Ruddock wants to ban Star Wars

Well, possibly. HeathG at Catallaxy links to media reports of a new thought bubble from Emperor Palpatine…er…Ruddock to ban material that “advocates terrorist acts”.

In the wake of stories in the Daily Terrorgraph about various Muslim clerics circulating rather inflammatory DVD sermons, it seems Ruddock wants to be seen Doing Something About It. From a doorstop given by Ruddock:

The Commonwealth in its paper outlined how it might proceed to amend the Classification Act. In the discussions today, the State Attorneys have agreed that officers should now – and I might use the words from the actual agreed text –“Ministers agreed to request officers to report back by July on amendments to the Code and Guidelines – that’s the cooperative measure – that could be made to ensure that material that advocates terrorist acts is adequately captured.â€?
I will put off consideration as to whether there should be any Commonwealth legislation to give officers the opportunity to deal with those issues by incorporating in the Code and if necessary in the Guidelines, provisions that will require the classification body and the Review Board to take into account advocacy. That should be advocacy that deals with, direct and indirect, encouragement of people to carry out terrorist acts.

Let’s see now. As a commenter at Catallaxy points out, V for Vendetta was widely described as “glorifying terrorists”. But there’s plenty more where that came from. Star Wars is a six-movie saga largely devoted to glorifying terrorists. And it’s not just science fiction. How about Michael Collins. For that matter, what about every single American movie about their independence, given that that was arguably viewed as terrorism by the British at the time?

On the merits of the issue, aside from the overriding principle that free speech should be restricted for only the most compelling reasons, you might wonder what precisely this will achieve in practical terms. The material this is actually targetted at – inflammatory preaching by extremist imams – will just be placed on various internet servers well beyond Australia’s jurisdiction, and given extra credibility as “the words the infidels don’t want you to hear”. Kind of like what happened when Ken Park was refused classification, in fact. But the Torygraph will probably be happy that the Government Is Doing Something – which is probably the whole point of the exercise anyway.

Thankfully, the Labor states seem to be aware of the potentially overbroad reach of these mooted changes, stating that “any changes to the law could impinge normal political discussion.” While it’s nice to see the states standing up for basic freedom of speech, there’s also a political observation to be made here. There was a time when the states would happily go along with any proposal by the federal government, no matter how draconian, as long as it has the t-word in it. Have those days finally passed?

Advertisements
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Crime, Howardia, Law, Middle East, religion, Sydney
42 comments on “Ruddock wants to ban Star Wars
  1. nasking says:

    Banning ‘The Last of Temptation of Christ’ was one of the last stupid acts of the Bjelke-Peterson government before they got the chop. If these fools in Canberra ban ‘V for Vendetta’…or ‘Fight Club’…well then that’s a movie too far.

    Bring it on!!!

  2. I’m not suggesting that movies of the like of Fight Club or V For Vendetta will actually receive bans. The government’s not that politically stupid. I was just making the point that, if the legislation ended using wording similar to Ruddock’s, that it could be used to do so.

    If it’s in practice only used to ban inflammatory preaching, the preachers are going to scream hypocrisy – and, logically, it’d be pretty hard to argue with them.

  3. frodo says:

    Press Freedom and Freedom of Speech in Australia – new threats this week

    Two major threats to Australian Press Freedom and Civil Liberties have emerged last week

    I’m concerned about two threats to Australian press freedom, leading up to the biggest politics story of the week on Kevin Rudd and press freedom.

    The lead-in is the press freedom aspect of the Alan Jones monstering by ACMA. Commentators, other than the anti-Howard crowd, have correctly called it as an ACMA lynching attempt without basis.

    The people howling about sedition last year – remember all the concerts about freedom of the press – now have no problem with arguing for reduction of free speech or, more particularly, attacking Jones for providing free speech.

    This has nothing to do with Jones’ power and I’m absolutely no apologist for cash for comment. But I’ll fight for freedom and against lynch mobs.

    This leads into press freedom and the fact that Kevin Rudd now has two legs of a hat trick for aggressive media handling and bullying, leaving aside the dishonesty and tendency to falsehood.

    You recall the SMH running a good investigative story on Rudd’s false remembered history, and then getting attacked aggressively by Rudd personally, his media minders etc., to the extent that Alan Ramsey did a forensic analysis of it. Rudd’s Stasi managed to get the Melbourne Age and their Canberra bureau to roll over for Rudd (hmm, who are those journalists?)

    And now the Sunrise False Dawn Service has led to a MAJOR PRESS FREEDOM STORY. It has:
    – a paper running a scoop about the attempted fraud – the Tele in Sydney
    – Rudd getting up and doing the ‘incandescent with rage’ shtick in public and also in private bullying the paper
    – And then the evidence which proves that Rudd media minders were lying, at minimum.

    It’s the media story of the week, lying politicians, media under pressure – rather like what
    – Vladimir Putin’s doing in Moscow
    – Mugabe in Zimbabwe and
    – for that matter like China (perhaps Rudd’s formative period there was too formative in terms of media management)..

    What’s next for Vladimir Rudd or if he becomes PM? Squads of goons to ‘manage’ media who publish unflattering or problematical stories?

    Christian Kerr had it in one in Crikey on Friday, here

    http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070413-It-dawns-on-Rudd-the-Sgt-Schultz-defence-can-be-handy.html

    “A change of government is a great story, but surely close proximity to Rudd over the years has taught them a thing or two.

    “The Canberra Press Gallery has a good idea of what a maniacal, dictatorial bully he really is,” an informed source tells Crikey. “The Public Service is already quaking in its boots at the thought of him becoming PM.”

    “Who cares, you say, as long as he gets the job done? Only it is important to understand the motivation and character of our politicians before we entrust them to the leadership of our country – just look at Mark Latham. This is especially so when they espouse Christian virtues, act like goody twoshoes and have glass jaws.”

    “Howard is a clever manipulator, which much of the electorate took a long time to realise. This might not have been the case had the media been willing to be more critical and not just a tool for powerful politicians to use. When will the media be willing to break this conspiracy of silence for the greater good?”:â€?

    I reckon we need a concert, run by the people who did the Sedition concerts last year, to support press freedom.

    I’m also writing to the Civil Liberties people and PEN.

  4. B.S. Fairman says:

    What exactly are they trying to do? Prevent people from getting the idea that terrorist acts might actually work? One only has to watch the 6.30 news to see that is true. The whole war on terrorism is turning into a war on thought crime.

    Plus they might be able to ban it from the video shops and cinemas, but there is this whole thing called the “Internet” that Ruddock and co. fail to get there heads around.

  5. Frodo, sorry, but I’m circumspect on Jones and flatly not buying the Rudd thing.

    While I am a little suspicious of any attempt to impinge on freedom of speech, one of the few exceptions I will make is direct incitement to violence. If you read the ACMA finding:

    Alan Jones (reading an email from a listener on air):`J’ has a good answer, he says police and the council are impotent here all rhetoric and no action. My suggestion is to invite the biker gangs to be present at Cronulla Railway station when these Lebanese thugs arrive, the biker gangs have been much maligned but they do a lot of good things ­ it would be worth the price of admission to watch these cowards scurry back onto the train for the return trip to their lairs…and wouldn’t it be brilliant if the whole event was captured on TV cameras and featured on the evening news so that we, their parents, family and friends can see who these bastards are…Australians old and new should not have to put up with this scum. Peters of Kensington…

    I’m not a Sydney resident, so I only know what the climate in Sydney was like at the time second-hand. But I think that the ACMA’s finding that the Alan Jones program containing that quote was “likely to incite violence or brutality” is, on the face of it, quite defensible and sufficient grounds for interfering with free speech.

    For what it’s worth, I do not support general “racial vilification” restrictions and believe that that aspect of the communications laws, and the Victorian legislation on the matter, should be repealed.

    As for Rudd, politicians’ media staff have attempted to heavy journalists from year dot. BFD.

  6. Chris says:

    An obviously intimidated Sunday Telegraph bows to the Opposition Leaders will.

    Glenn Milne: “As a result of the “Sunlies” fiasco, Rudd is now vulnerable on three counts: judgement, honesty and hypocrisy.â€?

    The Fat Fraud: “Just as Mark Latham, his predecessor but one, had a serious character flaw that he managed to conceal from a public wishing there was more to him than they perceived, the open-faced Queenslander, who has promoted himself as an “aw, shucks” country boy, has revealed himself to be a nothing more than a bully-boy eager to manipulate and quick to threaten those who expose his flaws.â€?

    Sandra Lee: “Nothing like a bit of crude commercialisation to honour the memory of our fallen soldiers, hey, fellas?â€?

    Editorial: “The Opposition Leader, who has a reputation as a micro-manager, has been, effectively, hoisted by his own petard.â€?

    “Rudd’s handling of the affair this week has shown the Opposition leader is leading with a glass jaw of extraordinary fragility.â€?

  7. People have pretty broad and varied definitions of what might constitute ‘hate speech’ or subversive material. Any decision to start banning things will have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, in terms of what is acceptable, and what isn’t.
    Surely, if you are banning the speech extremist imams, then consideration needs to be given to banning things like ‘Mein Kampf’ on similar grounds, and possibly even the works of Marx and Lenin (or anything written by a Russian or German!). And the rather nasty websites (that I won’t link here) that call for and condone violence against Muslims should also be banned, for being equally extreme.
    The rather narrow focus of Ruddock’s proposed ‘amendments’ smacks of more dog whistling.

  8. professor rat says:

    If any AFP members are reading this – I’ll repost it elsewhere and send it to them just in case – here is some disturbing information. At least two Australians, G L McLennon ( mentioned here recently ) and Norm Dixon
    ( glparramatta) contribute to a list run by a DPRK supporter. ( marxmail)

    After the Pong-Su incident and the failure to verify the DPRK nukes shutdown I believe some investigation is required – better safe than sorry when it comes to nuclear terror. I mean if I was Kim Jong ‘mentally’ Ill I would not directly attack America – I would ‘send-a-message’ to America by nuking one of their allies. Like us.

    The Alternative Liberal Party are even more jingo on the socialist vermin problem than I am …so we have to go to the cadaver – so what.
    He has to do something about this clear and present danger.

    The red fascist menace is a direct terrorist threat to our children, no kidding.

  9. joe2 says:

    I really wonder why anybody would bother with Crikey when they employ someone who comes up with this kind of malarkey ….

    “The Canberra Press Gallery has a good idea of what a maniacal, dictatorial bully he really is,” an informed source tells Crikey. “The Public Service is already quaking in its boots at the thought of him becoming PM.”

    We have given up on our subscription.

    Please Frodo, even Joe Hockey considered the story a beat up. Why be so desperate?

  10. Frank Calabrese says:

    And Hockey is a Hypocrite talking on Channel Eddie

    http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21560211-5005361,00.html

    WORKPLACE Relations Minister Joe Hockey today demanded Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd explain what he knew about plans for an Anzac dawn service to be held before dawn to fit a morning television schedule.

    His deman is a complete about-face for Mr Hockey who last week defended Mr Rudd, saying his intentions were completely honourable

    And nothing has been said about Bronwyn Bishop taking Joe’s place in the broadcast.

    But of course it is totally appropriate for Uncle Rupert to make demands on Govt ministers etc.

  11. anthony says:

    But I’ll fight for freedom and against lynch mobs.

    You’re in luck Frodo. With Alan Jones, you can be for both.

  12. nasking says:

    The government’s not that politically stupid.

    You reckon? How long did it take them to control the Senate?…that lack of political smarts ensured they were forced to play the Workchoices hand too heavily this term.

    Furthermore, they got far too cosy w/ Bush, even when his polls were spiralling. Now they’ve pissed the Dems off something chronic, not to mention Obama…they’ll be a reckoning to be had there for sure.

    The AWB financed Saddam’s pleasures & weapons right under their noses.

    They moved like snails on the ‘Global Warming’ issue. And got into bed w/ an unpopular Nuclear industry. Just when terrorists, including ‘suicide bombers’ are hitting every target possible…& the World’s population are being reminded of the possibility of ‘dirty bombs’ being constructed from stolen enriched uranium.

    At the height of the ‘Detention Centre’ debacle they replaced Nosferatu Ruddock w/ Bully Vanstone who managed to offend even more voter’s sensibilities & demonstrate what a bunch of mean-spirited, Corporate suck holes they really are.

    They joined their media enablers in getting stuck into Rudd & basically confirmed to all & sundry they have the moral virtues of a gang of thugs & adolescent school kids…& in turn stuffed their popularity.

    They’ve allowed wonky private equity firms to infiltrate Aussie companies that had generally stable foundations…a hands off approach that will probably see said companies pillaged, radically downsized (at the Worker’s expense) &/or vulnerable to external financial quakes.

    They’ve failed to prevent Labor from gaining & retaining power in all States…& consequently have less tools for affecting interest rates movements & relieving pressures in the housing sector.

    Need I go on.

    Seems to me this governments made many stupid political moves. Some analysts give them far too much credit. The Right-Wing/Neo-Con propaganda machine was working overtime the past decade…it was a cakewalk for the likes of this government. Now the populace are ‘awakening’ & taking w/ a pinch of salt the spew they hear from the Bolt, Ackerman, Devine, O’Reilly, Hannity & Jones’ of the World, the teflon coating is wearing off the Howard government. Their incompetence, greed & deviousness is now plain, for all to see.

  13. nasking says:

    But I might add, I do know where you’re coming from Robert. I doubt the Government would ban popular films & end up irritating the general public…& annoy the various film related Corporations. Not until they had much more control…:)

  14. Geoff Honnor says:

    Ferocious censorship advocates lash Ruddock for his weak-kneed liberalism:

    “The NSW Government has urged Prime Minister John Howard to prevent children from seeing a pro-terrorist hate film encouraging them to martyr themselves and calling for the murder of infidels.

    The film, which also calls Jews “pigs”, received a PG rating from the Office of Film and Literature Classification, making it suitable to be bought and watched by children.

    The film, contained in a package of DVDs prepared by radical Sheik Feiz Mohammed, calls for the murder of non-believers in Islam’s war on the West, according to newspaper reports.

    Australian-born Sheik Feiz is in exile in Lebanon, but is reported to be still preaching jihad to his Australian followers by telephone.

    The release of the film comes despite plans by the federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to bring in uniform new laws that ban material advocating terrorism.

    Acting NSW Premier John Watkins called on Mr Howard to take action to ensure that the film cannot be seen by children.

    “It’s very clear in this situation that it’s the Federal Office of Film and Literature Classification who have the authority to classify these films,” Mr Watkins said.

    “They have done so and they believe, it seems, that children should be able to see such a film.

    and

    “I disagree with that (the OFLC’s PG decision) absolutely.””As a matter of urgency, Mr Ruddock must seek an immediate review,” Senator Ludwig said.

    “This is a film that urges parents to send their kids on jihad, and attacks Jewish people – this is completely unacceptable.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/warning-over-disgusting-martyr-film/2007/04/15/1176575666187.html

  15. Rob says:

    Geoff, I suspect Islamists will take the term ‘Parental Guidance recommended’ in a way other than is generally intended.

  16. Kim says:

    As for Rudd, politicians’ media staff have attempted to heavy journalists from year dot. BFD.

    Yep, Keating was famous for it.

    All this smacks of being a silly “smoking gun” for the Rudd character assassination project.

  17. Robert Merkel says:

    On the merits of the issue, aside from the overriding principle that free speech should be restricted for only the most compelling reasons, you might wonder what precisely this will achieve in practical terms.

    The civil rights issue is a furphy. Mill’s principle is not a licence to incite civil war by reactionary theocrats. He would be rolling in his grave if he knew to what absurd uses his magnficent treatise was being put to.

    We correctly ban racial and religious vilification as an incitement to violence. The state is perfectly within its legitimate powers to regulate violent anti-civil “hate speech”.

    The state has to keep some sort of eye on potential terrorist fifth columnists created by liberal-Leftists who can’t be bothered representing the working classes.

    The Wets created this mess. Now they want to stop the civil sanitation authorities from cleaning it up. Obviously we will require a repetion of the London bombings before sense gets knocked into ideologically thickened skulls.

  18. philip travers says:

    And while they are at it bringing in censorship,will they also provide leadership in what are proper English written and spoken as it normally is by them in particular.These Muslims and howone is depicted in photo remind me of World Championship Wrestling. Ruddock needs a few lessons in commentary.And ban the term Baby Boomers I dont own any property,shares,or enormously well paid job!?Note problem with ares and isses.

  19. Gaz says:

    “Obviously we will require a repetion of the London bombings before sense gets knocked into ideologically thickened skulls.”

    Jack,mayhaps we can start with yours.?

  20. Katz says:

    When is Ruddock going to draft some legislation to ban election-year dog-whistle politicking?

    Such legislation would be more productive of peace and good governance than an entire library of acts banning “advocacy” [whatever that is] of “terrorism” [whatever that is].

  21. Gaz on 15 April 2007 at 10:38 pm

    Jack, mayhaps we can start with yours.?

    Its only fair to start with yours. My model long predicted the civil woes that we now encounter through the prolonged action of your push’s vicious and stupid cultural policies.

    London Bombings, Cronulla Bashings, Paris Burnings, Danish Bannings. Plus many terrorist plots nipped in the bud. How much more hell needs to be raised before the message gets through your thick skull?

    You people make me sick. You expect other party’s to wise up and come clean when their policies go sour. Yet when the boot is on the other foot you go looking for someone else to blame.

    Fess up and grow up, sunshine.

  22. Geoff Honnor on 15 April 2007 at 8:52 pm

    The film, which also calls Jews “pigsâ€?, received a PG rating from the Office of Film and Literature Classification, making it suitable to be bought and watched by children.

    The film, contained in a package of DVDs prepared by radical Sheik Feiz Mohammed, calls for the murder of non-believers in Islam’s war on the West, according to newspaper reports.

    How can this be wrong? I mean its free speech. And it represents a legitimate point of view from one of the many multiple cultures marvellous arrayed before us for our delectation.

    Its exactly what our Liberal-Death-Wishing cultural doctors ordered.

    Lets celebrate diversity!

  23. Katz on 15 April 2007 at 11:22 pm

    When is Ruddock going to draft some legislation to ban election-year dog-whistle politicking?

    Of course, we must ban “dog-whistling” politicians from slyly telling the truth to fed-up constituents. Just as we punish “gaffing” politicians from accidently telling the truth.

    I’ve got a radical new cultural philosophy to retail. Why not just tell the truth straight for a change? Its good for the soul. Instead of having to swallow the barrage of lies and politically correct euphemisms that now sail under the flag of “liberal cultural discourse”.

  24. Robert Merkel on 15 April 2007 at 11:01 am

    Let’s see now. As a commenter at Catallaxy points out, V for Vendetta was widely described as “glorifying terroristsâ€?. But there’s plenty more where that came from. Star Wars is a six-movie saga largely devoted to glorifying terrorists. And it’s not just science fiction. How about Michael Collins. For that matter, what about every single American movie about their independence, given that that was arguably viewed as terrorism by the British at the time?

    I know its hard for Wets to re-enter the reality-based community after living so long in an ideological bubble. But perhaps I can help with some occupational therapy.

    Here is my eccentric notion of terrorist incitement: unauthorised statements which encourage political violence against individuals or institutions by real people in the here and now.

    The line between fantasy and reality is sometimes a thin one. So it does no harm to draw attention to it now and then.

  25. Paul Norton says:

    As someone who was involved in some small way in raising funds for the African National Congress, writing statements and articles in its support, and collaborating in the publication of its views within Australia in the mid-1980s, I would pose the question: would any of my actions in support of the ANC have been a criminal offence under either Ruddock’s proposed laws or the “anti-terrorist” laws currently in place, had they been in force in 1985?

  26. Paul Norton on 16 April 2007 at 8:14 am

    I would pose the question: would any of my actions in support of the ANC have been a criminal offence under either Ruddock’s proposed laws or the “anti-terroristâ€? laws currently in place, had they been in force in 1985?

    Yes, and rightly so, if you had participated in a group that openly advocated violence against civilian targets.

    Advocating, and carrying out, unlawful political homicide (murder) is wrong. And ethnic-based terrorists seem to be so much worse due to the fact that blood has a long memory, down the generations. (That is the danger of “family values”.)

  27. Katz says:

    Jack Strocchi on 16 April 2007 at 7:03 am

    I’ve got a radical new cultural philosophy to retail. Why not just tell the truth straight for a change?

    So Jack.

    1. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for advocacy? (I’m reasonably confident you wouldn’t leave it to pomo, multiculti, wet, surrender monkey, politically correct, luvvie judges to arrive at a common law definition.)

    2. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for terrorism? (I’m reasonably confident you wouldn’t leave it to pomo, multiculti, wet, surrender monkey, politically correct, luvvie judges to arrive at a common law definition.)

    Enough of lathering up the blogosphere with your self-righteousness. Do something useful.

  28. Katz says:

    Here’s an extract from Exodus 32 concerning the aftermath of the famous Golden Calf imbroglio. Moses slays some folk over a difference of religious opinion:

    When Moses realized that, to the scornful joy of their foes, Aaron had let the people run wild, he stood at the gate of the camp and cried, “Whoever is for the LORD, let him come to me!” All the Levites then rallied to him, and he told them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!” The Levites carried out the command of Moses, and that day there fell about three thousand of the people.

    Does this extract “advocate” “terrorism”?

  29. Katz on 16 April 2007 at 9:22 am

    1. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for advocacy?

    2. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for terrorism?

    Why not try the plain meaning of common English words for a change?:

    Advocating = aid and comfort.
    Terrorism = organised violence against civilians for political purposes

    Katz says:

    I’m reasonably confident you wouldn’t leave it to pomo, multiculti, wet, surrender monkey, politically correct, luvvie judges to arrive at a common law definition.

    Your confidence is unreasonable. In fact the Wets have set the template for such definitions. Publications openly advocating terrorism should be banned, much for the same reason that racial and religious vilification is banned. So use the same form of test that was placed on the statutes to curb analogous forms of hate speech.

    The social contract works both ways. Advocating political violence against ethnic persons (individual autonomies) or civil polity (institutional authority) is wrong.

    They have witlessly cultivated this problem for ideological and electoral reasons. So its only fair that they provide the solution.

    Speaking of self-righteous and useless blogosphere-lathering, what legal test would you require to detect a “dog-whistle”?

  30. John Greenfield says:

    Well given that Kevin Rudd has already called for the deportation of an Australian Muslim leader, his response to this video should be a doozy.

    Rudd’s election campaign is already shaping up to be an singing all danicing Teacher-Bashing Race-Baiting and Union-Bashing affair. Maybe Howard and Abbott have met their match?

  31. John Greenfield says:

    Paul Norton

    Ah…for those fairy-floss halcyon days of the ANC.

  32. Let me for once disconnect my “scorn and ridicule” amplifier and speak in calm and moderate tones. Will any Larva-Prodders once, just once, concede that liberal cultural policies can “blow-back” creating illiberal cultural polities?

    Its not as if there hasnt been an avalanche of these concessions in other countries. You cant pick up a newspaper in the UK these days without reading of some liberal-left public figure conceding on this matter.

    It is risible to expect people to take Larva-prodder claims about the ideological block-headedness and intellectual obscurantism of Bush’s War on Terror seriously when they show exactly the same vices in their side of the Culture War. Some black-kettle calling pots come to mind.

    Do you want keep up the “we wuz robbed by dog-whistlers” mantra for ever? Just like those hairy-nostriled Trots still complaining about “the Revolution Betrayed”.

    My advice: get real. The majority of your fellow citizens and most competent social scientists are taking this track.

    Solipsism is the epistemological basis for nihilism.

  33. John Greenfield says:

    Those lovely Palestinians have just killed the BBC journo. Talk about winning friends and influencing people.

  34. John Greenfield says:

    Jack Strochi

    Just like those hairy-nostriled Trots still complaining about “the Revolution Betrayedâ€?.

    Solipsism is the epistemological basis for nihilism.

    Indeed. I am too young to really have had much exposure to Trots-in-the-flesh. So correct me if I am wrong:

    What has really spooked me of late is the
    realization that all those NGO-types as well as the multi-culti commisars are really just peddling Trotskyism by stealth.

    The whole hatred of Israel as a “racist imperialist, illegal” blah, blah, blah is just sour grapes that Trotskist International Socialism floundered.

    When you scratch just beneath the whole “anti-Zionist” crowd, you find a bitter 1970s Trot who has not reconciled him/herself with historical reality.

  35. Katz says:

    Advocating = aid and comfort.

    Irrelevant and legally useless.

    Terrorism = organised violence against civilians for political purposes

    Incomplete and prejudicial.

    Strocchi must try harder.

  36. Katz says:

    Speaking of self-righteous and useless blogosphere-lathering, what legal test would you require to detect a “dog-whistleâ€??

    Along with disconnecting his scorn and ridicule amplifier, it appears that Strocchi has disconnected his irony detector.

    Mais, plus ca change…

  37. Chav says:

    Strocchi, if you want to see some Death-Wishing and incitement of racial hatred then you need go no further than most Right-wing Blogs. timblair.net’s posts and comments on Muslim Australians being a case in point.

  38. Chav says:

    When you scratch just beneath the whole “anti-Zionistâ€? crowd, you find a bitter 1970s Trot who has not reconciled him/herself with historical reality.

    But they have reconciled themselves with reality…the fact that Israel is a racist colonial settler-state.

    🙂

  39. Chav says:

    Those lovely Palestinians have just killed the BBC journo. Talk about winning friends and influencing people.

    As opposed to the tolerance for free speech of the IDF?

  40. Rob says:

    Not confirmed yet, JG.

  41. joe2 says:

    “Those lovely Palestinians have just killed the BBC journo. Talk about winning friends and influencing people.”

    Greenfield you are a disgrace.
    No proof, no evidence and unsubstantiated.

    Work available see….
    http://www.fox.com/home.htm

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: