (or ruling body/dictator) keeps the community under control by creating a monster that only they can protect against.

This is the underlying premise that motivates the current government and the two before it, in its policies to deal with terrorism/boat people/political opponents.

I am a big fan of Waleed Aly, the award-winning journo from Fairfax Press who is also a panelist on television show The Project.

He has the ability to tell it how it is and to show inconsistencies in policies where they arise and give us all food for thought. His latest in the Crimes last week was a pearler.

Waleed showed that the current government’s approach to dual nationals is fundamentally flawed and actually shows a policy driven by a pathological need to stay in office, stating contradictory lines of argument whenever and wherever it feels a need.

Cop this! Waleed points out that Tony Abbott says he does not want terrorists loose on our streets. Abbott did say that – I heard him myself on the telly. That’s why we need to make sure that people who go overseas to fight in someone else’s war against people who are actually fighting each other, don’t come back here and bring those issues into our community. So far, so good?

But what about those born here, Australian citizens only, who do the same? What about those who fight on the same side as our government? What about those who fight against others who for the time being are our allies but recently were proscribed terrorists? Hmmm, getting cloudy!

But also, as Waleed points out, what about the government cancelling the passports of around 80 Australians who were intending to leave and go overseas to fight? The government is actually forcing these people to run loose on our streets!

Hang on. So the gumment wants to stop people coming home and running loose on our streets, but it won’t let people leave, forcing them to give expression to their zeal on our streets! Good one, Tone!

Of course, the PM’s obsession with all things terror now extends to not only a denial of our citizenship right. Without conviction, he is prepared to take away the freedom of expression of people not convicted of the crimes he suggests they are guilty of.

Zacky Mallah was found guilty of threatening an ASIO officer. Ergo, he is a terrorist. He shouldn’t be allowed on the Q&A program because he was convicted of that “crime”. How many people have been convicted of threatening a police officer? How many are banned from commenting publicly on the issue they found it necessary to be so worked up about? Double standard again.

Waleed tells us, and I believe him, that Zacky was acquitted of terrorism charges. But that doesn’t wash with our Tone, any more than it washed with his mentor John Howard in his treatment of Mohammed Haneef.

Tone says the courts are not necessarily capable of being adjudicating on a person’s intentions. A minister is much more able to judge that and take away a right. Shame that it was unconstitutional, Tone.

And now, in a shameful display of petulance, our Beloved Leader is hell bent on denying the ABC its independence as a broadcaster.

Unusually, ABC chairman Mark Scott took issue with the PM’s position in a speech last Thursday. He made the point that sometimes, free speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree. This is exactly what freedom of speech is all about.

If the ABC is to be an independent broadcaster, it must be free to air whatever it likes within the constraints of its Act. It is not the voice of the government of the day.

Mr Scott said it well when he said:

“The A in ABC is “Australian… the ABC is clearly on the side of Australia. And the part we play, what we do for the side, is a vital one, central to our culture and our democracy – that of being an independent public broadcaster. It is the ABC’s independence from government, that shapes the ABC as a public broadcaster not a state broadcaster [my emphasis].”

Zacky Mallah may hold views that we disagree with, but he is not a convicted terrorist. He has not committed a crime for which eternal silence is a sentence, and he has the same right to say things in a public arena as some of the other zealots which have occupied the seats in the Q&A audience.

As a regular Q&A viewer, I have been appalled at the views of some of the audience and some of the panellists, but to get two sides of an argument I sometimes need to hear the one I don’t like to hear.

The state of fear is safe in Tony’s hands and we can all rest fitfully in our beds.

Join the conversation

73
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest
JustThinking6:05 pm 19 Jul 15

Terrorism has been happening in Australia for over 200 years.
The Government was using the same scare tactics then as it is now to ‘keep everyone’ inline, just now the shoe is on the other foot.

Yep, I couldn't sleep at night knowing that a despicable misogynist grub like this one has lost his 'right' to speak on #QandA.

It is possible to really disagree with and loathe what someone has to say, but still consider that, to prevent them from having the right to say it, is in fact a loss of right to speak out, for all the rest of the community.
I think this would be one of those occasions.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

countach said :

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

How can you listen to a mob whose final goal is to dominate the world and kill all who oppose them along the way?

That comment shows you have no interest in understanding the problem and are happy to bleat repeatly comments that just are not true. One would start to wonder if you actually work for the liberal party, who employ people to spread untruths on many forums and websites. Many things about terrorists are true. But they’ve never said they want to conquer the world. They want a state that practises an extreme form of islam. They also are happy to kill anyone who opposes their ideals.

However there is very little difference to what our Liberal Government wants and what ISIS want. they both want a conservative religious based society, that controls the country and has freedom to exclude whoever they want. Their views an opinions on many topics are very very similar and the biggest threat Islam poses in Australia is that Catholic church would lose power. The main difference is our extremist government is able to do it through politics, however terrorists obviously have no such medium and do it through death and bloodshed.

I’m not a Jacqui Lambie fan, but it was refreshing to see a pollie not afraid to voice their real opinion. Then she compared ISIS with the Greens and now its confirmed she has absolutely no idea.

Was she wrong about eating tofu or living in caves?

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

countach said :

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

How can you listen to a mob whose final goal is to dominate the world and kill all who oppose them along the way?

That comment shows you have no interest in understanding the problem and are happy to bleat repeatly comments that just are not true. One would start to wonder if you actually work for the liberal party, who employ people to spread untruths on many forums and websites. Many things about terrorists are true. But they’ve never said they want to conquer the world. They want a state that practises an extreme form of islam. They also are happy to kill anyone who opposes their ideals.

However there is very little difference to what our Liberal Government wants and what ISIS want. they both want a conservative religious based society, that controls the country and has freedom to exclude whoever they want. Their views an opinions on many topics are very very similar and the biggest threat Islam poses in Australia is that Catholic church would lose power. The main difference is our extremist government is able to do it through politics, however terrorists obviously have no such medium and do it through death and bloodshed.

I’m not a Jacqui Lambie fan, but it was refreshing to see a pollie not afraid to voice their real opinion. Then she compared ISIS with the Greens and now its confirmed she has absolutely no idea.

“But they never said they wanted to conquer the world”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/248082/isis-jihadists-vow-conquer-europe-kill-500-million-daniel-greenfield

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

countach said :

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

How can you listen to a mob whose final goal is to dominate the world and kill all who oppose them along the way?

That comment shows you have no interest in understanding the problem and are happy to bleat repeatly comments that just are not true. One would start to wonder if you actually work for the liberal party, who employ people to spread untruths on many forums and websites. Many things about terrorists are true. But they’ve never said they want to conquer the world. They want a state that practises an extreme form of islam. They also are happy to kill anyone who opposes their ideals.

However there is very little difference to what our Liberal Government wants and what ISIS want. they both want a conservative religious based society, that controls the country and has freedom to exclude whoever they want. Their views an opinions on many topics are very very similar and the biggest threat Islam poses in Australia is that Catholic church would lose power. The main difference is our extremist government is able to do it through politics, however terrorists obviously have no such medium and do it through death and bloodshed.

I’m not a Jacqui Lambie fan, but it was refreshing to see a pollie not afraid to voice their real opinion. Then she compared ISIS with the Greens and now its confirmed she has absolutely no idea.

Both you and John are on another planet if you believe that we can “negotiate” with these people by talking to them.
I think you must be channelling Neville Chamberlain’s infamous “peace in our time” speech when he was conned by Hitler in 1939.
I suggest you both do some research on the goals of IS. The rest of the Muslim world will fall into line as these targets are reached.

dungfungus said :

countach said :

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

How can you listen to a mob whose final goal is to dominate the world and kill all who oppose them along the way?

That comment shows you have no interest in understanding the problem and are happy to bleat repeatly comments that just are not true. One would start to wonder if you actually work for the liberal party, who employ people to spread untruths on many forums and websites. Many things about terrorists are true. But they’ve never said they want to conquer the world. They want a state that practises an extreme form of islam. They also are happy to kill anyone who opposes their ideals.

However there is very little difference to what our Liberal Government wants and what ISIS want. they both want a conservative religious based society, that controls the country and has freedom to exclude whoever they want. Their views an opinions on many topics are very very similar and the biggest threat Islam poses in Australia is that Catholic church would lose power. The main difference is our extremist government is able to do it through politics, however terrorists obviously have no such medium and do it through death and bloodshed.

I’m not a Jacqui Lambie fan, but it was refreshing to see a pollie not afraid to voice their real opinion. Then she compared ISIS with the Greens and now its confirmed she has absolutely no idea.

John Hargreaves11:50 am 04 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

countach said :

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

How can you listen to a mob whose final goal is to dominate the world and kill all who oppose them along the way?

How do you know that if you didn’t listen to him?

I note that you are not on Twitter – neither am I, but also that you are not on Facebook. Is that because you don’t think you could get a Friend on Facebook? or that people might Unfriend you a bit often?

countach said :

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

How can you listen to a mob whose final goal is to dominate the world and kill all who oppose them along the way?

It’s not just a matter of whether we give a platform to unpalatable ideas. How will we understand our enemy unless we listen to him? For that matter how will we know he is our enemy unless we hear what he wants?

Within reasonable bounds, I think we should have out and out terrorists on the show. The truth is strong, it has nothing to fear from bad ideas. Too long humanity had laboured under the false notion that everyone else ( except me of course ) is too feeble minded to see truth and error.

I’m about as far from a bleeding heart liberal as one can be without sporting a southern cross tattoo but the current government’s figurehead spouting scaremongering nonsense (disturbingly while standing in the centre of no less than TEN Australian flags) is detracting from the realities that cost far more Australian lives each year than “terrorism” ever will: domestic violence and workplace safety. This government wants to make it harder to get divorced because their leadership is made up almost invariably of backwards, Catholic, right-wing nut jobs. This was swatted down by the Senate thankfully, but if passed this would essentially make it harder for women to leave abusive relationships. And the current government’s witch hunt on trade unions will in turn make it harder for those unions to enforce industrial safety standards which will lead to more workplace accidents and deaths.

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

John Hargreaves said :

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

what i meant was, john hargreaves, what are your thoughts on abu khalid?

but more importantly, john hargraves, what are your thoughts on ALI AL ABBASI?

This Govt is worse though in that they proposed to give a minister the power to strip people of their citizenship without a conviction being recorded. That is, one man/woman would know better than a court of either judge alone or by jury. I don’t think so.

You mean like, say an Immigration Minister overturning a previous Immigration Minister’s deportation order for an illegal immigrant (who is also a convicted violent criminal) on “humanitarian grounds” (for the family and the children). Now surely that wouldn’t happen!! Never! Ever!

It happens all the time in Europe.

So that makes it OK here then does it?

NO!

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Well, John, the Q&A exec producer has been disciplined – so even the ABC (other than perhaps James Carlton) disagrees with you.

But Tony Jones has escaped any berating again.
Tony Jones, who earns more that the PM and asks most of the questions on his show which he seriously says “this is the show where you ask the questions”

The question that Mallah asked was a fair question from a person who had a legitimate stake in the public debate. Mallah’s debating prowess showed us that he is a moron (if his hat did not advertise the fact before he started speaking) but that does not exclude him from being able to ask a legitimate (and probably scripted/vetted) question in the public arena. What would the public response be if David Hicks had asked exactly the same question on Q&A?

Who cares what David Hicks may have asked?

Well, David Hicks also held dual citizenship at one point (UK from memory). The Howard government would have stripped him of his Australian citizenship in a nanosecond if they could, despite Hicks now being in the position of having several successful legal rulings in his favour (some still ongoing) against his ‘terrorism’ convictions. ‘The ministers in Howards government still maintain to this day that Hicks is a terrorist. So, I care what the answer would have been if Hicks had asked Ciobo exactly the same question. It is relevant to the public debate – and the debate taking place on Q&A.

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Well, John, the Q&A exec producer has been disciplined – so even the ABC (other than perhaps James Carlton) disagrees with you.

But Tony Jones has escaped any berating again.
Tony Jones, who earns more that the PM and asks most of the questions on his show which he seriously says “this is the show where you ask the questions”

The question that Mallah asked was a fair question from a person who had a legitimate stake in the public debate. Mallah’s debating prowess showed us that he is a moron (if his hat did not advertise the fact before he started speaking) but that does not exclude him from being able to ask a legitimate (and probably scripted/vetted) question in the public arena. What would the public response be if David Hicks had asked exactly the same question on Q&A?

Who cares what David Hicks may have asked?

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Well, John, the Q&A exec producer has been disciplined – so even the ABC (other than perhaps James Carlton) disagrees with you.

But Tony Jones has escaped any berating again.
Tony Jones, who earns more that the PM and asks most of the questions on his show which he seriously says “this is the show where you ask the questions”

The question that Mallah asked was a fair question from a person who had a legitimate stake in the public debate. Mallah’s debating prowess showed us that he is a moron (if his hat did not advertise the fact before he started speaking) but that does not exclude him from being able to ask a legitimate (and probably scripted/vetted) question in the public arena. What would the public response be if David Hicks had asked exactly the same question on Q&A?

dungfungus said :

Funky1 said :

John Hargreaves said :

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

what i meant was, john hargreaves, what are your thoughts on abu khalid?

but more importantly, john hargraves, what are your thoughts on ALI AL ABBASI?

This Govt is worse though in that they proposed to give a minister the power to strip people of their citizenship without a conviction being recorded. That is, one man/woman would know better than a court of either judge alone or by jury. I don’t think so.

You mean like, say an Immigration Minister overturning a previous Immigration Minister’s deportation order for an illegal immigrant (who is also a convicted violent criminal) on “humanitarian grounds” (for the family and the children). Now surely that wouldn’t happen!! Never! Ever!

It happens all the time in Europe.

So that makes it OK here then does it?

Funky1 said :

John Hargreaves said :

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

what i meant was, john hargreaves, what are your thoughts on abu khalid?

but more importantly, john hargraves, what are your thoughts on ALI AL ABBASI?

This Govt is worse though in that they proposed to give a minister the power to strip people of their citizenship without a conviction being recorded. That is, one man/woman would know better than a court of either judge alone or by jury. I don’t think so.

You mean like, say an Immigration Minister overturning a previous Immigration Minister’s deportation order for an illegal immigrant (who is also a convicted violent criminal) on “humanitarian grounds” (for the family and the children). Now surely that wouldn’t happen!! Never! Ever!

It happens all the time in Europe.

Funky1 said :

HenryBG said :

John Hargreaves said :

Here we go again…so you know that these people have been convicted in a court of law on charges of terrorism, you know that they are dual citizens. Clearly you know more than I do.

You know, during the 40’s, my grandfathers helped knock off a great many Germans and Japanese. I am pretty sure no court of law was involved.

A court system is a very poor method for dealing with people who violently reject our laws, our civilisation and its values.

People who think think courts should be involved are people whose divorce from reality represents the same kind of danger to our society as Neville Chamberlain’s did for his.

Not a good example.

Surely your grandfathers didn’t go and knock off any german or japanese person they saw. They would have done so to those in german or japanese uniforms (or those proven to be engaged in an act of war) following a declaration of war of which Australia was a part of.

A lot of unseen Germans and Japanese were killed by allied airmen dropping bombs on enemy territory and vice-versa.
I think the context of this thread is discussion about covert activities of people who are threatening us in peacetime. If they tried the sort of stuff that we are considering deporting them for in wartime they would be executed without referral to any courts or tribunal.

Masquara said :

Well, John, the Q&A exec producer has been disciplined – so even the ABC (other than perhaps James Carlton) disagrees with you.

But Tony Jones has escaped any berating again.
Tony Jones, who earns more that the PM and asks most of the questions on his show which he seriously says “this is the show where you ask the questions”

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

I also note that David Hicks held dual citizenship at one point. The Howard government would have loved this piece of legislation while the US had him held in Cuba. I wonder what would have happened if this legislation was available when the monster hiding under our beds was the communists?

We have far too many situations that resulted in a defence of “… not revealing sources or methods of intelligence gathering”. That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with. All of the information should be made available for scrutiny if there is to be a fair and reasonable legal challenge (if warranted). And this is not a power that should be exercised by a minister – it should be exercised by the judiciary.

“That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with”……….
Think how uncomfortable you would be if your head suddenly hit the footpath.

I have much better chances of winning the lottery. Or being struck by lightning. Or finding Harold Holt.

You can thank our security agencies (the ones that you are uncomfortable with) for that but there are so many sleepers here already there will be some incidents in planning that will be undetected.

Well, John, the Q&A exec producer has been disciplined – so even the ABC (other than perhaps James Carlton) disagrees with you.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

John Hargreaves said :

What are the spooks doing about it? Why is it that the courts are not clogged with these people?

You’ve worked in government; I think you, and many other readers, already know the answer.

John Hargreaves said :

Less people here have died because of these activities than in car accidents. so some perspective please…

This is a good point.

Yep. If all the $$$$$$ and fear were channelled into addressing road safety and domestic violence, what a difference it would make!

HenryBG said :

John Hargreaves said :

Here we go again…so you know that these people have been convicted in a court of law on charges of terrorism, you know that they are dual citizens. Clearly you know more than I do.

You know, during the 40’s, my grandfathers helped knock off a great many Germans and Japanese. I am pretty sure no court of law was involved.

A court system is a very poor method for dealing with people who violently reject our laws, our civilisation and its values.

People who think think courts should be involved are people whose divorce from reality represents the same kind of danger to our society as Neville Chamberlain’s did for his.

Not a good example.

Surely your grandfathers didn’t go and knock off any german or japanese person they saw. They would have done so to those in german or japanese uniforms (or those proven to be engaged in an act of war) following a declaration of war of which Australia was a part of.

John Hargreaves said :

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

what i meant was, john hargreaves, what are your thoughts on abu khalid?

but more importantly, john hargraves, what are your thoughts on ALI AL ABBASI?

This Govt is worse though in that they proposed to give a minister the power to strip people of their citizenship without a conviction being recorded. That is, one man/woman would know better than a court of either judge alone or by jury. I don’t think so.

You mean like, say an Immigration Minister overturning a previous Immigration Minister’s deportation order for an illegal immigrant (who is also a convicted violent criminal) on “humanitarian grounds” (for the family and the children). Now surely that wouldn’t happen!! Never! Ever!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back4:01 pm 01 Jul 15

John Hargreaves said :

What are the spooks doing about it? Why is it that the courts are not clogged with these people?

You’ve worked in government; I think you, and many other readers, already know the answer.

John Hargreaves said :

Less people here have died because of these activities than in car accidents. so some perspective please…

This is a good point.

“Zacky Mallah was found guilty of threatening an ASIO officer. Ergo, he is a terrorist. “

Wrong.
This scumbag is a terrorist for reasons other than his criminal threats to kill.

As for not letting such scumbags leave for Syria – don’t pretend for an instant that you actually want them to.
Julie Bishop quite cogently explained why we don’t let them leave at the time the government was getting onto the issue.

Maybe you should have paid attention then, to save you from facile arguments now.

John Hargreaves said :

Here we go again…so you know that these people have been convicted in a court of law on charges of terrorism, you know that they are dual citizens. Clearly you know more than I do.

You know, during the 40’s, my grandfathers helped knock off a great many Germans and Japanese. I am pretty sure no court of law was involved.

A court system is a very poor method for dealing with people who violently reject our laws, our civilisation and its values.

People who think think courts should be involved are people whose divorce from reality represents the same kind of danger to our society as Neville Chamberlain’s did for his.

John Hargreaves1:44 pm 01 Jul 15

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

what i meant was, john hargreaves, what are your thoughts on abu khalid?

but more importantly, john hargraves, what are your thoughts on ALI AL ABBASI?

Here we go again…so you know that these people have been convicted in a court of law on charges of terrorism, you know that they are dual citizens. Clearly you know more than I do.

My post was about this Govt and the three before it, using fear as an election stunt. They not only scare the bejesus out of people and pose themselves as the only ones who can save us all but they lie in the process.

This Govt is worse though in that they proposed to give a minister the power to strip people of their citizenship without a conviction being recorded. That is, one man/woman would know better than a court of either judge alone or by jury. I don’t think so.

Howard got us into this mess and Abbott is making it worse. If we are on a heightened alert because of increased incidences of terrorism here, I haven’t seen evidence of that heightened manifestation in the court reports. But I don know that antagonising people is a dumb piece of diplomacy.

We should have stayed right out of it in the first place. But now we’re there, the PM should tone down the rhetoric and start leading instead of frightening people unnecessarily.

We are not and will not be immune to being a target, but let’s not make it worse by using too much State of Fear rhetoric.

If there are so many terrorists out there as you suggest, what are the police doing about it? What are the spooks doing about it? Why is it that the courts are not clogged with these people? Perhaps it is because people like you perpetuate the myths and exaggerate the risk.

Less people here have died because of these activities than in car accidents. so some perspective please…

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

what i meant was, john hargreaves, what are your thoughts on abu khalid?

but more importantly, john hargraves, what are your thoughts on ALI AL ABBASI?

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

I also note that David Hicks held dual citizenship at one point. The Howard government would have loved this piece of legislation while the US had him held in Cuba. I wonder what would have happened if this legislation was available when the monster hiding under our beds was the communists?

We have far too many situations that resulted in a defence of “… not revealing sources or methods of intelligence gathering”. That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with. All of the information should be made available for scrutiny if there is to be a fair and reasonable legal challenge (if warranted). And this is not a power that should be exercised by a minister – it should be exercised by the judiciary.

“That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with”……….
Think how uncomfortable you would be if your head suddenly hit the footpath.

I have much better chances of winning the lottery. Or being struck by lightning. Or finding Harold Holt.

vintage123 said :

thoughts on abu khalid john?

Who is abu khalid john? Are we persecuting him too?

Antagonist said :

I also note that David Hicks held dual citizenship at one point. The Howard government would have loved this piece of legislation while the US had him held in Cuba. I wonder what would have happened if this legislation was available when the monster hiding under our beds was the communists?

We have far too many situations that resulted in a defence of “… not revealing sources or methods of intelligence gathering”. That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with. All of the information should be made available for scrutiny if there is to be a fair and reasonable legal challenge (if warranted). And this is not a power that should be exercised by a minister – it should be exercised by the judiciary.

“That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with”……….
Think how uncomfortable you would be if your head suddenly hit the footpath.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

Nice try, but he didn’t say that on Q&A, which is what the governments attack is about. The tweet shows a complete lack of class and trust me, I’m certainly not defending him at all.
Both those women have said some pretty inflammatory things on various media, yet its perfectly ok for them to say things because they are perceived to be on “Team Australia”. I was taught if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all, however its become clear that you can say whatever you want if you are on the right side! We’d have very little issue with terrorism in this country if we weren’t persecuting innocent muslims every chance we get. Then you tell someone hey mate thats not very nice and you get accused of not being on “Team Australia”.

I didn’t say he said the contents of that Tweet on Q&A.
Interestingly, Tony Jones claimed last night that he wasn’t aware of the Tweet before last week’s Q&A’s “appearance” of Mallah (he was driven to the show by the ABC bus).
How do you tell an innocent Muslim from a bad one, by the way? Name me two “innocent” Muslims we have persecuted.

Haneef will do for a start. All those on Manus and Nauru and all the kids in detention.

I knew that one would come up.
He was coming back to Australia wasn’t he (after he got the money and the visa re-instated). Don’t think he made it.
Can you name another – there must be lots?

David Hicks

Not a Muslim for over 10 years. Try again. And Australia didn’t persecute him.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-no-longer-a-muslim-exdetainee/2006/06/23/1150845378125.html

I also note that David Hicks held dual citizenship at one point. The Howard government would have loved this piece of legislation while the US had him held in Cuba. I wonder what would have happened if this legislation was available when the monster hiding under our beds was the communists?

We have far too many situations that resulted in a defence of “… not revealing sources or methods of intelligence gathering”. That is the situation that I am uncomfortable with. All of the information should be made available for scrutiny if there is to be a fair and reasonable legal challenge (if warranted). And this is not a power that should be exercised by a minister – it should be exercised by the judiciary.

thoughts on abu khalid john?

John Hargreaves6:40 pm 30 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

Nice try, but he didn’t say that on Q&A, which is what the governments attack is about. The tweet shows a complete lack of class and trust me, I’m certainly not defending him at all.
Both those women have said some pretty inflammatory things on various media, yet its perfectly ok for them to say things because they are perceived to be on “Team Australia”. I was taught if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all, however its become clear that you can say whatever you want if you are on the right side! We’d have very little issue with terrorism in this country if we weren’t persecuting innocent muslims every chance we get. Then you tell someone hey mate thats not very nice and you get accused of not being on “Team Australia”.

I didn’t say he said the contents of that Tweet on Q&A.
Interestingly, Tony Jones claimed last night that he wasn’t aware of the Tweet before last week’s Q&A’s “appearance” of Mallah (he was driven to the show by the ABC bus).
How do you tell an innocent Muslim from a bad one, by the way? Name me two “innocent” Muslims we have persecuted.

Haneef will do for a start. All those on Manus and Nauru and all the kids in detention.

I knew that one would come up.
He was coming back to Australia wasn’t he (after he got the money and the visa re-instated). Don’t think he made it.
Can you name another – there must be lots?

David Hicks

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

Nice try, but he didn’t say that on Q&A, which is what the governments attack is about. The tweet shows a complete lack of class and trust me, I’m certainly not defending him at all.
Both those women have said some pretty inflammatory things on various media, yet its perfectly ok for them to say things because they are perceived to be on “Team Australia”. I was taught if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all, however its become clear that you can say whatever you want if you are on the right side! We’d have very little issue with terrorism in this country if we weren’t persecuting innocent muslims every chance we get. Then you tell someone hey mate thats not very nice and you get accused of not being on “Team Australia”.

I didn’t say he said the contents of that Tweet on Q&A.
Interestingly, Tony Jones claimed last night that he wasn’t aware of the Tweet before last week’s Q&A’s “appearance” of Mallah (he was driven to the show by the ABC bus).
How do you tell an innocent Muslim from a bad one, by the way? Name me two “innocent” Muslims we have persecuted.

Haneef will do for a start. All those on Manus and Nauru and all the kids in detention.

I knew that one would come up.
He was coming back to Australia wasn’t he (after he got the money and the visa re-instated). Don’t think he made it.
Can you name another – there must be lots?

John Hargreaves4:27 pm 30 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

Nice try, but he didn’t say that on Q&A, which is what the governments attack is about. The tweet shows a complete lack of class and trust me, I’m certainly not defending him at all.
Both those women have said some pretty inflammatory things on various media, yet its perfectly ok for them to say things because they are perceived to be on “Team Australia”. I was taught if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all, however its become clear that you can say whatever you want if you are on the right side! We’d have very little issue with terrorism in this country if we weren’t persecuting innocent muslims every chance we get. Then you tell someone hey mate thats not very nice and you get accused of not being on “Team Australia”.

I didn’t say he said the contents of that Tweet on Q&A.
Interestingly, Tony Jones claimed last night that he wasn’t aware of the Tweet before last week’s Q&A’s “appearance” of Mallah (he was driven to the show by the ABC bus).
How do you tell an innocent Muslim from a bad one, by the way? Name me two “innocent” Muslims we have persecuted.

Haneef will do for a start. All those on Manus and Nauru and all the kids in detention.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

Nice try, but he didn’t say that on Q&A, which is what the governments attack is about. The tweet shows a complete lack of class and trust me, I’m certainly not defending him at all.
Both those women have said some pretty inflammatory things on various media, yet its perfectly ok for them to say things because they are perceived to be on “Team Australia”. I was taught if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all, however its become clear that you can say whatever you want if you are on the right side! We’d have very little issue with terrorism in this country if we weren’t persecuting innocent muslims every chance we get. Then you tell someone hey mate thats not very nice and you get accused of not being on “Team Australia”.

I didn’t say he said the contents of that Tweet on Q&A.
Interestingly, Tony Jones claimed last night that he wasn’t aware of the Tweet before last week’s Q&A’s “appearance” of Mallah (he was driven to the show by the ABC bus).
How do you tell an innocent Muslim from a bad one, by the way? Name me two “innocent” Muslims we have persecuted.

dungfungus said :

I congratulate you on your choice of Twitter followings

Nice try but that Twitter comment is not my choice John. As you are aware, that comment has been in most media outlets in Australia and that is where I got it. I am not even on Facebook let alone Twitter.

Completely agree that the twitter comment is vile. They don’t deserve that comment, but the many don’t deserve the many tweets, albeit less crude that they have even sent out.

I sent a tweet regarding something @RitaPahahi said. She basically was complaining about why are the muslims not speaking out about terrorism on sunrise one morning. I suggested that the media don’t give them a voice, because its not popularist, and that my muslim friends all denounce terrorism. Well the responses I got from her followers were vile and hate filled, suggesting I move to the middle east with the terrorists. She did not say anything to stop these tweets. She was happy for me to be abused on her twitter thread. So its not like she is much better than Zaky Mallah IMO. Both of them are not the kind of people I would want to live near.

There is plenty of vile hatred coming from the right in this country and its a shame its all about winning elections and having power.

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

Nice try, but he didn’t say that on Q&A, which is what the governments attack is about. The tweet shows a complete lack of class and trust me, I’m certainly not defending him at all.
Both those women have said some pretty inflammatory things on various media, yet its perfectly ok for them to say things because they are perceived to be on “Team Australia”. I was taught if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all, however its become clear that you can say whatever you want if you are on the right side! We’d have very little issue with terrorism in this country if we weren’t persecuting innocent muslims every chance we get. Then you tell someone hey mate thats not very nice and you get accused of not being on “Team Australia”.

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

I don’t think anyone is embracing him as a hero, but I disagree with preventing him speaking.

Allowing idiots to voice their views allows you to clearly identify them as idiots, and gives an opportunity to provide counter arguements to their idiotic views.

Riotact certainly proves that!

I watched Q&A last night (first time since “the women with attitude” used the F word too often) and detected some tacit praise for Mr Mallah.

John Hargreaves10:58 am 30 Jun 15

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

I don’t think anyone is embracing him as a hero, but I disagree with preventing him speaking.

Allowing idiots to voice their views allows you to clearly identify them as idiots, and gives an opportunity to provide counter arguements to their idiotic views.

Riotact certainly proves that!

Best comment I’ve seen since signing up!

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

I don’t think anyone is embracing him as a hero, but I disagree with preventing him speaking.

Allowing idiots to voice their views allows you to clearly identify them as idiots, and gives an opportunity to provide counter arguements to their idiotic views.

Riotact certainly proves that!

John Hargreaves said :

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

Mallah was actually acquitted by a jury, so it’s highly unlikely.

Of course it is highly unlikely, actually impossible but you can see the point I am trying to make.
Have you read some of Mallah’s lovely Tweets? The one about what should be done to two female journalists is something Peter Slipper would be proud of.
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned them on this thread.
I’ll bet if Tony Abbott had said something like Mallah said the place would be in meltdown.

I congratulate you on your choice of Twitter followings

Nice try but that Twitter comment is not my choice John. As you are aware, that comment has been in most media outlets in Australia and that is where I got it. I am not even on Facebook let alone Twitter.

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

Mallah was actually acquitted by a jury, so it’s highly unlikely.

Of course it is highly unlikely, actually impossible but you can see the point I am trying to make.
Have you read some of Mallah’s lovely Tweets? The one about what should be done to two female journalists is something Peter Slipper would be proud of.
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned them on this thread.
I’ll bet if Tony Abbott had said something like Mallah said the place would be in meltdown.

Was Peter Slipper going to take the journalists on a winery tour?

John Hargreaves said :

vintage123 said :

I believe zacky was acquitted on a technicality and furthermore the current terrorist laws could not be applied retrospectively. If so I believe he would have been found guilty. So in the current law and today if he repeated those threats he would be guilty. It’s a bit of a shame they cut him off mid sentence on q and a, as I think he was teetering on saying it again, which would have been interesting. All that aside, I heard that the government is now employing him on $200k a year to advise ASIO.

So you are in a position to judge that the courts weren’t?

Possibly, I am happy to review the case in lieu of the changes in legislation and the intricacies of the redefined issue of controlled operations authority certificates. These two points alter the legal stance and I believe in light of these modifications the case should be revisited. The defendants ability to negotiate a plea bargain in lieu of clear and concise updated AFP process regarding entrapment jeopardised the crowns case. This stance is not applicable in the current legislation, so yes, I am comfortable to look over it.

John Hargreaves9:08 pm 29 Jun 15

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

Mallah was actually acquitted by a jury, so it’s highly unlikely.

Of course it is highly unlikely, actually impossible but you can see the point I am trying to make.
Have you read some of Mallah’s lovely Tweets? The one about what should be done to two female journalists is something Peter Slipper would be proud of.
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned them on this thread.
I’ll bet if Tony Abbott had said something like Mallah said the place would be in meltdown.

I congratulate you on your choice of Twitter followings

John Hargreaves9:06 pm 29 Jun 15

MERC600 said :

John that was good searching by you to find the quote from Mr Scott.

Are you able to use your skills to find some quotes from Mr Mallah.

One quote concerns two lady journalists and the sunrise TV show, and the other concerns our Nations first Lady Prime Minister.
Thanking you in anticipation. Regards Merc600.

Mr Mallah doesn’t speak for me, but Prof Trigg and Mr Scott do.

John Hargreaves said :

Acton said :

John
If you were “appalled at the views of some of the audience…,” then what words do you use to describe your reaction to a public beheading in a London street, to Nigerian school girls being kidnapped, to a screaming Jordanian prisoner being burnt alive in a cage, to tourists being mown down on a Tunis beach, to mutilated spectators at a Boston marathon, to journalists being ambushed in their Paris office, to the taking of hostages in a Sydney café, to smiling Australian children holding severed heads …?
We should be shocked by such outrages and we should rightly fear the outrages still to come.
Yet you express no reaction to those events or their perpetrators. You fail to acknowledge the context of the world we now live in.
If you are not shocked and appalled by such events, or find in your mind some convoluted way to justify those events, then you will not understand the entirely rational fear and natural suspicion such events do and should generate in the minds of those who are genuinely shocked and appalled.
The weakness in the argument that a political paradigm known as the state of fear has been artificially created by governments to instil fear and dependence, is the reality of those events. Or is it now loony lefty conspiracy theory that the Abbott Government is somehow behind it all?

I didn’t say that I was appalled at the views of some in the audience – that was someone else. The state of fear is not new to politics, but it is being employed by Abbott in ways that make John Howard look like an amateur. It is a fact that we would not be terrified to go to bed in case someone cuts our heads off, if Tony had not said so on prime time TV.

I was talking about that show only.

John Hargreaves9:04 pm 29 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

So… you agree with Abbott that the juries and courts aren’t good enough to pick a terrorist but a minister alone is? Goebbels thought the same.

John Hargreaves9:02 pm 29 Jun 15

vintage123 said :

I believe zacky was acquitted on a technicality and furthermore the current terrorist laws could not be applied retrospectively. If so I believe he would have been found guilty. So in the current law and today if he repeated those threats he would be guilty. It’s a bit of a shame they cut him off mid sentence on q and a, as I think he was teetering on saying it again, which would have been interesting. All that aside, I heard that the government is now employing him on $200k a year to advise ASIO.

So you are in a position to judge that the courts weren’t?

John Hargreaves9:01 pm 29 Jun 15

Acton said :

John
If you were “appalled at the views of some of the audience…,” then what words do you use to describe your reaction to a public beheading in a London street, to Nigerian school girls being kidnapped, to a screaming Jordanian prisoner being burnt alive in a cage, to tourists being mown down on a Tunis beach, to mutilated spectators at a Boston marathon, to journalists being ambushed in their Paris office, to the taking of hostages in a Sydney café, to smiling Australian children holding severed heads …?
We should be shocked by such outrages and we should rightly fear the outrages still to come.
Yet you express no reaction to those events or their perpetrators. You fail to acknowledge the context of the world we now live in.
If you are not shocked and appalled by such events, or find in your mind some convoluted way to justify those events, then you will not understand the entirely rational fear and natural suspicion such events do and should generate in the minds of those who are genuinely shocked and appalled.
The weakness in the argument that a political paradigm known as the state of fear has been artificially created by governments to instil fear and dependence, is the reality of those events. Or is it now loony lefty conspiracy theory that the Abbott Government is somehow behind it all?

I didn’t say that I was appalled at the views of some in the audience – that was someone else. The state of fear is not new to politics, but it is being employed by Abbott in ways that make John Howard look like an amateur. It is a fact that we would not be terrified to go to bed in case someone cuts our heads off, if Tony had not said so on prime time TV.

“One man’s freedom fighter” ? Um, whose “freedom fighter” is Zaky Mallah exactly, JH?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

He pled guilty and served two years, actually, on serious charges.

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

Mallah was actually acquitted by a jury, so it’s highly unlikely.

He pleaded guilty to making death threats and served two years.

“Freedom of speech” does not include a requirement to give people like Mallah a platform. John Hargreaves, you have avoided spelling out that Mallah had in fact assembled an arsenal of weapons to carry out death threats against ASIO officers. If he was tried today, he would not be acquitted. You also haven’t mentioned that fact that Mallah only this year tweeted that two female journalists should be “publicly gang-banged” – and repeated the tweet last week, adding that he would like to “join in” on the said “gang-bang”. Mallah has a platform – twitter – where he can say what he wants. Q&A only offers – between the entire ABC audience – some 240 questions a year. Joining a national conversation is something that should be offered to people other than anyone with a track record in “rape advocacy”. John Hargreaves, what is your response to Mallah’s repeated, recent tweets? What if he had decided to repeat those views on national television? Tony Jones ruled his “comment” that Ciobo’s response was an excuse for Australians to join ISIS, out of order, but that inflammatory and dangerous view is still being screened on iview, there to influence young suburban Muslims looking for an outlet for “disaffection”.

Blen_Carmichael6:51 pm 29 Jun 15

>>Unusually, ABC chairman Mark Scott took issue with the PM’s position in a speech last Thursday. He made the point that sometimes, free speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree. This is exactly what freedom of speech is all about.<<

Actually, free speech means nothing of the sort. I for instance, have no constitutional or other right to an ABC platform. Likewise, the editors of The Riot Act could abruptly withdraw my access to this blog. I have lost a privilege, but I have not lost a right.

Incidentally, I noticed that John fails to mention Mallah's particularly despicable tweet in January this year, directed at two female journalists.

“Australia has two decent whores Rita Panihi and Miranda Divine (sic) Both need to be gangbanged on the Sunrise desk. #freedomofspeech love it.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/abc-doing-the-devils-work-in-giving-terrorist-sympathiser-zaky-mallah-a-voice/story-fni0cwl5-1227412165676

Yep, I couldn't sleep at night knowing that a despicable misogynist grub like this one has lost his 'right' to speak on #QandA.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

Mallah was actually acquitted by a jury, so it’s highly unlikely.

HiddenDragon5:12 pm 29 Jun 15

It was interesting to see even the impeccably balanced and nuanced Malcolm Turnbull show impatience with the line of questioning on Insiders yesterday.

Turnbull’s use of the term “undergraduate” to describe Q&A’s performance in this now famous episode was entirely apt – all too often, Q&A indulges in set-ups which seem to have more to do with glib, tendentious point scoring and playing to the gallery than with exploring difficult issues.

John that was good searching by you to find the quote from Mr Scott.

Are you able to use your skills to find some quotes from Mr Mallah.

One quote concerns two lady journalists and the sunrise TV show, and the other concerns our Nations first Lady Prime Minister.
Thanking you in anticipation. Regards Merc600.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

Probably by the same judge who let Monis out on bail.

Just as police know more about the goings on in the criminal world than is ever made public, so do ASIO and ASIS about terrorist activities. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is being harassed but duck hunters then there is a good chance it will prove itself to be a duck.

I believe zacky was acquitted on a technicality and furthermore the current terrorist laws could not be applied retrospectively. If so I believe he would have been found guilty. So in the current law and today if he repeated those threats he would be guilty. It’s a bit of a shame they cut him off mid sentence on q and a, as I think he was teetering on saying it again, which would have been interesting. All that aside, I heard that the government is now employing him on $200k a year to advise ASIO.

John
If you were “appalled at the views of some of the audience…,” then what words do you use to describe your reaction to a public beheading in a London street, to Nigerian school girls being kidnapped, to a screaming Jordanian prisoner being burnt alive in a cage, to tourists being mown down on a Tunis beach, to mutilated spectators at a Boston marathon, to journalists being ambushed in their Paris office, to the taking of hostages in a Sydney café, to smiling Australian children holding severed heads …?
We should be shocked by such outrages and we should rightly fear the outrages still to come.
Yet you express no reaction to those events or their perpetrators. You fail to acknowledge the context of the world we now live in.
If you are not shocked and appalled by such events, or find in your mind some convoluted way to justify those events, then you will not understand the entirely rational fear and natural suspicion such events do and should generate in the minds of those who are genuinely shocked and appalled.
The weakness in the argument that a political paradigm known as the state of fear has been artificially created by governments to instil fear and dependence, is the reality of those events. Or is it now loony lefty conspiracy theory that the Abbott Government is somehow behind it all?

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

And he was acquitted by a court of law. Your point?

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

“He didn’t say anything offensive,”
Well, if the following Tweet he made isn’t offensive, I am on the wrong blog:
“Zaky Mallah @ZakyMallah
Australia has two decent whores, @RitaPahahi & Miranda Divine. Both should be gang banged on the Sunrise desk.
#freedomofspeech love it.”

John Hargreaves1:28 pm 29 Jun 15

Mysteryman said :

And now, in a shameful display of petulance, our Beloved Leader is hell bent on denying the ABC its independence as a broadcaster.

Says who? John, I’m all for people getting on Riot-Act and having their say, but if you’re going to post these thought bubbles you should be able to follow them up with evidence of what you’re asserting.

Shame that it was unconstitutional, Tone.

According to who? Perhaps you could point to the relevant part of the constitution?

The Gumment backed down because it was advised that taking away a person’s citizenship without a conviction would be unconstitutional. You know that and so does everyone else.

I point to the Gumment’s bias when Tony Abbott said – “who’s side are you on?” He was saying that he expected the ABC to be on the side of the Gumment. Well, the ABC is on our side, not Tony’s not Bill’s, not any one side but that of Australia.

And we’re getting sick of Tony bagging the messenger. First Gillian Triggs not Mark Scott. Can someone tell him he’s not the suppository of all wisdom….

watto23 said :

Mysteryman said :

Says who? John, I’m all for people getting on Riot-Act and having their say, but if you’re going to post these thought bubbles you should be able to follow them up with evidence of what you’re asserting.

Well its pretty clear the current government doesn’t like the alternative views presented by the ABC. Yes it is govt funded, but as pointed out last week its not a mouthpiece for the government. It only appears to be left wing biased to the extreme right government we have now. Swinging voters and moderates don’t see the bias, its certainly got a long way to go to match the right wing bias of news limited. Yes there are shows that lean left, but I’ve seen just as many Labor MP’s get grilled on ABC radio and TV as the Liberal ones.
It was poor judgement, but the man was also a free man. If the comments made by him came from another member of the audience, would they have been considered as bad?

Probably not….

I didn’t actually post what I posted to argue about any perceived balance issues with the ABC. I posted it to draw attention to John’s efforts to repeatedly make claims without providing substantial evidence for them.

But since you brought it up, I think one misses the whole point when one makes comparisons between the ABC and other news sources or other media outlets. The other media outlets are not funded by the government. They have no obligation to be fair and balanced. They can be as opinionated as they like (as we’ve seen from Fairfax’s love for the left these past 6 or 7 years). The ABC is funded by the government, and they *do* have an obligation to be fair and balanced. I have my opinion on their coverage, but it’s nothing more than an opinion. What I’m trying to say is that drawing comparisons to the other media outlets is irrelevant; it’s apples to oranges.

dungfungus said :

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Nobody is embracing him as a hero. Seriously people need to understand that an opposing the governments blinkered view and attack on the ABC doesn’t mean they agree with Zaky Mallah or paint him to be a hero. That is just spindoctoring by the government to make it an us versus them scenario and its nothing of the sort.

If he is a terrorist threat then why is he out on the streets now? He was acquitted in a court of planning a terrorist act. This is all part of the government trying to drum up fear in the uneducated masses of society, so they can win more votes at the election.

He didn’t say anything offensive, he made a valid point even if voiced poorly. The governments attitudes and policies are just as likely to make disillusioned muslim youth in the community turn to the wrong role models. Muslim youth are no different to any other youth, the kind that graffitti, commit petty theft, drink and drive. Terrorism may be more extreme than those offences, but the path to get there is much the same.

Paul Costigan11:44 am 29 Jun 15

John,

Nicely put. I have a couple of points to add:

The reason I tuned in that night was to hear the anti-poverty campaigner Linda Tirado. Her presence got lost in the political/media maelstrom that followed. She had some good things to offer and it is a shame her presence and words were quickly overlooked and lost.

I love the idea that Kevin Andrews is boycotting Q & A. And the program has responded by saying that he has never been invited to be on the panel. Is this another of those infamous cases of ABC bias – or simply ABC wisdom not to bore their audience?

It was a mistake to have that character ask his own question from the audience. It should have been a pre-recorded question as was that one put to John Howard by David Hicks. But that mistake is not a capital offence. It was a mistake, and I suspect someone has learnt a hard lesson! Most of us make mistakes every now and then. Can we now move on and deal with the many real social, equity and environmental issues?

For more on Linda Tirado

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-interview

Before we embrace Zacky Mallah as a hero we should be fully acquainted with what he actually was planning to do:
http://press.anu.edu.au//war_terror/mobile_devices/ch13s03.html

Mysteryman said :

Says who? John, I’m all for people getting on Riot-Act and having their say, but if you’re going to post these thought bubbles you should be able to follow them up with evidence of what you’re asserting.

Well its pretty clear the current government doesn’t like the alternative views presented by the ABC. Yes it is govt funded, but as pointed out last week its not a mouthpiece for the government. It only appears to be left wing biased to the extreme right government we have now. Swinging voters and moderates don’t see the bias, its certainly got a long way to go to match the right wing bias of news limited. Yes there are shows that lean left, but I’ve seen just as many Labor MP’s get grilled on ABC radio and TV as the Liberal ones.
It was poor judgement, but the man was also a free man. If the comments made by him came from another member of the audience, would they have been considered as bad? Probably not….

Well that the problem with this government though. Contradictory to say the least.

Freedom of speech…. for Andrew Bolt but not Zaky Mallah.
Windfarms are ugly…. Coal mines are not.
They have a budget emergency…. except when spending on things that will win them votes.
Labor are blocking all the legislation and being negative…. Previous opposition apparently was nothing like that!

The shame about the terror argument is the citizens don’t really have a way to gauge whether the government is being truthful or not and thus tend to err on the side of the government. My concern is nothing seems to be balanced and rational from the government. Anyone remotely moderate is called a left winger, many of whom prefer Malcolm Turnbulls stance on these issues over Tony Abbott’s.

Compare something like Q&A to the Bolt report and a reasonable person would say the bolt report is unashamedly biased to the right. Q&A tends to lean left but is far from being excessively biased. Our current government still believes in denying us information to make our own judgement, because it knows a lot of the policies don’t benefit the country as a whole. Expert after expert have said so, yet then those experts are suddenly denounced by some wishy washy politics.

We needed a coalition government right now, but the problem is our current coalition government have no idea what they are doing, are basing their entire chances on being re-elected by amping up the terrorist threat.

Surely a good policy is to not put ourselves in the target of terrorists, like France has done. surely some more moderate policies around protecting our country would achieve exactly the same outcome, without violating human rights. What happens if someone moves here and denounces their old citizenship (many countries like Malaysia and Singapore demand this). Then they commit a terrorist act? Well we’ll then have to deal with them ourselves, rather than our current policies trying to shift as much of the problem onto other countries.

Finally, Zaky Mallah really said nothing that controversial. Steve Ciobo was just as inflammatory with his comments. What if as he suggested by Mallah, that current government policies are alienating the muslim youth here. Seems like a fairly reasonable assertion to me. In that case all we are doing is increasing the chances of a terrorist attack from some misguided youth. The Lindt Cafe attack was more of a crazy man on murder charges, committing an offence under the guise of a terrorist act, it wasn’t organised by a terrorist group. do we really want misguided muslim youth to do the same because they think they are doing the right thing to retaliate against the government in such a way? I’m not defending any criminal or criminal act here.

We also need to look at issues that are of a far greater threat than terrorism. Domestic violence, or which Abbott and co have done very little about, Criminals on the street who re-offend and take another life, alcoholism related issues and the list goes on. All of which affect, harm or kill far more Australian citizens than terrorism. We need to take precautions against Terrorism, but there comes a point where the laws really do nothing to protect us and are all about winning votes and upsetting the muslim community.

Its such a sad state of politics in Australia right now.

And now, in a shameful display of petulance, our Beloved Leader is hell bent on denying the ABC its independence as a broadcaster.

Says who? John, I’m all for people getting on Riot-Act and having their say, but if you’re going to post these thought bubbles you should be able to follow them up with evidence of what you’re asserting.

Shame that it was unconstitutional, Tone.

According to who? Perhaps you could point to the relevant part of the constitution?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.