Thanks, Catherine.

Three problems, however.

First, Ms Deveney is a comedian. We probably should regard her as such. Which means quite often she is joking. And black humour seems to be her forte.

Second, Jones is not being boycotted for “offensive comments about Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her father” – despite what Jones and 2GB would have you believe.

The strategic facebook page Destroying the Joint was set up six weeks ago, wasn't it? Long before the infamous Young Libs meeting.

From the various online groups it is clear there are long-held, deep-seated concerns at Jones’ activities on many levels. These include his history of fabrications, receiving secret cash payments for on-air comments, fomenting racial hatred and violence, abuse of staff, ridiculing and censoring callers who challenge his facts, unbalanced treatment of political parties, crude sexist attacks on the Prime Minister, false accusations against political opponents, calls for the death of his political enemies, public vilification of those he disagrees with, hypocritical exploitation of charities, the hypocrisy of calling for direct community action but complaining when the community acts directly against his excesses and, finally, his hollow apologies when cornered.

Third, it is not true that “they are trying to influence a platform with which they are not engaged, and which has no impact on their lives.”

Wherever misogyny, racism, prejudice, ignorance and distortion of important issues are proudly encouraged in Australia it affects us all.

<<The strategic facebook page Destroying the Joint was set up six weeks ago>>

Can you imagine anyone with more than half a brain setting up a group called "Destroy the Joint" -- how infantile!

Can you imagine anyone with more than half a brain saying that women are 'destroying the joint'? How infantile!

<<Can you imagine anyone with more than half a brain saying that women are 'destroying the joint'? How infantile!>>

Two wrongs don’t make a RIGHT.
But it appears, they excite the LEFT.

Good article Catherine.

< It is one thing to boycott offensive programs, but quite another to strong-arm third parties into boycotting them as well. >

Surely this is getting into very risky legal territory for those who are leading the push.

< …it delivers a punishment that is disproportionate to the offence… >

Yes, enormously so.

That's some Camel!

'From the various online groups it is clear there are long-held, deep-seated concerns at Jones’ activities on many levels. These include his history of fabrications, receiving secret cash payments for on-air comments, fomenting racial hatred and violence, abuse of staff, ridiculing and censoring callers who challenge his facts, unbalanced treatment of political parties, crude sexist attacks on the Prime Minister, false accusations against political opponents, calls for the death of his political enemies, public vilification of those he disagrees with, hypocritical exploitation of charities, the hypocrisy of calling for direct community action but complaining when the community acts directly against his excesses and, finally, his hollow apologies when cornered.'

And after all that not once was a similar action engaged in, certainly not on such a scale.

That camel has an amazing back!

That really shows that

a) It was one hell of a heavy straw
b) There was another force at play, with a political agenda.

Both of which backs Catherine's article.