Day to Day Politics: Dutton still a bloody drongo.
Sunday 14 May 2017
1 Peter Dutton, in his obsession for criticising anyone who disagrees with him this week took it upon himself to give Fairfax media a spray. Even when he has repeatedly been accused of lying over an incident on Manus Island. Remember he has form in the area of free speech. Not so long ago again on the Ray Hadley show he denounced business leaders’ for daring to have a view on gay marriage.
The public didn’t miss the company’s “left-leaning” journalists when they went on strike to protest looming job losses, he said.
The shocking Minister for Immigration was being interviewed by the shocking shock jock from Sydney Ray Hadley (one of many shock jocks who house themselves within the right of politics – left have none, btw) who seems to be in sync with Dutton’s opinion of Fairfax journalists. A glowing reference for the SMH or The Age would not be forthcoming in this interview.
Dutton, the former copper from Queensland has always had problems with opinions other than his own. He thinks free speech can only be spoken by the right.
“I thought the productivity of Fairfax went up last week with the strike. I don’t think lives were affected one way or another,” he said.
“I think people realise you can live without reading Fairfax newspapers. I think it’s a better way to lead your life – that would be my advice.”
There were “a couple of good journos” at the company, most were “out of touch” and intent on pushing a “political and ideological argument.”
“When they [the journalist] say ‘the Prime Minister has been captured by the right’ or ‘has been playing to the conservative base of the party’ that’s code for this: they’re saying Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t undone the boats policy, he hasn’t allowed the detention centres to close on Manus and Nauru.”
“That’s the one thing that they’re obsessed about. “They believe that already we should’ve had gay marriage or we should’ve had a republic, they can’t believe that somebody like Turnbull is being captured into thinking you continue Operation Sovereign Borders.”
During the strike by journalists it should be noted that Fairfax was praising the budget.
Fairfax Media chief executive officer Greg Hywood put him in his box: “Once again Peter Dutton shows why no one rates him.”
I do, badly.
Dutton’s Cabinet colleague Matt Canavan had this to say:
“I think we are lucky in this country to have a great diversity of media, from the ABC through to Fairfax, the Australian, the Courier Mail, the TVs – I think it would be a sad day if any of those organisations couldn’t continue.”
An observation.
”The pedlars of verbal violence and dishonesty like Peter Dutton are the most vigorous defenders of free speech, when it suits themselves, because it gives their vitriolic nonsense legitimacy. With the use of free speech, the bigots and hate-mongers seek to influence those in the community who are susceptible or like-minded.”
I posted this on the same subject a couple of years ago. It addresses journalism on the right of politics.
Of course, you could hear the shouts: “So what. Who reads The Australian?” Well the correct answer is not many. It only has a circulation of about 20,000 in Victoria but the point is that it is the go to publication for the right-wing shock jocks, conservative politicians and the chattering political class. It has enormous political clout and although it loses millions, every year Murdoch props it up because of its influence. It’s the same reason Reinhardt wants a slice of Fairfax. It’s for the influence it would give her. It has been demonstrated in Victoria just how powerful the Herald Sun is. They have been largely responsible for the dismissal of two recent police commissioners.
What it comes down to is what the Australian public is prepared to endure. In a free society where freedom of the press is sacrosanct (as should be diversity) newspaper proprietors should be able to, within reason print what they want and if the journalists want to make idiots of themselves, then that should also be their right. However, it is the sheer avalanche of bias on a daily basis that I object to. When Murdoch owns 70% of print media and with editors like Chris Mitchell, there is no balance and the politically disengaged are therefore unfairly influenced. Now that Fairfax has decided to join them together with a new ABC right-wing policy, it has become decidedly worse. In fact the left no longer has a voice. If it does. It is scarcely a whisper. It has nothing to do with free speech but has everything to do with power and influence.
It is about time someone stood up to the distortions, contradictions and outright lies of the poisonous and extremist Murdoch Empire and mainstream media in general. It is simply not good enough for a democratic Australia and we should all be outraged by it. If the government is unable to get its legislation passed then it shall remain unfinished business. If it does it will probably require refinements at a later date. And there has to be something in it for Murdoch.
And this is what is at the heart of the matter. The real fears of the media proprietors concern the advocates other task being whether future mergers and acquisitions are in the public interest or not. It is not about free speech at all. It is about self-interest.
2 The budget still weighs heavily on our minds and the reason for not including the costs for reaching our Paris Agreement targets is a mystery.
Exactly one year ago I wrote this:
A few days prior to Malcolm Turnbull announcing the election Greg Hunt, the Coalition’s second best liar released modelling by Energetics that he said those who said they couldn’t reach their targets were totality wrong. And he told The Australian Newspaper just that. “Who else?” you might ask.
But Peter Holt, associate at Energetics, told Guardian Australia that the policies would only achieve those reductions with changes – either large funding top-ups to the ERF (estimated by others at least $6bn) or a strengthening of the safeguards mechanism so it turned into a baseline and credit emissions trading scheme.
Which all rather confirms what Turnbull said just a few years ago:
”If you want to cut carbon emissions in a very substantial way to the levels that the scientists are telling us we need to do by mid-century to avoid dangerous climate change, then a direct action policy where … industry was able to freely pollute, if you like, and the government was just spending more and more taxpayers’ money to offset it, that would become a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead.”
The ABC also did a fact check on an assumption of Turnbull’s.
The claim: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030 is “second only to the emission cuts offered by Brazil” when measured on a per capita basis.
The verdict: Australia’s per capita reductions for 2030 will be 50 to 52 per cent lower than 2005 levels, which is smaller than the 53 per cent per capita reduction Brazil will make over the same time period, but the per capita cuts of Norway, at 57 per cent, and Switzerland, at 60 per cent, are even higher than both Brazil and Australia. Mr. Turnbull is incorrect.
An observation.
”In terms of the environment. I wonder what price the people of tomorrow will pay for the stupidity of today”
On Wednesday I received this from Amanda McKenzie CEO of the Climate Council.
On Tuesday night I sat on my couch and waited. And waited. “I was waiting to tick climate change off my budget bingo but I never got the chance. That’s because Scott Morrison delivered his budget speech without a single mention of climate change, the biggest long-term economic threat we face. But, hidden deep within the budget papers was the revelation that the Climate Change Authority had been stripped of almost two-thirds of its funding and confirmation that it will be wound up. The Climate Change Authority is charged with providing independent advice to the government on how to tackle climate change effectively. For example, it provides detailed analysis on what Australia’s emissions reductions should be and pathways for how to meet those targets. The disappearing Climate Change Authority means there will be one less group conducting vital research in Australia. We can’t accurately or effectively mitigate or adapt to climate change without the most up-to-date climate and energy analysis. This continues the Federal government’s pattern of cutting funding to climate research. First it was the Climate Commission, then it was CSIRO, and now the Climate Change Authority is on the cutting block. With the Government spending even less on science, and climate change research, we need to expand our work to ensure the community is informed. Can you chip in and support the future of climate science in Australia? The good news is that concern about climate change is now at the highest levels since 2008 (1). So this is the time to keep pushing. Let’s keep fighting – keeping the government honest and the community informed.”
My thought for the day.
“The original intent of free speech was to give a voice to the oppressed and to keep governments honest. In the United States, the first amendment is now used as a justification to incite racism, validate hatred and promote both religious and political bigotry.”
15 comments
Login here Register here-
Arthur Tarry
-
Terry2
-
lawrencewinder
-
havanaliedown
-
wam
-
Andrew Ramsay
-
Kyran
-
margcal
-
245179
-
Yusuf Feidel
-
Matters Not
-
Kyran
-
Kyran
-
helvityni
-
Kyran
Return to home pageThe record of the LNP on climate change is appalling. It has an entrenched anti-science bias especially when science conflicts with money making activity, but not so much when it supports money making activity, or personal interests eg: gadgets. Pick and choose as long as science doesn’t inconvenience you. It’s so sad that some can’t see beyond the nose on their face or the ‘hip pocket’. In my community the idea that ‘she’ll be right mate’ is still prevalent – why does ignorance always seem to prevail?
Dutton is about to face one of the biggest class actions ever mounted in our courts, on behalf of the detainees held on Manus Island as part of the government’s indefinite detention policy.
Lawyers, Slater and Gordon said they were challenging the Commonwealth government, security contractor G4S and service provider Broadspectrum, as well as “two third parties” in medical services provider International Health & Medical Services and security provider Wilson Security. The case is pursuing compensation for injuries, with a false imprisonment claim added last year after the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled that detention on Manus was in breach of the country’s constitution.
So far, Dutton has tried to say that the Australian Government is not detaining anybody and claiming that we shifted our legal responsibility for these detainees to the PNG government by the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) originally initiated by the Rudd government. This argument doesn’t appear to have any substance as the MoU itself is legally and constitutionally flawed.
He also claims that the people are not actually detained, as they can leave the detention centre when the gates are opened in the morning (but they have to return at dusk when the gates are locked). This argument is also defective as the asylum seekers are not allowed off Manus Island so for all intents and purposes they are detained on the island, against their will and illegally as they have not been charged, tried or convicted of any crime.
Watch this space as this is likely to cost us all a lot of money in damages.
I firmly believe we need legislation that will make criminal and enable the jailing of those who stalled, denied or halted practices trying to ameliorate climate change and its consequences..
Do you think Slater and Gordon will survive the duration?
https://www.google.com/finance?q=slater+and+gordon&ei=KYcXWcn2JMPD0ASh-Y3YBQ
At 10c, down from the issue price of $1… is this a good time to buy? Naaaah
first ammendment says 18c is unconstitutional:
Eugene Volokh—a professor at UCLA Law School specializing in free speech—puts this information bluntly in his Washington Post blog: “But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.”
As for climate change, any party will give you the story that the ordinary worker no longer gives a rat’s arse about climate change being the result of man’s activities. You may get the boy’s to concede we contribute but not enough to warrant costs of change and risks to economy.
ps
still waiting for the apology for dec 2 2009 you could ask what price we are paying now for bob’ banality.
Don’t forget Dutton on the Hadley show blaming the CFMEU for the importation into Australia of asbestos building products from China? Would not admit it is his own fault as stopping asbestos was not as important as stopping refugees! Dutton has failed miserably, and is running Border Force without sufficient fund and control!
Challenging dutton’s credibility, integrity, intellect, in fact any redeeming quality, is little more than an exercise in futility. Questioning that which does not exist is, surely, a futile exercise.
This is the thing that suggested the recent problems on Manus Island started a week before the PNG military opened fire. Not in the months and years beforehand, when Australia, through its government, incarcerated people, without charge or conviction, for the mere act of exercising their inalienable rights under a UN charter that an Australian helped to write. In his warped world, it had nothing to do with the extinguishment of their right to life. Words escape me in trying to describe the monstrosity that is dutton.
Sir ScotchMistery recently penned a piece, ‘The Parliamentary Process’. In it, he quoted dutton.
“Australia’s workers have never had such a good friend as they do in the Turnbull government”.
Yep, Australian workers now have the same friendship that our asylum seekers/refugees have. The same friendship that those seeking a hand have. The same friendship that those needing (or wanting) an education have. The same friendship that those needing health care have.
Words escape me. I’m not sure if it is appropriate to quote a commenter from Sir Scotch’s thread.
Vikingduk
“Does this shit stain, this revolting slime trail, this stinking, putrid excuse for a human, have a dirt file on the LNP power brokers? Does he know where the bodies are buried? What gives this thing called dutton the power when it is widely recognised his incompetence is a polished turd winning performance, even by this government’s standards?
Doesn’t say much, then, for those that voted this projectile vomit disguised as a man in to parliament. Says even less for the rest of us that condone our far flung gulags and the ethnic cleansing perpetrated on the victims.”
I can only admire Vikingduk’s restraint. My words escape me when addressing this vile, contemptuous, piece of filth.
With regard to the media, in particular MSM, the absence of critical analysis of the budget is notable, by its absence. It’s all about the Labor opposition and how they have been wedged. Or is that just me? Not one reference I have read explains that this is the government’s budget. Not the oppositions. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that MSM tries to explain the government’s budget by blaming it on the opposition.
For the past few years, our government has been led by the opposition. Whilst appealing to the cross benches to pass their most dubious legislation (the phony’s and hunch), and reliant upon the ‘me too’ support on anything resembling security by Labor, it is a lame duck government. The IPA ideology is not only obnoxious, it is unworkable. In any sense.
The absence of regard for climate change in the budget is very telling. Whether the impact of climate change is social, economic, environmental, financial, whatever. The fact of the matter is that it is happening, now. There have been a series of articles on our nearly neutered ABC about the separation of powers. The CSIRO and the ability of them to inform our ‘leaders’, frankly and fearlessly.
“When I joined the organisation they were known for giving fearless advice,” says Dr Church, now at the University of New South Wales.
“Now, CSIRO likes to think of themselves as a ‘trusted adviser’ … there’s an element of them being trusted to say what the government wants to hear.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-05-02/csiro-missing-in-action-on-climate-advice/8479568
It’s worth a read. As is this one.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/culture-wars-at-csiro/3018928
Or this one.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-05-02/science-on-the-frontline-what-are-the-rules-of-engagement/8479738
Or this one.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1569599.htm
We need to work on this separation of powers thingy. Politicians have way too much power. We only get to vote every few years.
Thank you Mr Lord and commenters. Take care
Calling Dutton a drongo is an insult of major proportions to all drongos everywhere.
“Drongo’s” of the feathered variety ( yes we have such a bird ) they too will be offended getting linked to mutton head.
The LNP are not of a quality of party to support and Labor cannot command enough public support and the Greens have no credibility and One Nation is danger so it leave the voter with poor choice so a new party must emerge to act for the people.
I wishes one new party to come before next election to represent the moral spiritual and goodwill of people for fairness and justice and equality.Is there one such party?
One of the most interesting birds is the Great Racket-Tailed Drongo found in Asia. Lots of different types of Drongos,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=613x49JFYkc
On 15th May, 2017, Kellie Tranter.
“Our Government, in all its manifestations, should be putting to its citizens “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, rather than spin doctored versions of what happened and in some cases – like Mr Ahmed’s – what had not yet happened.
Accountability in government is becoming more elusive and more illusory with every passing day.”
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/pre-empting-faysal-ahmeds-death,10299
On 17th May, 2017, Ben Doherty, Nick Evershed, Behrouz Boochani.
“The documents, from camp manager Broadspectrum and security contractor Wilson, reveal efforts to push those recognised as refugees to accept relocation to the East Lorengau transit centre, and ultimately resettlement in PNG, while persuading those without refugee status to abandon their claim to protection and go home.
The document says: “Conditions for refugees at East Lorengau refugee transit centre should be more attractive than for refugees at Lombrum RPC. Conditions for refugees at the RPC should be more attractive than conditions for transferees.””
“Since the supreme court ruling a year ago, attempts have been made to further reduce numbers in the camps, which continue to operate under Australian control and Australian laws.
Pressure is being increased upon asylum seekers to abandon their claims for protection – they are offered inducements of up to $30,000 if they agree to return home; while forced deportations of those found not to meet protection obligations are occurring with increasing frequency, with successive national groups – Nepalese, Lebanese, Vietnamese – targeted.”
““PNG management, all the camp managers, they are all trying to pressurise us to go back to our countries, even when they are trying to resettle us in PNG. They not want to resettle us in PNG.
“They are trying to traumatise us and torture, to send us back to our home countries, and torturing us by their way, slowly, slowly they are killing us from minds and physically torturing us inside, the mark isn’t showing on our bodies, but we are dying. Our health is growing very worse, mentally sickness is going high level, everything is bad but they still put pressure on us.””
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/17/revealed-year-long-campaign-to-make-conditions-harsher-for-manus-refugees?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
In the first article, Ms Tranter cites documents obtained under FOI that clearly demonstrate Mr Dutton’s department was canvassing how to manage the imminent death of Mr Ahmed, as a PR exercise. A death that occurred due to their actions. By their actions, I mean their wilful, deliberate inaction. Documents that are horrifying in their callous disregard for human life. Documents that are horrifying in their callous disregard for any semblance of the rule of law. Documents that are horrifying in their callous disregard for human decency. What else would you possibly expect from Mr Dutton.
In the second article, documents are cited that clearly reveal a program has been in place for some time to carefully orchestrate the non-resettlement of asylum seekers. Remove the prospect of any hope whatsoever. Make the prospect of refoulement somehow acceptable, by giving those seeking our protection $20k or $30k to return to the lands they have taken all sorts of personal risk to flee.
Right now, there are asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus that require transport to Australia for urgent medical attention. Their conditions are reported as life threatening. Mr Dutton now has a precedent, through the death of Mr Ahmed. Wait for them to die.
Mr McKim has recently returned from a ‘trip’ to Manus, with a series of statements obtained by those illegally detained on our behalf. Statements that document the wilful complicity of Mr Dutton in the pending deaths of those in our care.
His defence to any allegation of murder (and by that I mean in the literal sense, the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another)? It was the victim’s fault. They chose to flee a land in which they were likely to die. They chose to seek asylum in Australia in a manner that was politically unacceptable. He is now offering them a further choice. They can choose to die on Nauru or Manus, or they can take their chances and go back to where they came from.
There will be further deaths announced soon. They will be politically acceptable.
30 pieces of silver was once the acceptable cost of betrayal. It seems only reasonable, allowing for inflation, that 30,000 pieces of silver is an acceptable cost for betrayal.
“Accountability in government is becoming more elusive and more illusory with every passing day.”
Where to from here, Mr Lord?
Thank you. Take care
With apologies for banging on about this. Our planet is in danger. Likely in the next few decades. Our economy is in danger. At some time beyond the loss of our planet.
“Watch this space as this is likely to cost us all a lot of money in damages.”
Terry2, 8.00 am, 14/5.
Not if they die first. We can ‘mitigate’ the ‘loss’.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/18/self-harm-suicide-and-assaults-brutality-on-manus-revealed
It is really a case of ‘mind’ over ‘matter’. We don’t mind, they don’t matter.
“Try not to get worried, try not to turn on to
Problems that upset you, oh.
Don’t you know
Everything’s alright, yes, everything’s fine.
And we want you to sleep well tonight.
Let the world turn without you tonight.
If we try, we’ll get by, so forget all about us tonight”
The only venue suitable for Mr Dutton, the Right Honourable Mr Dutton, is a court of law, IMO. However unlikely. His master, talcum, may call him to account. Oh, look. Pigs flying.
Mr Lord suggested dutton would get away with this. A sentiment I disagreed with.
With heavy heart, I must now agree with Mr Lord. We have time for climate change, however limited. We have time for the economy, however unlimited.
Those seeking our help are out of time.
For goodness sake, bring them here. NOW.
Apologies for banging on. I haven’t slept well for a long time. Thankfully, I’m still here.
A luxury not afforded those seeking our help.
Take care
Kyran, good to see that someone else cares; bring them here, please Mal. Make a Captains Call.
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
If it’s only you and me, that makes a ‘we’. I honestly believe ‘we’ are not alone. Many people share the belief that the standard we walk past is the standard we accept.
Asides from Mr McKim, our politicians don’t care.
Asides from the next voting cycle.
Asking, or begging, talcum to make a captains call requires the pretence he is a ‘captain’, let alone he may have a ship.
You’re a gem, helvityni. Take care