It is high time that Australians start a pattern meme trend on the net. Identify a cultural or political pattern and share! Win back Australia one system at a time. Do it for you, do it for the nation.
If we’d built a more civically minded culture we would not be having debates about, say, whether Julian Assange is a nice guy, or whether what he does is responsible journalism. We would instead be asking whether the basic elements of the crime he’s alleged to have committed against America – encouraging a whistleblower to disclose classified information – are the same basic elements of so much investigative journalism. The point is not Julian Assange. The point is the way the crime is framed – not the alleged criminal, but the things being criminalised. Just as the point is not whether the person being raided is a journalist or a citizen, but the extent to which those powers are ripe for abuse. If the only freedom you care about is freedom of the press, soon enough that will fold too because you’ve created a culture that’s insensitive to civic ideals.
Waleed Aly, Sydney Morning Herald 06.06.2019
As a stand-alone paragraph, the above has been constructed in a chaotic style. Please permit me to restate your oddly convoluted reasoning:
1. “Civically minded” cultures would not be debating Assange’s winning personality and ethics.
2. “Civically minded” cultures would be debating whether whistleblowing encouragement is the equivalent of investigative journalism.
3. Julian Assange is only a symbol being used to further the loss of journalistic rights narrative.
4. The Assange narrative is false and it sucks and it’s dangerous.
5. Such a narrative leads to abuse of power.
6. Freedom of the press is only as good as its culture.
That’s better, I feel more intellectually organised, now. Let me respond.
1. Civilised cultures inhabited with civilised people would not need to debate the infringements which 18c imposes.
2. Civilised cultures would be debating whether freedom of speech infringements are the equivalent of inferior cultures’ censorship and what that type of censorship leads to, ie, a throw-back.
3. 18c is only a symbol and it’s only a baby step to further the loss of rights narrative.
4. The multicultural narrative on freedom of speech is false and it sucks and it’s dangerous.
5. This fake narrative will lead to abuse of power.
6. Freedom of speech is only as good as its culture.
One peel leads to another peel. It’s like an onion. So when MSM cry but muh journalistic rights, I can’t say that I am surprised and you cannot deny that you weren’t warned. Yet, to this day, you stand by the 18c freedom of speech narrative.
I have not seen any comments on whether Julian Assange is nice or not, but I’ll grant you that that could be due to our very different reading and researching diets. I have, however, seen on the ABC (your mates), the Most Holy Father Peter Greste stating that journalistic protections ought to be reserved only for a select few and that Julian Assange was not included in the club.
I could, at this point, sit here and describe the glee and joy I am currently feeling, but I shan’t. Well, maybe just a little.
Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving
ABC News 24.05.2019
ABC News presenter of no consequence:
Can I just summarise how I understand the professor Peter Greste University which is that on one side there are journalists and newsgathering organisations that go through data and try to interpret it and try to make it relevant for people and try to make it do as little harm as possible when it comes out. And on the other side, there are whistleblowers who are at the coalface, who are breaking the law, who deserve better protection for whistleblowing bad things going on. But in the middle, there is a vacuous nebulous, grey area where a person like is Assange, who is not actually a whistleblower, and he’s not actually a journalist, he’s just someone who dumps information.
Never heard of him Prof Peter Greste, University of Queensland:
That’s right, and that’s what the digital world has done for us, it has created this very difficult space where anybody with a website can call themselves a publisher, that doesn’t mean that I think that anybody with a website deserves the kind of protections and deserves to be called a journalist and deserves press freedom protections.
Delusional moments of mutual masturbatory exchanges from the authoritarian extremist left are becoming a staple in the West. A recent exchange of the sort took place on the ABC news yesterday, where a lesser news presenter facilitated a teacher of journalism to conspire, live, as to why the competition needs to be eliminated. The presenter even went so far as to employ the oldest journalistic psyop trick in the book of summarising and reiterating the interview, in his own words, so that the viewers who fell asleep or used the opportunity to take a toilet break would not miss out on the vitally important message. What agent 86 and 99 don’t realise is that their thinly veiled un-journalist techniques, on the rare occasion that people actually note them, only achieve to anger mentally healthy Australian.
I would love to counter argue the fellatio-exchange of these two men, but I find myself unable to do so because they did not provide any arguments. The prof did nothing by whine, stating that only the MSM journalists had the right to be journalists. So, now I find myself forced to counter-argue a whinge, not an argument. But I’m always up for the challenge.
1. The teach’ is a classist snob supporting MSM media privilege by stating or implying that the alternate media is immoral, unprincipled and should all be locked up.
2. The teach’ interpretation of the world and the people who occupy it, and his push to jail Assange and other alternative media is conspiratorial in nature. At best.
3. The teach’ peddled MSM journalistic entitlement which was anti-free speech, undemocratic and anti-competitive.
4. The teach’ is unwilling to allow journalism to evolve into a merit-based system. He’s a dinosaur.
5. The teach’ used fear speech to justify the MSM media appropriation of information and narratives.
I really wanted to play debate this evening but the teach’ has forced me to attack his sneaky tactics instead of his ideas. I wanted to play fair, but the game is rigged so I am left with no other choice.
Time to learn to code, teach’.
Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving
On this occasion, I’ll let the Australian people speak for me. I’ll only add one little thing: extreme regulating has become the new refuge for scoundrels.
“…Love for all hatred for none (x2), which I believe are words which should be embraced by all in this time and age. We are a community who also know very well that hate speech can result in innocent lives being taken just as we have witnessed in the Christchurch attack. As a hijab-wearing Muslim, I am fearful of what is to come especially as such hate has already come from certain leaders. To prevent any future targeted attacks which arise from online hate speech and brainwashing, my question to the panel is how free should free speech be in Australia and how can we target the hatemongering, where is the balance?’ Rabia Shariff.
My Dear Rabia
I realise you have been selected to ask a fake and weaponised question to a fake and weaponised panel of traitors and dingbats and that your question has probably been fine-tuned by people who want to take down my culture, but hey, I’ll play.
“Your” question is based on a faulty definition of free speech and understanding of Western culture. Your correlation between hate speech being the cause for massacres is an unsubstantiated opinion. Furthermore, your failure to understand how fundamental free speech is to Western culture is a clear indication that you have failed to integrate into my culture.
Islam, just these past few days has sponsored a 3-year sting operation in an attempt to take down an Australian conservative party just prior to an election – this is an act of political aggression, not peace. Islam, just these past few days, has also threatened any Australian wanting to visit Gallipoli and pay their respect to our WW1 soldiers, this is an act of aggression, not peace. And you have the gall to state that your religion of misanthropy comes in peace and imply that we need to curb our right to freedom of speech to accommodate your destructive religion!?
What has made the West into the greatest culture in the world is our ability to divorce passion from reason. What has reduced Islamic nations into violent, zealot spiralling squalors is their inability to divorce passion from reason. It is precisely this difference which makes Islam more incompatible to the West than all the other non-western cultures put together.
For decades Westerns have had no choice but follow our corrupt governments’ agenda (both left leaning and right leaning). They, and the MSM, have consistently showered us with multiculturalism propaganda and created the false illusion that Westerns were complicit and impotent, but then came the internet and the voices of the many is being restored.
As a result, the MSM and the governments are in panic mode. They are afraid of being dethroned, they are afraid of landing in jail for treason, they are afraid of a revolt. So they do the only thing they can do, default to censor freedom of speech using the law and micromanage our every movement, in a pathetic, delusion attempt to create a synthetic state of peace.
As a Western woman with Christian foundations, I am not submitted into wearing head coverings or endure sexual mutilation to prove my morality or my worth. I enjoy my freedom, my equal status, my culture, my ability to speak my mind. Freedom of speech must be restored in Australia and hate speech laws scrapped, as they are nothing more than a control tool. Australia can only solve its terrorist attacks by banning all Islamic immigration, stripping criminal’s citizenships, outlaw Islamic costumery and shutting down Mosques which only serve to recruit and groom extremists. Hate mongering, subversive cultural manipulation and the endless stream of Islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred on Australian soil due to the religion of misanthropy shall be resolved once and for all.