Correct, fletch. Jones doesn’t make anti-gay remarks, and to my knowledge he has avoided commenting on gay rights issues. An apparent contrast: according to Phillip Adams, “When the Seven Network repeatedly branded [the late Sydney lawyer, John] Marsden a pedophile, Jones, to his credit, took up Marsden's cause.” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20671925-12272,00.html

And Arjay, yes, you’re right. Jones is as entitled as the next man to express his opinions on fair trading, globalisation, or any other issue he cares to take up. The problem that Masters is trying to explore in his book is that Jones exercises disproportionate influence on our politicians. Regardless of your view on the sale of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme, Jones’ influence on the decision to block it is of urgent public interest. His sinister role in the lead-up to the Cronulla riots needs to be examined publicly, and the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Authority has been sitting on its report into this matter since June is, on the face of it, very disturbing.

As I said above, because Masters has outed Jones (and done so using snide, borderline-homophobic references to Jones and schoolboys), attention has been diverted from the really important issues in the book to the utterly inconsequential fact of his homosexuality.

Objecting to a school teacher salviating over school boys IS NOT HOMOPHOBIA, its paedophobia, and last time i look that has law and public opinion on its side.
Its horrifying that so many want to smudge the lines.

Citing Ireland as some exemplar of the free market shows hilarious ignorance, the EU pumped tens of billions in structural adjustment funding over 1983?-late 1990's, which combined with tax holidays and direct grants (bludging for billionaires) created the appearance of a post industrial economy. Now all the grants and tax holidays are/have dried up and the multinationals are packing their capital up and shipping it off to China (the economically rational thing to do). RightThink always has been a fact free zone.

OK. Settle Liam, settle.

Masters’ accounts of Jones’ dealings with his students border on homophobic (note the use of the word “border”) because they reinforce a primitive notion that if a man is homosexual, then any attention he pays to a younger male is sexual. A heterosexual male teacher going the extra few yards to get the girls’ soccer team into the grand final would never be subjected to this kind of innuendo. It would even be unremarkable if once or twice that heterosexual coach took a second glance at the backside of one of his charges.

Masters finds it acceptable to leave the most damaging inferences dangling, by providing hearsay evidence, a letter found in a desk, and entirely innocent photos of Jones with his students. Heaven help the male homosexual coach if his eye ever went roving.

Although there are lots of Jones’ ex-students (including the former Deputy Prime Minister) saying that he was a pretty unpleasant character, not one of them has claimed that Jones ever acted illegally, or even improperly towards them.

The borderline homophobia comes in when it’s permissible to apply one standard to heterosexuals, and another to homosexuals. In my view, this is what Masters appears to be doing to Jones.

That said, I hate the fact that I’m defending Jones, because I really do believe he’s an unredeemably repulsive character. It will be difficult to prove criminal liability for inciting the events at Cronulla last December, but I believe he bears a heavy moral responsibility for what happened there.

His comments, particularly in relation to the courts, regularly go to the edge of what’s legally permissible. If not this one http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jones-on-contempt-charge-over-witness/2006/11/03/1162340049846.html I hope that pretty soon one of his sprays will get him into big trouble.

w, yes that's one way of reading Master's references to Jones' homosexuality. This exerpt from the ABC 7.30 Report interview with Masters suggests his intentions were honorable.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But how confidently can you lay that at the door of his sexuality, because when you look through the whole of the book, although you on a number of occasions refer to his sexuality, there is only one incident in the whole book where you actually go to any detail of a relationship or attempted relationship?

CHRIS MASTERS: Well, I think that was being responsible. I mean, I had my own rules about staying out of the bedroom and if I was going to deal with this issue of sexuality then there had to be a point to it. I just think that if you look at the pattern of behaviour, I'd be astonished if you could come to any conclusion that there's not a connection between the disguise of his sexuality and this constant habit of playing favourites. I don't know how else you would have dealt with the subject.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1771701.htm

Thanks for pointing out the obvious about Ireland Liam.

It is a typical piece of Jonesiana to paint one side of a complex picture in simple, populist terms, and then turn the tap of his invective against his chosen target. It is for this reason that I find him such an appalling poseur; he chooses only those targets that will amplify the "let me do your thinking for you" aspect of his ego.

At no stage does he consider an approach that concedes a single point to his opponent - no doubt this was good practice on the rugby field, but society at large is infinitely more complex.

The result is little short of intellectual fraud.

Incidentally, I noticed recently that Channel Nine still uses him on their Today programme. While everybody seems to have pinned the blame for its dying ratings on poor Jessica, is it possible that AJ has passed his use-by date, and is beginning to curdle?

Readers may care to look at Paul Sheahan’s piece in The Sydney Morning Herald today ( 6/11/06). His conclusion would be that of any fair- minded reader, including those who disagree with much or most of what Alan Jones says or does. Jonestown, he says, is so replete with “distortion, dishonour, innuendo, and caricature…” and so “built on a foundation of anonymous accusations, the most dubious tool of journalism “ that it is in fact “ … the work of an inquisitor, not a biographer.” He concludes that it is “ a monument to malice.” It “ is not a biography, it is a lynching.