Terrorism on the ABC

I was disturbed at the reaction to the recent ABC's Q & A programme in relation to Zaky Mallah.

I heard the comments of various government officals including Prime Minister Abbott. I thought I had better look on Iview to see what all the fuss was about. Well I don't think Abbott and I were watching the same programme.

Mallah clearly stated he had stuffed up (ten years ago) and it is also fairly obvious he was not an international terrorist. I didn't sound to me that he was recruiting terrorists nor was he advocating such. That doesn't mean that all those years ago he wasn't a deluded and misguided person.

Should the ABC have researched Mallah's recent profile a little more? Arguably so, but it is certainly not the place of the government to demand that heads roll. This is just the Liberal Party's phobia.

I heard a number of comments relating to this episode including the response from the CEO, of the ABC, Mark Scott, who pointed out that although they may be a government funded organisation, they were not the PR arm of the Liberal party or indeed any other political body.

However, the issue that alarms me most is that the government seems to want to censor news (and it may be distasteful to some elements of the community). It is quite likely that much of the news is not to their liking , but that is not a reason to quell discussion. I don't much like the rise of religious fervor, but if we censor this discussion we become like other states where the freedom of speech is non-existent. Are we to become a China? Or a Burma? Or any other country ruled by a police state and unable to speak freely?

It seems like there could be an Australian election imminent and the government is happy to promote a culture of fear. Traditionally the populace is reluctant to change government if they are afraid. Is the government manipulating this issue to suit their own agenda or am I being unduly cynical?

Regards
Paul

Have we all forgotten the reasons why the Liberal Gov under Howard were kicked out? Its because they turned into jack-booted neo-fascists who wanted to roll out the very worst of the right wing hate-machine into every living room via relentless campaigns of fear.

Labor is their own set of horrors and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree their terms weren't described as shambolic, incompetent, stupid, reckless, corrupt, inept, squandererous, shameful and 1000 other adjectives of fiscal maladministration and cronyism, but not evil.

This government under Abbot has taken only half a term to get those old black boots back on. Laws and campaigns will be ramped up that wedge minorities, induce fear, distrust and paranoia. They can't help themselves. Rich vs poor, Us vs Them, God vs Atheism, classism, Has vs has-nots, demonisation of the socially dependant, "communists", "terrorists"... laws on treason, exile, disassociation, secrecy, harsh prison sentences, firing squads and gallows.

This is the stuff of Liberals. The right wing thrives on it. Its in their blood.

The whole "support business" mantra is a cuddly veneer to Fascism.

One by one your "rights"* to free speech, association, assembly, cash, privacy and expression will be watched, recorded, scrutinised and used against you. They won't be confiscated, for you never had them.

I hold no hope for the people of Australia. None. History is repeating.

* we have no rights in Australia.

Abbott's reaction was just what you'd expect - have a big sook about how the 'lefty lynch mob' is picking on him. Pretty hypocritical coming from a belligerent bully-boy like him.

He'd have done better to take the free kick that was handed to him. We were able to see Mallah for what he is, an arrogant, unintelligent fanatic, and we also saw a rare thing - a politician, Steve Ciobo, speaking his views with no weasel words. You may not completely agree with him, but he took Mallah on on his own ground and cleaned him up comprehensively.

If a head must roll, I'd rather it was Abbott's than the ABC's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.....but it is certainly not the place of the government to demand that heads roll.

---

No, best leave that gruesome task to ISIS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is quite likely that much of the news is not to their liking, but that is not a reason to quell discussion.

---

Or my liking, but for very different reasons.

Well said Paul.

Whilst there is some really emotive language being used here, particularly (as per usual) by Evanism, one thing carefully ignored by both the previous posters is that the ABC has said this:

The ABC had already conceded it was an error of judgment and in a speech on Thursday night Mr Scott said the "risks and uncertainties of having [Mr Mallah] in a live programming environment weren't adequately considered".

Despite admitting they made an error of judgement, which we are all capable of, they then re-broadcast this program on Wednesday night.
That doesn't say much for the intelligence, dare I say common sense, of the ABC.

It may pay people to read the ABC's own news website.

May I ask further contributors, if any, to keep this discussion free of the usual polarised emotive language and/or platitudes, which may make the poster feel good but usually doesn't add much to the debate.

This thread will be watched by the Admins/Mods and closed without warning if, in their opinion, it gets out hand.

It's interesting to read that Australia has problems with government and media behavior that are very similar to those we experience in the US.

Lives and Liberty are at stake.

YOUR life and YOUR liberty.

You. The white, middle aged, sensible, socially enabled, educated citizen.

My language may be emotive, but my words are chosen carefully as they are packed with meaning and history. Fascism. Wedge politics. Fear. Distrust. Paranoia. Terrorism. Communism. THREATS.

Zaky Mallah was a patsy for the show and his words poorly chosen - mainly because his liberty was effectively negated by Steve Ciobo - "I'm happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I'd be pleased to be part of a government that would say you're out of the country," Mr Ciobo told Mallah.

MALLAH WAS BORN IN AUSTRALIA.

CIOBO KNEW THIS.

Ciobo didn't go onto Q&A as some wide eyed ingenue. He had the facts. He knew exactly what he was going to say, when to say it and it was delivered to elicit the maximum effect, both to the audience and recipient.

Ciobo chose to say words to the effect of - Obey your government, do what you are told or you will be forcefully deported to a place of our choosing.

Mallah has been racially vilified and isolated his whole life. He is angry and he can point directly to consecutive governments who have used 911 and his skin colour to directly draw a target on him.

How often do you think he is "randomly selected" at airports? Really?

His intense disenfranchisement is a direct manifestation of the unrelenting social negatives that are applied to him.

We have a similar 'revoke their citizenship' movement here. There's also a trend to very specious parsing of the rights of US and THEM when it comes to access to the courts. Secret courts yet in your land?

This topic has been battered around for a while.
BUT
Who has proffered solutions to the many issues/problems.

Create more jobs so people are busier and not bored and easily lead into the domain of extremism?
Better education so people can make better decisions on their own without being lead by politics/media/religion?
More being done by religions leaders/elders to stamp out or debunk the extremeism views-recruiting?
All politics and religious and ethnic groups denounce violence as the solutions.
Dare I throw in the multiculturalism issues?

My view is that we are spiraling into a very divided and violent culture, and I cannot see what will stop it unless some or all of the issues above are addressed.

Lyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

This topic has been battered around for a while.
BUT
Who has proffered solutions to the many issues/problems.

Create more jobs so people are busier and not bored and easily lead into the domain of extremism?
Better education so people can make better decisions on their own without being lead by politics/media/religion?
More being done by religions leaders/elders to stamp out or debunk the extremeism views-recruiting?
All politics and religious and ethnic groups denounce violence as the solutions.
Dare I throw in the multiculturalism issues?

My view is that we are spiraling into a very divided and violent culture, and I cannot see what will stop it unless some or all of the issues above are addressed.

Lyle.

---

Hi Lyle,

I think education is the universal good. Unfortunately education is now a target of dark forces, at least in my country. For instance, we have a charter school movement and they tend to be very radical. One charter school, funded in part by taxes, in Houston is reportedly teaching students that Jesus and the dinosaurs were contemporaries. Our state board of education is now to be headed by a home-schooling advocate, hardly a good leader of an organization dedicated to universal public education. I think with good education and a few generations of effort that many problems of society can be rectified. Unfortunately we have the present day and what to do to fix the instant issues...

Cheers,
Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

My view is that we are spiraling into a very divided and violent culture, and I cannot see what will stop it unless some or all of the issues above are addressed.

Lyle.

---

Having a proper separation between politics and religion would be a good start. The two are entirely incompatible. In my view, anyone who has profound religious beliefs, as 2 of the last PMs have had, has no place in politics, let alone being at the top of the tree.

By that I don't mean that if people have religious beliefs of any kind that they should be banned from politics, but those who wear it on their sleeve most definitely should be - in Australia, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rob streeper

Secret courts yet in your land?

---

http://law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/35_3_13.pdf and specifically the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, which states (or does not state, for its secret)

What we do know....

-- Most of the legislation is secret. Only the AG is privileged to see it.
-- State and Commonwealth executive have no right to see it, they are only afforded the opportunity if the commonwealth allows it.
-- It is an offence to revel the contents of the Act
-- You can be arrested at whim without warrant or judicial oversight
-- There are provisions for covert search warrants
-- You are subject to warrantless surveillance
-- You can be subject to preventive detention. Without evidence and without criminal involvement the detainee may be interrogated by ASIO. Disclosing that an individual has been so detained or interrogated is, in almost all circumstances, a crime
-- You can be subject to enforceable control orders: Any restriction they choose. It is completely arbitrary; freedom of movement, freedom of association (including one's lawyer), banning the performing of named actions and owning named items, unlimited requirements to be (or not to be) at specified places at any or all times of the day and week, wear a tracking device, encouragement to submit to re-education
-- You can be held, without habeas corpus, effectively indefinitely
-- Your trail is secret, the evidence used against you is revealed in secret and you have no defence against it nor opportunity to test it
-- Your lawyer is not allowed to see the secret evidence
-- If you are let go, it is an offence to reveal you were subject to any proceedings
-- It is an offence to reveal you were incarcerated
-- It is an offence for anybody involved in the process to admit they were involved in any part of the proceedings
-- Your lawyer, if you are allowed one, is also subject to all the above provisions. Further, it is a crime for them to reveal, even to partners of the firm, they are acting in your defence.

This is what we know. For we can't know, for the legislation itself is secret, executed in secret, in secret courts with victims who are rendered powerless to defend themselves, seek help, or even talk about it.

So simple - WE DONT KNOW.

Its all secret. All of it.

So (and without having seen any of the interview on Q&A and only knowing what I just read on Wikipedia about the guy) what exactly is the problem with allowing someone - who has been acquitted in a court of law of any terror charges - on TV?

Does Abbot and co want to make it an offence for anyone who has disagreed with government actions (or been convicted on any criminal charges) to appear on broadcast media??? (the latter would be nice, as it would mean Alan Jones should be off the air).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evanism

http://law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/35_3_13.pdf and specifically the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, which states (or does not state, for its secret)

What we do know....

-- Most of the legislation is secret. Only the AG is privileged to see it.

..........................................

So simple - WE DONT KNOW.

Its all secret. All of it.

---

Not quite as simple as you make out, because if it is all secret - all of it - how come George Williams could write 41 pages about it?

Was everything he wrote there guess work, academic waffle or just fiction?

As for the "Liberal Fascists" imposing all this dreadful stuff on us poor downtrodden citizens, I seem to remember we have had 2 Labor Governments since 2005, one with a whopping majority. How come they didn't get rid of all this "fascist" stuff.

And on the subject of fighting terrorism, I haven't seen the current Labor leader fighting too hard, not at all really, against any of this terrorist stuff that the Fascists are still bringing in (and indeed the previous 2 Labor Governments did also).

And if it is all so secret and you're not even allowed to reveal that you have been subjected to prosecution, albeit unsuccessful, how come Mr Zaky Mally is still at large and hasn't been thrown in some ASIO dungeon?

i didnt watch Q&A but i read some article the day after.

the keys points I read was that the minister said he would be happy to see mallah thrown out of the country, and mallah saying he would like to see the minister dropped into ISIL controlled territory in Iraq.

I ocasionally watch "the bolt report", i guess andrew bolt is a liberal. anyways every episode he rips into Q&A about the double standards it has towards the labor and liberal parties. I dont care much for politics, but from what i see on the bolt report, if i was liberal I would want the entire ABC canned until it can report the news, all of the news, not just the stuff that hurts the liberals or helps the labors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Not quite as simple as you make out, because if it is all secret - all of it - how come George Williams could write 41 pages about it?

Was everything he wrote there guess work, academic waffle or just fiction?

---

He clearly was involved and has written around it. It is exactly how lawyers do this. It is like a Warrant Canary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

One discusses everything in context to other information without explicitly talking about the subject itself. If The Man kicks in your door, you remove the canary. Its absence betrays your enforced silence while maintaining deniability.

Besides, I'm not making this stuff up, its on goddam wikipedia, a sample of the Act is available on the ACT governments website and there are other sources online.

You may oppose what I say, but I am not wrong.

My bullet points were copy pasted from other sources (such as wiki and George Williams (BEc, LLB (Hons), LLM (UNSW), PhD (ANU); Anthony Mason Professor, Scientia Professor and Foundation Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Faculty of Law, The University of New South Wales; Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow; Barrister, New South Wales Bar).

I suspect given Mr Williams qualifications, he might have a tendency to know what he is talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

As for the "Liberal Fascists" imposing all this dreadful stuff on us poor downtrodden citizens, I seem to remember we have had 2 Labor Governments since 2005, one with a whopping majority. How come they didn't get rid of all this "fascist" stuff.

And on the subject of fighting terrorism, I haven't seen the current Labor leader fighting too hard, not at all really, against any of this terrorist stuff that the Fascists are still bringing in (and indeed the previous 2 Labor Governments did also).

---

No government ever, ever, ever, repeals laws that will be useful. Politics 101. Pretend opposition but grudgingly be dragged along with it. Repeal if necessary (claiming you never truly supported it all along), retain if it doesn't blow up in someone else's face. Absolute 101 stuff.

Besides, I said neo-fascists. BIG difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

And if it is all so secret and you're not even allowed to reveal that you have been subjected to prosecution, albeit unsuccessful, how come Mr Zaky Mally is still at large and hasn't been thrown in some ASIO dungeon?

---

He was. Their attempt to pin the tail on the donkey failed and they fell back on a BS charge just to ensure something stuck.

How many others are "in the hole"? We don't know. We will never know.

Did you even KNOW the name of Zaky Mallah before the Q&A? Perhaps you should as he was the First Australian charged under the anti-terrorism act.... pretty special, no? But Id wager 99% of those here didn't know.

Ask yourselves WHY.

Because for two years, he WAS IN THE HOLE.


Also, there is MORE, my bullet points were just the HEADLINE stuff. And I quote:

" In addition, a person may be detained for up to a week for
questioning where there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she will
alert another person involved in a terrorism offence, not appear before ASIO for
questioning, or destroy a record or thing that may be requested under the
warrant.57 It is an offence punishable by five years’ imprisonment to refuse to
answer ASIO’s questions, or to give false or misleading information.58 These
warrants may be issued against non-suspects, including family members,
journalists, children between the ages of 16 and 1859 and innocent bystanders."

Thats right boys and girls!!!! YOU can be thrown in prison for a week just for being an innocent bystander.

There are further provisions to detain you indefinitely as "release" is so nebulous it could mean you are simply let from your cell only to be tossed back in.

This is tiring explaining this stuff. Open your minds. Read the document.

Evanism, you assume that being strident and SHOUTING makes you right.

You (deliberately?) misinterpreted my question as to why Zaky Mallah was still at large after revealing he had been detained under the Terrorism Act by "assuming" I was talking about his previous detention.

Amongst all the (Wikipedia) facts you are sprouting you tell us that us mere citizens are not allowed to divulge, amongst other things, that we have even been charged or detained under this dreadful "secret" Terrorism Act or we will go straight back "in the HOLE".

I asked the, I thought reasonable, question why then is Mr Zaky Mallah still at large after doing just that on Q&A? And indeed giving interviews to the Murdoch Press some years back about the same thing.

But if I have learned one thing in my life it is that one cannot have a rational debate with zealots that "are never wrong", so I will leave it at that.

Be secure in all your Wikipedia "facts" and fight the good fight against the Facists and Neo-Facists and hopefully you will live to see a day where the Neo-Commies will once again rule us and you can sleep peacefully at night in the knowledge that Noddy Shorten is there to protect us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuffy

i didnt watch Q&A but i read some article the day after.

the keys points I read was that the minister said he would be happy to see mallah thrown out of the country, and mallah saying he would like to see the minister dropped into ISIL controlled territory in Iraq.

I ocasionally watch "the bolt report", i guess andrew bolt is a liberal. anyways every episode he rips into Q&A about the double standards it has towards the labor and liberal parties. I dont care much for politics, but from what i see on the bolt report, if i was liberal I would want the entire ABC canned until it can report the news, all of the news, not just the stuff that hurts the liberals or helps the labors.

---

Thank you Kuffy for a rational post, on topic no less, you made a very good point without emotion and SHOUTING, well done.

I agree with you, I also would like to see the ABC return to reporting the news, not trying to make the news, as so many media organisations now seem to think that is their job.

Unfortunately under their current director, Mark Scott, they have become a shadow of their former selves.