Dear Shadow Minister,

Have you read the book that I cited
earlier - "Silencing Dissent?"
Because there are many contributing authors
and it is absurd to try to sweep them all under
the proverbial rug with your usual mantra of they're
"lefties," when their opinions don't agree with
yours. That's so intellectually lame.

You totally ignore the
statement by Tor Hundloe, that I quoted -
who confirmed the actions of Mr Howard and his
government. Anyway, regardless of people's political
leanings - what matters is whether what they are saying
did happen - and in this case it did - as far as Mr
Howard and his colleagues are concerned.

And as you stated in your initial post on this thread -
"...Freedom of Speech means that various views and
opinions will be expressed ... spread over the spectrum
of opinion instead of uniform state sanctioned dross."

The "uniform state santioned dross" is precisely what
occurred during the Howard years - and from your posts
it seems that it's precisely the ethos that you believe in.
After all the opinions of "lefties" don't really matter.
Right. It's crystal clear.

cont'd ...

You've chosen a most appropriate title to
this thread. "Silencing Dissent," thid is something
you're becoming well known for - but your excuse instead
of entering into discussions by brushing aside any
valid points as being made by "lefties," is wearing
a bit thin.

Hey Lexi;
The "uniform state santioned dross" is precisely what
occurred during the Howard years

Have you forgotten the daily abuse that was aimed at Howard ?
Are you suggesting that was "State sanctioned" ?

Dear oh dear !

Dear Bazz,

Take an intelligent guess at what is being suggested
here. The following website may help clarify things
for you:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-review/silencing-dissent/2007/02/23/1171734005116.html

If you ran a Government that lied about a carbon tax, changed policy leading to hundreds of drownings and squandered billions in waste you to would want to shut up the press. I certainly would not want that kind of deceit and incompetence reported on a Government I ran. You can hardly blame Ms Gillard from wanting to shut up the press. And of course if you delve into her dubious union dealings as a 'naive' 30 something woman you can expect the sack. No wonder they did not want to touch Thomson.

It's a pity this thread turned so nasty so quickly.

And I'm surprised that Shadow Minister should speak out against "ad hominem" attacks.

That said (and seeing that this thread has gone in all sorts of directions and has no clear path), I tend to agree with your summary of what is wrong with Wikileaks. In an ideal world, that which was intended to remain private would remain private. And should. However, what Wikileaks has done is present a challenge to the old order - it has (or should have) forced governments to rethink the ways in which they communicate and conduct business. It should be accepted that Wikileaks (or variants) will always plague governments.

Sadly, the reaction has been along the lines of "they don't play fair!"

It's like when the Boers refused to line up in brightly-coloured coats and be shot by the Brits, using guerrilla tactics to wage their war over a century ago.

Or (and, as usual, I can't find the article on line) the war games conducted by the US in the lead-up to the "War on Terror". After appointing a celebrated retired (I think?) general to coordinate the "enemy", the US forces were quickly defeated. The enemy used phones rather than radios (so the "goodies" couldn't listen in); they used scouts on hilltops to report troop movements rather than more sophisticated equipment (so the "goodies" couldn't sabotage them); they housed troops in residential areas rather than barracks (so they were harder to pin down). Rather than learning from this, the bosses sacked the retired general, set some ground rules and successfully carried out their "attack".

Where I'm going with this (in a roundabout way) is that the goalposts are constantly shifting. Wikileaks, media powerbrokers ... they're all realities in our world. Governments can accept that and learn to work with them, or they can try to shoot them down more quickly than they pop up. In my mind, one of those options is more likely to be successful than the other.