Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Canberra insurance broker
of choice since 1985

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

By John Hargreaves - 29 June 2015 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.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
73 Responses to
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
JustThinking 6:05 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.

ungruntled 11:35 pm 13 Jul 15

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.

dungfungus 2:52 pm 05 Jul 15

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?

dungfungus 12:47 pm 05 Jul 15

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

dungfungus 9:02 am 05 Jul 15

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.

watto23 10:46 pm 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?

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 Hargreaves 11:50 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?

dungfungus 11:42 am 03 Jul 15

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?

countach 2:28 pm 02 Jul 15

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.

Evilomlap 1:04 pm 02 Jul 15

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.

dungfungus 12:15 pm 02 Jul 15

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!

Antagonist 12:01 pm 02 Jul 15

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.

dungfungus 11:31 am 02 Jul 15

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?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site