Sorry mate.

Now that Australia has done ANZAC Day 100 the issue is off the politician's bland speech to-do list.

Now its politicians' mock concern sound-bight Day for 2 dead drug barons.

Pete

I agree with McIntyre about the sanitised image a lot of Australians have of WW1, that war, and this goes for any in history, is just utter brutal hell on earth. I mean, sure today, we have 'rules of engagement' but that is just dumbing down and humanising conflict in the first place.
If war is not shown in all its total ugliness and destruction, and that includes any battle within the realms of WW1. it will, and has become a relatively easy option to solve international disagreements, including in today's world. This 'humanising effect of war' started with 1864 Geneva convention.

War is War, period. It should mean exactly that.

The only orders soldiers should follow are that from their higher military command to achieve military objectives placed on the military by Politicians. How those objectives are achieved should be an open book. Its the end result that matters. This may sound over the top and harsh but the way I see it, war should be ugly, utterly violent & downright brutal. THAT is the only way to steer a course towards long lasting peace. Too much humanising of war (rules of engagement etc.) will only lead to the temptation in today's world that it is 'another way' to solve conflict.

I can't stress enough to emphasise the fact that sheer military conflict should be totally brutal and violent. No mercy. It is the only way to deter war in the first place.

If war is hellish and downright terrifying enough it will force other options to solving conflict such as the use of the term 'compromise'. A rare word in today's world. Because compromise is the only way to have ever lasting peace.

Despite the blathering of these anti-Anzac, anti-anything Australian malcontents, the Anzac crowds are steadily increasing.

Most Australians have never heard of these whingers and whiners.

They will be back next year, along with anti- Christmas misanthropes, and every year after that until enough people are bored with their misery and hatred, and refuse to respond to them.

I think Dilan is trying to muddy the waters here. This is a professional and industrial issue, not a free speech issue. There is a world of difference between the things that one should be prevented from saying by law, and the things one can legitimately be sacked for saying.

I completely support McIntyre’s right to tweet things about the ANZACs, and those commemorating ANZAC day, that many find offensive. And I completely support SBS’s decision to sack him for doing so.

Twitter is not a private conversation, and McIntye is not an anonymous citizen – he is a reporter for a national and publicly funded broadcaster. His comments reflect poorly on that organisation and on his judgement and impartiality as a journalist.

Freedom doesn’t mean the right to do things without restraint. If you accept a public position, you accept the restraints that go with it.

As a satirist he perhaps overstates the case, but I think P.J. O'Rourke sums up the basic point quite well:

“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

McIntyre can exercise high rights, but shouldn’t whine about the consequences.

War is failure. The failure to come to a peaceful/civilized settlement.
War is mass murder. Old men and women far from the battlefield send young people to kill and maim other young people.
War is brutal and brutalising to soldiers and civilians. Why so many veterans with PTSD? Why so many veterans committing suicide? Why so many civilians killed? >100,000 civilians have died in Iraq.

War is never about ideals such as freedom and democracy - it is about gaining territory and access to strategic resources like oil, gas, farming land, shipping channels, and in the future, water.

Far from advancing our freedoms and liberties, we have lost vital legal protections and freedoms since the War on Terror began. Some people are now below the law and are killed without due process and can be held without charge in prisons like Guantanamo for a decade or more. As a former NSA head said "we kill people based on metadata" Is this what we are fighting for?

Ordinary people don't want war. We need to be pushed into it. It has happened so many times, it is like clockwork -
Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin - never happened.
1st Gulf war Operation Desert Storm - babies tossed out of humidicribs - never happened.
2nd Gulf war - WMD did not exist. Reports that Iraq could attack Britain in 45 mins - false.
Afghanistan - to avenge 9/11 attacks - however most of the attackers were Saudis (our supposed allies). To defeat the Taliban - which has links with Pakistan military (another ally).
To defeat Al Qaeda which was funded by CIA - as seen in this clip of Hillary Clinton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

Millions marched against the 2nd Gulf War - we tried to stop it. We were not fooled by the lies. But we were unable to stop it - our government signed us up for an illegal pre-emptive war of aggression without parliamentary approval. We didn't get a say.

The ANZACs wanted us to remember them so we would never again follow our allies blindly into war. Lest we forget.

The sanitised Anzac version of WWI also hides the real truth of how the Australian population felt about the war.

During what was left of 1914 and for part of 1915, about 300,000 (mostly urban Protestant) young men, fired up on King and Country and the 'fact' that girls love a man in uniform and various other misguided forms of hero-whipped tomfoolery stormed the enlistment offices.

Those who didn't - boys on farms and Catholics - were rounded up with elaborately funded recruitment drives firing them up on King and Country and the 'fact' that girls love a man in uniform and other misguided forms of hero-whipped tomfoolery.

Yet despite all this, by the end of 1915, the enlistments flowed to a trickle and then all but stopped. In desperation, the government passed the draconian War Precautions Act, which censored and criminalised just about everything anyone could ever possibly say that could even mildly criticise the war. Even possessing sheet music for songs like 'I didn't raise my son to be a soldier' carried a prison term.

Despite all this, there were (up to) 100,000-strong anti-war rallies held in Melbourne and Sydney - the existence of which are all but buried by Australia's official Anzac narrative. Many anti-war activists were jailed, tortured and/or deported.

And despite all this, two conscription referendums in 1916 and 1917 were defeated by the general population, the second by a higher majority - making Australia the only British colony (indeed, only allied nation) that refused to allow conscription. It was also one of the only allied nations that refused to allow the execution of its deserters.

Every year, this proud 'other Anzac' history remains hidden and forgotten, except in the research notes of a trickle of academic writers, rarely ever climbing out of the footnotes of our official, mawkishly sentimental WWI narrative - of blokey courage, mateship, Anzac biscuits and 'becoming a nation'.

Killarney: Every year, this proud 'other Anzac' history remains hidden and forgotten, except in the research notes of a trickle of academic writers, rarely ever climbing out of the footnotes of our official, mawkishly sentimental WWI narrative - of blokey courage, mateship, Anzac biscuits and 'becoming a nation'.

The entire article is emotional claptrap craftily constructed to appeal to people like Killarney. It's purpose is to give the impression that all soldiers are eager go to war with rampant erections, Raping & Pillaging every female from babies to the aged & infirmed. The entire article is insidious in it's intent to portray Soldiers as brutish morons.

I have no doubt there were instances of Rape & Pillage but they would have been totally unusual.

As for the Japanese prisoners in WW11. An old uncle of mine told me that they had captured a group of Japanese & they were taken to an internment camp. A number of the Japanese indicated that they wished to die, as being taken prisoner was a disgrace. These prisoners were given a live grenade. They walked up the beach a little & killed themselves. Apparently this was common.

Killarney: blokey courage, mateship, Anzac biscuits and 'becoming a nation'.

Very sneaky. Yes, I've read Dr. Elizabeth A. Thomson, "Battling with Words" too. & it's a load of feminist Academic hot cock.

While many will see MacIntire's comments as inappropriate, his sacking shows that just as in many other countries who we critisize for media manipulation and media control, Australia is no different. There is increasing control over the media by politicians. Those who own the media also limit what is said. Thus we really do not have free speech, just the illusion that we do.

hospas,

There are thousands of media outlets and websites criticising the government, Anzac commemorations and lots of other things some in our society hold dear. Which is great news for free speech.

McIntrye’s sacking was SBS’s decision, not the Government’s. What he tweeted was not appropriate for someone in his position. I’d expect the same reaction if he had made racist or homophobic remarks.

Rhian

'I’d expect the same reaction if he had made racist or homophobic remarks.'

According to that logic, criticism of war is equivalent to homophobia and racism.

And conversely, acceptance/advocacy of war is equivalent to sexual and racial tolerance.

In other words, we have evolved into such a war-worshipping culture that any rejection or criticism of our war-worshipping culture is deemed socially undesirable, even pathological.

jayb

Well, I'm glad to hear you've read Elizabeth A. Thompson's 'Battling with Words', because I haven't. I've never even heard of it.

Killarney

I am not arguing moral equivalence or saying that criticism of war is equivalent to racism or homophobia. I’m saying SBS would make a similar response in such circumstances for similar reasons. It is about upholding professional standards and not tolerating egregiously insulting behaviour.

I don’t think McIntyre was sacked for criticising war or the Anzacs. There is a difference between criticism and sneering abuse. Describing people who commemorate Anzac day as “poorly-read, largely white nationalist drinkers” falls into the latter category. It reflects poorly on the organisation and on the judgement of McIntire as a journalist. His dismissal was a matter of professional standards, not free speech.

There is plenty of scope for a reasoned criticism/critique of the Anzac story and the way it is commemorated. You have contributed that perspective many times in this and other OLO forums. You debate robustly, but I don’t recall you ever stooping to gratuitous insults.

To repeat, this is not about McIntyre’s right to say what he thinks, including controversial comments. It’s about his doing this using calculatedly insulting language using public media while clearly identifiable as an SBS journalist. Organisations have the right to expect their senior and public employees do not harm their reputations. High-quality media outlets are particularly concerned with how their journalists are perceived

The irony, a journalist gets fired for telling the truth. At a time when we are overwhelmed by media spin and even downright lies.

To make it even worse - He got fired after a senior government minister complained to his boss - that is just weird.

As Orwell said "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

What did Scott McIntyre say that was untrue?
Can anyone tell me?
His timing could have been better. Maybe his choice of wording could have been better. But did his words do any actual harm? Did they incite hatred or violence?

How limited is our speech when we have to consider that we may get the sack if we say something that is basically true but unpopular? Some people defend what has happened by saying he has not been jailed, he is still free to say what he likes. But losing his job is a substantial financial penalty. This will have a chilling effect on the free speech.

Scott McIntyre made tweets as a private citizen, not as an SBS employee.We have many cases of journalists who have said outrageous things as part of their job and they have not been sacked. For example, Andrew Bolt was found guilty of racial discrimination in one of his columns and he was not sacked. Alan Jones jokingly (if you can call it that)on air suggested Julia Gillard be put in a chaff bag and thrown in the sea - he still has his job.

BJelly

TV Journalists are not private citizens, and twitter is not a private medium of communication. All media organisations have social media policies and codes of conduct. He broke both, and deserved to take the consequences

Bjelly: The irony, a journalist gets fired for telling the truth.

So you're with Killarney. Australian Soldiers are ALL Rapists & Pillages. Is that like All moslems are Terrorists or is that somehow different?

Killarney, "Battling with Words" It's a good read for Feminists. Apparently she wants the Armed forces have got to go Gay, Greenie & Politically Correct & be able to dance with fairies. If you're not up to that then you can't join. Another Academic screwball.

Hi Rhian, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I have a problem with employers having the right to fire people for such trifling offense. It wasn't always this way, and it seems to be getting worse. There also seems to be a double standard - ie Bolt and Jones etc.

Hi Jayb, no I don't think all soldiers rape and pillage - I am grateful for the sacrifices soldiers and their families make. I wish my government would send them into harms way only when necessary for our defense, instead of pre-emptive wars of aggression. I wish my government would take better care of returned veterans - the way we treat broken men and women is a disgrace. We need to remember the ANZACs as mortals not mythic creatures of virtue - they were fallible, we are fallible. War is hell. Lest we forget.

Rhian

Sorry. I should have clarified that I was making a 'springboard' reply to your comment (i.e. taking a small part of it to jump off onto another line of argument). I realised that your reference to homophobia and racism were just analogies, and not meant as direct moral equivalence.

I agree that McIntyre was unprofessional and (as with Charlie Hebdo) shouldn't be hailed as a martyr for free speech. However, had his lack of professionalism been offensive to Anzac's critics, there is no doubt that he would have kept his job - possibly even been promoted.

Hi Killarney

You say “there is no doubt that he would have kept his job - possibly even been promoted” if his tweets had offended Anzac’s critics. I doubt that. SBS is hardly a bastion of right wing militarism. A quick trawl of the web suggest to me that most people who have been dismissed for politically insensitive social media comments have offended against political correctness, for example by opposing gay marriage or posting racist jokes.

But it rather depends what kind of offense you have in mind, I suppose

Plantagenet, Anzac is over, thank goodness
The two drug mules are now over with, thank goodness
Kate has popped a baby, the first ever, we are not over it yet
What can be number four be of such world shattering news