(Cont…)

I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason for your obsessive hatred of AJ is that he is arguably the most articulate journalist/presenter in the country…given the obvious limits of your own literary ability, I guess that would rankle someone with your narrow-perspective-on-life.

Perhaps you need to get an ‘outdoor’ hobby or you could consider ‘bingo’…you may even have a win there!

Btw…you should move away from wherever you are because whatever you’re breathing in is affecting your ability to articulate anything that even vaguely resembles coherent thinking, even for a ‘leftist or facist’…whichever mindset has claimed you today.

RE: your sheep theory…I guess there’s one positive there…we’re in good company and are the majority…it seems you, Irfan, CJM and the other incoherent-guy-back-there-are-all-there-is-barracking-for-your-mufti-mate… : )

TLTR, my comment on Irfan’s remarks were that he conveniently condemns Jones, as do the rest of his cult members- cheerleaders, or whatever, but ignores his own backyard, from which the-stench-of-all-he-supposedly-rejects-in-his-writing-emanates-in-a-thick, foul-smelling-cloud-of-Hilali-ism-and-cowardice-to-condemn-the-bile-he-speaks-about-women-and-Australians-in-general.

As I’ve indicated above, having heard the context and tone of Jones’ comments over that period and the e-mails he read…balanced also with his insistence that the law should handle the situation and no-one should take matters into their own hands…this matter has another agenda, following from the many attempts to silence Jones and discredit him…refer to my comments on Masters for more…

RE: Media oversight, Yes, in an ideal society, media oversight regarding content should apply to all indiscriminately, without fear or favour…clearly the Mufti’s media statements cannot seriously be classified as ok while Jones is condemned…hardy equity in practice or implementation. The ACMA-and-the-judiciary-are-not-infallible-either-TLTR…I can democratically question the findings…given the circumstances. Refer Lindy Chamberlain & Pauline Hanson…both over-turned!

The fact that all involved in this issue remain ‘nameless’, save Jones, is un-Australian other than perhaps a similarity to the dingo population…perhaps naming them would indicate the real agenda behind the whole deal.

The posters on this thread give a clear indication of the ‘politics’ behind it all and the depths some will sink to in justifying the means to their end.

But Meg - media oversight has to apply to the media right?

Hilaly isn't part of the media. Sure, he's a scoundrel - but who do you suggest should be policing this, given that it's not a media issue?

I can tell you with certainty that were there any muslim presenters a-la Jones, who urged muslims to go out and fight bikies, then they'd be subject to the same ACMA enforcement and much more public outcry, that's for damn sure.

In regard to Hilaly - what kind of organisation would you have, and what kind of powers would they have to police the views expressed by religious organisations? They're not a part of the media, so what would you honestly suggest for Hilaly, given that he is not, repeat not, a subject that ACMA is really there to control.

I tend to think that in relation to this article, you're focusing on the author rather than the substance of the piece.

In regard to ACMA giving a ruling on Jones - if you're opposed to this ruling, what other journalists/presenters/media personalities have behaved in a manner that rivals Jones's?

The broadcast that got Jones into most trouble was the next day, on 7 December, when he READ A MESSAGE FROM A LISTENER containing the words:

"My suggestion is to invite the biker gangs to be present at Cronulla Railway station when these Lebanese thugs arrive, the biker gangs have been much maligned but they do a lot of good things – it would be worth the price of admission to watch these cowards scurry back onto the train for the return trip to their lairs."
excerpt from Crikey.com

Jones himself did not invite bikers to do anything. He was reading one of the many messages he had received. Not all were as this one reading. To say that he himself promoted this idea is stretching truth beyond reasonable capacity for even the most die hard leftoid. That it was done in the name of the Left media speaks of an agenda much darker than suggesting that by implication Jones was responsible for anyone who heard himself read the e-mail and who then ran immediately to the nearest biker hat in hand crying, "sanctuary, sanctuary, save us from the Lebanese".

My opinion is that the ACMA failed utterly and set a precedence that will not be able to be countered in the future because the whole report is riddled with structure like "could have suggested", "could be implied", "a tone indicating approval".
Relativism is alive and well and this farce proves the left media stands by their doctrine of no absolute truths, not even something close to the truth. There is one such truth that does seem to prevail though, "what goes around comes around". It's got a nasty kick.
See ya in the funny pages.

On day shift now, Meg1? Not that it makes much difference - prevarication seems to be your forte, day or night.

1. You can't quite bring yourself to acknowledge that Gloria has been convicted in a court of law for breaching Australian media law, can you? Of course you have the right to question the conviction, but you have to acknowledge that it exists first.

2. If Hilali had actually contravened our sedition and vilification laws, surely he would have been charged by now? I bet there's nothing that the Australian or NSW governments would like better than to be able to bring him to account. You may be trained in 'human biology', but you're no lawyer.

3. Jones has been known in media circles as 'the Parrot' and 'Gloria' for years. The fact that you've only read these nicknames in Crikey merely demonstrates your limited exposure to quality media. Whose 'disciple' am I, again?

Nobody here is "barracking" for the mad mufti, who is in fact a straw man introduced by you to try and distract attention from the equally reprehensible Parrot. The fact is, Jones has broken Australian law and been convicted for it, while Hilali has made offensive statements for which he has been rightly pilloried in the media, but hasn't actually broken the law.

Personally, I think we'd be much better off without either of the old hatemongers sullying our media. Fortunately, it seems likely that both of them are on the way out, each having become more of an embarrassment to their employers than they are worth.

Hey Meg1, you said "I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason for your obsessive hatred of AJ is that he is arguably the most articulate journalist/presenter in the country…"

Is this articulate JOURNALIST the same one who was sacked from the Sun-Herald in 1990 because he wrote an article on the 'oil crisis' based on information he'd gathered from a book of fiction - Frederick Forsyth's novel 'The Negotiator'?

Firstly TRTL, Hilali spoke in the media…he makes use of the media to spray his venom, he and those who promote his bile, should therefore be subject to the same media laws.

You and I are responsible for getting on our bikes, so is everyone else…I heard the statements and didn’t feel inclined to pedal my pushie to Cronulla to join the fray…you are all clutching at straws. AJ urged his listeners repeatedly to let-the-authorities-handle-the-situation-and-not-to-take-matters-into-their-own-hands. This was of serious concern to many, based on numerous e-mails he was receiving…sounds like he was doing his job. If the ACMA have chosen to ignore those facts, I’d like to know why?

Other religious leaders have been subject to scrutiny by media and their authorities…as well as the public…so too should Hilali and Co.

If he wants to speak in media and push his propaganda, he should be subjected to media laws.

If he speaks the bile and venom that he does against Australia and women, including incitement to riot and terrorise, etc…unlawful as it is…in a public forum, e.g. his mosque, or the media…then he should be subjected to the full force of the law…re: treachery/treason, vilification, etc. There are indeed laws that apply…

Your concern for the author is touching-but-invalid…he posted the thread-therefore attracts comment…mine indicated where the hypocrisy really lies after reading accusations of hypocrisy, in his piece… Your statement, confirms that you regard any comment on Irfan’s hypocrisy as religious bigotry, let Irfan and Hilali speak with impunity…hmmm hypocrisy?

As for ‘substance’ in the piece…seriously, it has little merit, and less substance…

Your earlier statement, ‘for every thread Irfan writes about muslim issues he's criticised for being inflammatory’, indicates by your own admission, he writes inflammatory pieces or even incites people…indicating that the-pot-may-be-calling-the-kettle-black. OLO’s regarded as being an arm of media…yet, you demand immunity from consequence for Irfan.

I listen to a number of presenters, depending on where I’m staying…Alan Jones is mild by comparison with a number of past-and-present hosts of radio & TV and is courteous and reasonable on talk-back…

(tbc…)