There must be quite a stench arising from the ABC's Q&A for Peter McEvoy, Q&A executive producer and under siege apparently, to draft a long defence:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-26/who-can-ask-a-question-on-q-and-a/8384792

It is nothing short of remarkable. The old Auntie has long disappeared and viewers are being confronted by this messy, feral thing.

Must be overdue for a spill of roles and positions. Or bury the rotting corpse that is Q&A!

The hard right continues its attack on Q&A and the ABC in general as demonstrated by the above. Q&A provides a forum for open debate of the critical social and political issues confronting Australian society, Nothing of this kind is provided by the right wing controlled media. The aim of these politically motivated hard liners is the complete dismantling of Australia's independent public broadcaster, and its replacement with a subservient prop that reflects the biased hate propaganda of the likes of One Nation and other right wing radicals, all designed for mass consumption and the ultimate control of society, is it not so Leoj.

It's amazing that anyone still watches Q&A.

"It's amazing that anyone still watches Q&A." like me they should all be tuned into Andrew Bolt on the commercial channel to get their daily dose of what to believe is right.

I don't think that it'amazing at all, Q&A is one of the best comedy shows around.

It doesn't say much for the ABC's independence or balance that it publishes a long self-serving diatribe without anyone being given the right of reply.

It is Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy asking and answering his own questions. That is an extreme thing for any media outlet to do. To be publishing an extended self-defence and taking swipes at unidentified all-comers. Why would he and the ABC do that?

Interestingly, McEvoy was silent on crucial details such as:

- how and on what basis does he/Q&A solicit and (pre-)select the questions?

- what support/advice/editing is given in framing the questions and how is that decided? The implication is always that questions arise from the live audience during the show, from hands being raised.

and

- since the ABC has previously defended Q&A as 'entertainment' and 'not news', why does Q&A continue to pose as current affairs, which implies news and the rigorous standards that news should meet? The host might state, but doesn't, at the commencement of each show (and in the ABC's promotional advertising) that it is entertainment.

one of the conservatives biggest failures has to continue to fund the facist socialist whose mouthpiece has largely been the abc. The family destroying and gw alarmist have managed to stroke the ego of the likes of Turnbull but are morally bereft. They really do think they are intellectually superior while displaying constant stupidity as apologist for Islam. History is going to judge this society as being dumb dumb and dumber for allowing such facist to destroy reasonably priced power, destroying the natural family and supporting the death cult of Islam. Our grandchildren will wonder with disgust as to how so many tertiary educated people could be so dumbed down.

The following link may help answer some of the frequently
asked questions about Q&A:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/about.htm

We're told that:

"Q&A is a television discussion program that focuses mostly
on politics but ranges across all of the big issues that
set Australians thinking, talking, and debating."

"It is driven by interaction: Q&A provides a rare opportunity
for Australian citizens to directly question and hold to
account politicians and key opinion leaders in a national
public forum and Q&A is broadcast live so that not only the
studio audience but also the wider audience (via various
sites) can get involved."

"Their aim is to create a discussion that is constructive, that
reflects a diverse range of views...where people can
respectively discuss their differences."

"It's impossible to represent every view on a single panel or
in one audience but they're committed to giving participants
a fair go and in order to be as inclusive and diverse as
possible, the program is presented from a range of locations
around the country and all Australians are encouraged to get
involved through social media as well as by joining the
audience."

The program has been functioning since May 2008 and its
popularity has increased greatly. And no wonder. political
decisions have a big impact on our lives and so Australian
citizens should have every opportunity to be involved in
the democratic process.

Former Liberal Leader John Hewson said of the show:

"I think you get few opportunities in politics to get your
message across, and Q&A is one of them."

Tony Jones is just as
tough on the Labor Government as he is on the Coalition.
The simple fact is, like it or loath it, Q&A discusses
serious politics and important social issues at a more
intelligent level than anywhere else on Australian TV.

If that is true, Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy wouldn't be finding it necessary to indulge in such extraordinary rationalising, self-justification and blame-shifting, now would he?

Media Watch will be along with its protective spin as before.

Q&A is as smelly as leftover prawn heads and presided over by overpaid personalities with mammoth egos who get in the way of invited interviewees to make themselves the news instead. Tony Jones is an example of that.

Nothing like the ABC the taxpayer didn't mind paying for.

I usually try to identify the bloke in the Q & A audience who makes up then 38 % of Liberal/National voters present. But he's so quiet ! I look forward to hearing what he might have to say. One day.

Joe

' I usually try to identify the bloke in the Q & A audience who makes up then 38 % of Liberal/National voters present'

Its usually the Liberal on the panel Loudmouth. Many of them are regressive and weak especially when it comes to the gw fantasy or support of Islam. No wonder people now go elsewhere to avoid the fake news on abc.

Peter McEvoy explains that:

"It's challenging for the politicians who have to
face live scrutiny from real voters and answer off
the cuff and it seems to annoy some in the old fashioned
mainstream media who think asking questions and setting
the agenda is a special privilege that only they should
enjoy. But it's an opportunity that citizens appreciate
and in any democracy worth the name, it's every citizen's
right."

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/arbib.htm

Again, that is Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy setting up and taking free hits and not allowing anyone the right of reply. No balance.

But he wouldn't be finding it necessary to indulge in such extraordinary rationalising, self-justification and blame-shifting, unless he believed there was a case to answer.

Definitely not the Aunty that the public, taxpayers, used to support but now are being forced to against their wishes. It is 'their' international socialist ABC and not the public's ABC.

Honestly, isn't it time that the government had some independent global consultancy perform a comprehensive audit of the combined ABC and SBS?

All these alleged problems can be overcome by the use of the "off switch".

If you want "totally fair and completely unbiased" commentary, there's always Andrew Bolt on TV and countless pundits on the radio, including Amanda Vanstone's Counterpoint on ABC's Radio National.

The forums 'Usual Suspects' are so used to being feed a diet of right wing swill from shock jocks, the Murdoch gutter press, cable news etc etc. Anything that is remotely unbiased invokes rabid calls for crucifixion. The ABC is behind the eight ball to start with as this ratbag mob philosophically oppose independent public broadcasting. They would much prefer a Goebbels inspired extreme right propaganda outlet. Just ask the Hansonite who started the thread.

Hi Paul,

Haere ra ! As one of the 'Usual Suspects', thank you for that subdued comment. I wish you would come out and tell us what you really think :)

Like most people on the Left, I have always been an ABC person, since at least 1950, from memory. We considered all commercial stations to be perverted by capitalism at its worst. Well, except for the serials.

But, like some other people, I can do the maths each week and roughly assess the complexion of each contestant on the Q & A game-show, some of whom have been on time and again. Of course, there always has to be a 'right-winger', a patsy, on each week for the others and the 37 % Labour/Green audience to get stuck into in its entirety - that's mandatory. But the Dorothy Dixers to Tony Jones and his impartial tendency to cut off or side-track those 'right-wingers' makes the program tiresome. And the same tired old questions from the 'random audience member' to cut the 'right-winger' to pieces with. So I don't bother any more.

I look forward to the time when the ABC runs impartial programs. I think it used to, but maybe it's me that's moved, or maybe the ABC and I have moved simultaneously but in opposite directions, me to the Left and the ABC to the faux-Left.

And incidentally, how on earth and in what universe, can Islamo-fascism be considered remotely 'Left' ? i.e. something to be defended by the faux-Left ? And for a criticism of fascist ideology to be diverted vas somehow an attack on people, i.e. racism ? What ever happened to the ability of the genuine Left to fearlessly expose fascism wherever they found it ?

Cheers,

Joe

Paul without a doubt Q&A would be one of the most bias shows on air, always playing to the vitims like the gays, indiginous and the likes and i guess given the usual host, Tony Jones, i guess thats to be expected.

As for the show, i too thnik its a great laugh and i will never forget Bob Katters response when asked about his thoughts on gay marriage. It was a hoot. Utube it if you want because he put things into prospective, as he often does.

+1 to what the previous poster has said.

Sadly missed are the Left uni lecturers of old, dressed immaculately casual and voices of (real) equality, freedom and hope, even if that hope was misplaced in the Marxism that even they wistfully conceded was failing.

What about the red-flagon fuelled jazz musicians, independent and proud of it and Left by nature and choice, to escape the nuisance, limitations and bothering of society and State?

If there was one thing they all agreed on as not negotiable, it was that freedom of speech was paramount and for ALL.

They would have immediately recognised the cant, manipulation and sly attempts at social reengineering of the ABC's Q&A for what it is, $1.3 billion of taxpayers' being used for propaganda and to instil political correctness in a dumbed-dwon audience.

It is the rare exception where the puppet-master behind slick frontmen like Tony Jones is squeezed by public embarrassment to finally emerge from behind his protective barriers to practise his dark arts of rhetoric direct on the public. It is the arrogance and elitism of Peter McEvoy, Q&A executive producer, that leads him to believe in his spin, his barrage of red herrings, might fox a viewing public who have already learned to distrust him.

However it appears that the real forces behind the social reengineering focus of Q&A are quite ruthless and are getting prepared to hang Peter McEvoy, Q&A executive producer, out to dry. It is to that faceless elite, that Peter MvEvoy is making his plea for support and not so much to the ‘Basket of Deplorables', or the 'Useful Idiots', who wouldn't know what's good for them anyhow and need to be told.

It there were any real Left about, they would be clamouring for the exposure of the elite hiding behind Peter McEvoy and demanding accountability. These sinister forces are ruthless and obviously have no compunction about the necessary sacrifice (richly deserved though it is) of an executive producer who was likely complying with their hidden, secondary editorial policy and 'way for Australia'.

Dear Loudmouth,

I see your confirmation bias showing.

The show has been subjected to an independent inquiry which found it it be found here;

http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ABCEditorialReview6.pdf

In an op-ed piece Ray Martin, one of the paper's authors wrote;

“Inevitably, when you analyse Q&A over a lengthy period — as we have now done — you come to the conclusion that it is a balanced, entertaining and informative program. “

So why do you think you managed to form an opinion otherwise. The answer is pretty obvious, your right wing victim mentality perspective drove your assessment of the program.

Martin goes on to say the government of the day gets more airtime on the show than any other group they are certainly scrutinised more. The only difference is that when it was happening to Labour they didn't boycott the show unlike the thin skinned childishness of the Abbott government.

SteeleRedux,

You quote a report that mentioned and then escaped discussion of the tawdry, risky and highly controversial inclusion of Zacky Mallah on Q&A.

Refresh my memory, the responsibility was passed down the line to the executive producer, Peter McEvoy, wasn't it?

Q&A was later moved for closer supervision.

Still no-one at home above the executive producer? What about below? Has Tony Jones never had occasion to say to his executive producer, 'You want to do what, has upstairs ever been asked or informed about that?'.

cont'd ...

Apologies for the typo. I'll try again:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/meet-peter-mcevoy-the-faceless-man-behind-the-qa-scandal-20150702-gi3ovu.html

Is q and A news or entertainment. News has to be factual entertainment can be anything. If you do not like what you see turn off. It is not composure viewing.
All tv has a classification, maybe you are misinformed.
It's far cheaper making au shows than showing imported crap. If it is not being taken seriously, maybe it is not supposed to be. TVs reality is the latest craze and it draws big crowds.
If politicians can sit there and laugh at themselves it is not meant to be factual. It,s social liars ones to show they are human.

Hi Steele,

An independent inquiry into an ABC program carried out by the ABC, that finds that there is no bias by itself ? Well, that's a relief.

And Ray Martin endorses it ? Hey, what more would anybody want ?

As for victims, I don't think there are many on what you laughingly call the 'right wing' [pot-kettle], they don't need me, they can look after themselves. In spite of my own genuine-Leftist inclinations, that's the one thing I admire them for.

There seem to be weird processes going on: the faux-Left keeps moving towards the Right, supporting (by default) extreme-Right causes such as Islamist-fascism and losing itself in the homosexual quagmire, while the 'Right' finds itself defending traditionally progressive causes like freedom of expression. Go figure.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

How can you say progressives are in some kind of quagmire over such issues as Islamist-fascism (ISIS terrorism) homosexuality (gay marriage) and freedom of speech (the bigoted right to hate speech).
I cant find any support from "leftists" for terrorism. Gay marriage become an issue when religious conservative made it an issue, which is not a political issue. Those who want to engage in bigoted hate speak are using freedom of speech to cloud that objective/issue.

p/s When I was referring to the forums 'Usual Suspects' (those who take a predictable line every time) you did not readily spring to mind, you tend to be a bit of a maverick. Sometimes you confuse me on issues, particularly the Aboriginal issue, as to where you are coming from, then astound me by making a great deal of sense.

A program like Q&A should be 60% anti government of the day, 40% questioning of the opposition. As it is the government in power that is setting the political agenda and direction (hopefully), while the opposition is more or less responding to that agenda and direction. In general I would expect a perceived bias against the government from the political pundits and those debating the issues, including the ABC. Get very little of that from private media outlets, they tend just to peddle the particular political philosophy of the proprietor and nothing else, but that may not be 100% in support of any particular party, although in Australia it is mostly in support of the conservative Coalition.

"A program like Q&A should be 60% anti government of the day, 40% questioning of the opposition"

Then Q&A would easily exceed your biassed expectations.

However, the great majority of the public expects the independent, balanced, factual service promised by the ABC, that is variable or even missing in some programs.

It must be damned hard for the ABC staff of yesteryear to watch and endure what the ABC has become. Many of them would have been squeezed out by the 'networking' (aka favouritism) of the leftist Emilys Listers and the toadying Hipsters who hang from their coat tails.

That some of them openly boast about using their networks to take jobs underlines the prevalence and apparent acceptability of favouritism. How times have changed.

Times have certainly changed for some.

I remember the days when we could keep politics out
of discussions and debates. When no one liked
abusive, illogical debaters. When labelling people
was not appropriate, and the list goes on.

Anything out of news time is entertainment, unless there is a documentary. Wasn,t this discussion repeated some time back.

Leoj, are you some X ABC employee who is privy to the inner secret machinations of the organisation. You pretend to be all knowing, all wise, on all matters, the mouth peace of the silent moderate majority no less. If your not inside the heads of ABC employees your sitting in on Greens meetings, etc, taking notes no doubt! Or is it nothing more than the delusional codswallop of some poor bloke isolated in a bed sit in Prahran, or some other irksome place.

Foxy, about the only thing that has change is voters no longer hurl rotten fruit at prospective polititions on street corners, when they say things before an election that they don't like.

doog, who says nature doco's can't be entertaining, tell that to David Attenborough, as he watches a Red Brested Tit from the concealment of the bushes, down at the beach.

Hi Paul,

As a nature-lover, I can watch those all day. [Now I'll be in trouble with the gay bullies].

If the ABC is supposed to be 'balanced', I'm not sure that 60: 40 is the way to achieve it. My maths is pretty rusty and I certainly agree that a public broadcaster should not tilt more than 50 % towards the government of the day, even if it is getting public funding, but 60: 40 sounds just a bit like tilting the other way.

Thanks to ABC Classic, I've just learnt that today is J. S. Bach's birthday ! Imagine if every composer had lived another twenty years or more, what wonderful music might have been produced. Fifty years for Mozart :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

On the other hand the incumbent can expect to receive more positive air time than the opposition. That is the case with the ABC where Turnbull and his ministers are more likely to be interviewed on news items than the opposition is. After all its the government that is making the day to day decisions, and introducing the bills. which affects our daily lives. Other than Shorten, does anyone complain Turnbull receives more air than SHorten.
Note I did not say the bias should be against the conservatives, if its Labor in government then the perceived biased should be against them for the above reasons.

Paul1405,

What you confirm is that your Greens are just an elitist mob of stirrers and mud-slingers, with no pretensions of ever forming a government, or ever working with one as Gillard, other senior Labor figures and senior Greens too, have often said.

But the ABC has a reputation for being soft on the Green Left too.

Bob Brown was Julia Gillard's worst critic and did most of the white-anting of her leadership and government. He should be credited with the damage he wrought. He did that by claiming credit for what Labor did, disloyally (as a supposed partner) beating PM Gillard to the punch in announcing changes (and with a Greens spin that was never complimentary to Gillard) and by constant criticism. "One may smile, and smile, and be a villain" [Shakespeare's Hamlet]. Brown did alright for himself personally too.

Yet the ABC and its Q&A and other shows never seriously challenged Bob Brown. Did they challenge him at all? They gave Brown many free kicks though.

Correction: I don't know what's wrong with my brain: J. S. Bach was born on March 26, 1685. Today is Haydn's birthday.

Joe

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4DEdHqewjo

Hi Leoj,

But then there's Wynton Marsalis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb5MSJcBb9o

Magic !

I can't top that. Happy senses.

Dear Joe,

Johann Sebastian Bach was born on 31st March 1685.

There's nothing wrong with your brain.

You were right all along.

Joseph Haydn was also born on the 31st March but in 1732.

Dearest Foxy,

And all these years, I believed it was the 26th. How the mighty have fallen :)

Love,

Joe

Leoj, as a Hansonite you present a blinkered hysterical fallacious view when it comes to what was the reality of the relationship between The Greens and the Gillard Government. But I expect nothing less from the all knowing, all seeing, you can claim whatever you feel is appropriate. When it suits you, you will claim Gillard was a total incompetent who's government had no redeeming features, done no worthwhile good what so ever, so how is it Bob Brown would be able to claim any credit from such a disaster.

Dear Joe,

You having fallen?

Not with your wings.

Never!

You'll always continue to soar.

Dear Angel Foxy,

But never as high as you :)

Okay, this is getting a bit too sugary: back to the topic.

Maybe there is a problem with the very format of Q & A: panelists are asked (supposedly without notice) to articulate complicated answers to questions on the spot, with very limited time allowed before the next question, or interruptions from Tony.

Some issues are very complicated, and any thoughtful position on them may take the entire hour to unravel or expound. However, the very format demands that simple, quick answers are on-tap to complex and convoluted and many-sided issues. But after all, even at local council meetings, a couple of hours may be spent on deliberating over whether or not to remove a tree, or modify a roadway.

Ideally, the program should run for a couple of hours AND be more balanced, maybe with four contestants equally differentiated into clearly Left and clearly Right players, two of each(with perhaps a couple of Reserves). That would give all combatants more time to explain their positions. As well, fewer Dorothy Dixers should be scheduled, each question perhaps matched with an opposing question. Fewer interruptions would help the flow of discussion.

If this occurred, yes, the whole proceedings may get much more boring, but issues could be played out closer to the point of exhaustion, and it could be arranged that the same questions don't get asked over and over again at succeeding Q & As, so that each week's contest could be more varied and perhaps unpredictable, and any changes to the premiership table more exciting.

Just trying to help.

Joe

What, no amateur funnyman, no Joker, Paul1405?

Please supply examples where Leigh Sales, or the woman with the Hitler hairdo, Alberici, or any of the other any of the ABC's big hitters, have ever seriously questioned Bob Brown (recently acting as a pirate on the high seas), or any other Green senator, for instance the awful Lee Rhiannon, or Rhiannon's boy toady in NSW, Sh**bridge?

These are your good 'mates' or so you claim, so do go ahead with examples of the ABC ever being more than limp and cooperative where the green left is concerned. The ABC TV, radio too, allows the leftists and Greens Trots a challenge-free podium for free hits and long rants. Yet most of the time the ABC could easily have given the right of reply during the interview. But then the ABC gives oxygen to single activists with a phone anda fax, while never informing its audience of that fact, that the 'Spokesperson' or 'Chair' for 'National Organisation X' represents no-one but her/himself, or that s/he may be the tool of an overseas interest interfering in Australian politics. Those are the flakey and faceless interests that the Greens and other leftist activists are into.

Maybe the ABC finds some entertainment in the cynical ambulance chasing Greens, stirrers. But most believe it goes further than that with the pampered ABC bureaucrats who never (like the Greens senators) have ben caused to render a real, practical contribution to society

What about the plump, pampered and smug Tony Jones? Can you give any instances where he has 'shirt fronted' Bob Brown or any Green since? Tony Jones did Brown's job for him by always bringing up the subject of gay this or that, if no plant in the Q&A audience was instantly available.

The ABC and Q&A especially, has been the mouthpiece for gay activism and like the Greens senators, obsessed with gay promotion. Or at least the promotion of the agenda of gay activism, which was not necessarily what the main body of homosexuals had ever wanted, but had shoved down their necks too.

Dear Joe,

Great suggestions and well worth a try.

Anything can be improved with fresh new ideas under
fair-minded, objective,experienced leadership.
However, as we all
know with cut backs in funding changes are not always
easy to implement. And especially when the cut backs
are politically driven - it makes things even more
difficult.

'Cut-backs' never prevented the ABC's Q&A form conceiving and screening this, the 'triumph of the ignoble Savage' (Herald Sun) and ors,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoUIa5_yFI8

"And Hitchens’ disdain for the host was in itself a pleasure to see, which really came out when he asked why he alone from amongst all the guests was being interrupted in the middle of his point. And he would not let go and made the point over again even while being interrupted"

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/11/05/peter-hitchens-on-qa/

The comments on Hitchen's blog were interesting.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/11/an-australian-encounter.html

The following link is equally interesting:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/ray-martin-delivers-his-verdict-on-qa/news-story/1f2231b6c273b0fe026f6e5472888801

Q&A does need more spontaneity. The Twitter diehards might
go a long way in spicing things up a little.

Ignoring real video examples of Tony Jones' and Q&A's slanted subject matter, choice of invitees and audiences, and the compere's behaviour, is not convincing.

The ABC has taken every opportunity to normalise anal sex and other risky sexual practices.

Just another example of the ABC's leftist (NOT Left) 'Progressive' editorial policy. - Not the published editorial policy and ethics, but the informal versions that apply through behaviour and really must be getting the approving nod from 'upstairs' somewhere.

Twitter? That is funny.

Sometimes humour is the only appropriate reaction
due to the absurdities raised by some people.

"The ABC has taken every opportunity to normalise anal sex and other risky sexual practices"

It is amazing what the perverted mind can think up! I wounder what else lurks in the dark recesses of that degenerate space.

Foxy,

What you have to realise that despite the confirming echo chamber where you might lurk on Twitter or the Web, your opinions are extreme are not shared by the very great majority of Australians. You might have 'useful idiots' on your side of course, the green leftists as an example.

leoj,

You really appear to be a master of the irrelevant
monologue. Like a rattlesnake
you always have fresh venom.
From your posts little is learnt
except baiting and arguing.

You should realise that people will eventually grow
indifferent. They either will ignore you
totally, or don't bother reading the same predictable
nonsense or both. Most likely both.

I guess that is one way of avoiding the facts about Q&A's Savage spectacular.

However no-one would ever believe that the ABC has any regard for what the public wants when it wastes its considerable resources, lavishing attention on Savage et al and giving him a podium for his disgusting antics.

So much for the ABC's claimed 'balance'.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is to appear on Q&A along side
a very distinguished panel on Monday evening
3rd April 2017.

Many people will be grateful for the opportunity
to hear this speaker. Debate is always better
than censorship. I'm sure most thinking
Australians would agree.

Foxy,

Good news, thank you.

One precious angel and perhaps too brave.

Foxy, if I could send you a private message it would read; "AVOID THE SERPENT". In a previous life he was able to upset you to the point of quitting the forum. When he refers to you as "extreme" take it as a compliment. When one is orbiting somewhere to the right of Pluto, those on the planet Earth would indeed appear as extreme.
Leo are you still a disciple of Jim Saleam, or is the new persona simply to mask your true politics and present you as a more moderate Hansonite.

Paul1405,

It is those own rollies, right?

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your concern.

It is appreciated and I will heed your advice.

LeoW, just because you follow the example of you fearless leader, the lovely Pauline, "has admitted to puffing on the illegal drug three times”, does not mean I do. Do you all partake of the "evil weed" before party meetings, what other explanation can there be for such wacko way out policies. Every time I see the loverly Pauline she appears not to be with us. Im her case the drug must be having a very long lasting effect, what about you?

Thanks Foxy, for that heads-up about the wonderful feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, on Q & A tomorrow night. That's enough to make me want to watch it.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

It is a distinguished panel and should make
for an interesting evening. Also hopefully, it will
give us much to discuss on this forum.

How is this for utter clap trap from the Hansonite Leoj:

"no-one would ever believe that the ABC has any regard for what the public wants"

Tonight the Q&A panel is;

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women rights activist.
Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Helle Thorning-Schmidt, CEO of Save the Children International, and former PM of Denmark.
Paul Kelly, editor-at-large on The Australian nmewspaper.

What do you have to say Leo, is the Q&A panel stacked with, radical lefties and terrorists tonight? (well there is a Muhammad, a couple of women, and a Kelly) I can only assume in your eyes it is, the lovely Pauline is not there so its no good. maybe the ABC is having an off night.

Hi Paul,

But even you would have to agree that tonight's Q & A panel is unusually balanced ?

You might be interested to know, by the way, that Drumpf has signed into law,

“An Act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa, the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic.”

Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin was the lieutenant-Governor of American Samoa and US Congress member, a Mormon and a strong supporter of Drumpf; he passed away about six weeks ago. Who said there are no benefits in the afterlife ?

I suppose there will be the usual suspects in the audience tonight ?

Cheers,

Joe

Paul1405,

What, no more amateur funnyman from the Greens Eastern Bloc Joker?

Agreed that tonight's Q&A appears the odd man out as far as the panel composition is concerned.

So it is easy to understand why you are losing the plot.

However Tony Jones with the hidden, faceless puppeteers behind his earphone, the audience questions they have already 'helped'(sic) draft, the adroit stage-management (how much of Q&A isn't scripted? LOL) and the sly 'random'(another belly laugh at that) twitter messages an artifice to interrupt the viewers concentration will counteract the apparent normality of this one, rather unique concession to providing a public service.

-As opposed to the ABC management's leftist 'Progressive' elite presuming to 'educate' what they construe as a bovine public, too stupid to ever know what is good for them.

This Q&A program might be the exception to the rule, but all of he hidden, unaccountable influencers who have directed the program to promoting the political agenda of leftist 'Progressivism' (regressivism), remain. With their amply demonstrated history of spruiking, as examples, hatred of 'Whites' (werll, Angle-Celtic ones anyhow, hence the endless diversity to disrupt them and their institutions), Gay Pride, radical feminism, the futures of Emily's Listers and so on.

So Paul 1405, how are the war plans progressing at the Greens Eastern Bloc to flood the media with complaints about Q&A not having 'real' Muslim experts on the panel? Or for even allowing the leftist-despised Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak?

Hi Leoj,

If what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been opposing is conservative, medieval, backward and reactionary, I can't understand why the 'Left' doesn't see her as a progressive alternative, an ally, a breath of fresh air blowing on stale and rotten dogma, a questioner rather than an acceptor, and therefore on the Left ? What does the word mean otherwise ?

Does one have to defend or champion the most vile philosophies to be counted as 'Left' these days ?

Maybe we should never use words like 'Left' and 'Right' ever again, but talk of 'progressive' (and surely Ayaan is that ?) and 'reactionary', with 'conservative' somewhere in the middle to signify people's point of view that you don't change something if its alternative may be worse.

Surely Hizt-ut-Tahrir, or anybody who calls for the use of terror, is reactionary ? Surely calls for reform and change of backward doctrines such as Islam is progressive (and long overdue) ? I really can't understand where the 'Left' is heading these days. As my old grandmother would say, what happened to its nuts ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Devastating news. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has cancelled her
Australian tour including her appearance on Q&A
tonight.

So disappointing. I was really looking forward to
watching Q&A. Security was one of the reasons given
for the last minute cancellation:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/controversial-islam-critic-hirsi-ali-cancels-tour-and-scheduled-qa-appearance-20170403-gvc6k3.html

Perhaps the best reaction to this would be to buy her latest
book - "Heretic," and pass it on to family and friends.

Dearest Foxy,

Good idea. It is really disappointing that bullying and terror tactics can win so easily.

Perhaps there will be joint rallies of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and sections of the 'Left', maybe the Trots, to celebrate. Sometimes you think that the world is full of useful idiots.

Well, yes, of course it is.

Love,

Joe

Sad news that a tour of Australia is too dangerous for a human rights campaigner.

Disgusting that some media outlets including the ABC refer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a 'controversial' figure. If the editors and producers of print and electronic media regard what she says as 'controversial', then heaven help Australia. What arrogance and hypocrisy.

Well that went better than I thought it would. But still .....

My scoring:

Linda Burney interruptions: 1; prompts: 1.
Muhammad Yunus: interruptions: 0; prompts: 1.
The ex-PM of Denmark: interruptions: 3; prompts: 3
Paul Kelly: interruption 0 [!]; prompts: 1.
Josh Frydenberg: interruptions: 11; prompts: 1.

Total interruptions: 15.
Total prompts: 9.
And one "I'll take that as a comment", but from Frydenberg to Tony.

Muhammad Yunus has had a lot of trouble with a hostile Bangla government in the last decade, so he had to be pretty circumspect in his comments about Islam, especially given the murders of academics and many others for their comments there about it.

On the whole, it went okay. Some good questions too.

Next week ? We'll see.

Joe

Leoj, you cannot remove the egg on face, its to fried on, you cannot do that simply by offering more of your fictitious opinions as facts. You consider yourself the all seeing, all knowing one when it comes to all things left, that, you are not, always digging yoursrelf into a hole. After making a ridiculous claim about the Q&A panel, a few names of conservative polititions who have appeared on the panel in the last six months.

Arthur Sinodinos, Sussan Ley, Barnaby Joyce, Eric Abetz, Josh Frydenberg and George Brandis, there are many more names, to numerous to list. Were these people scripted as to what to say? Topics covered have been wide and varied from boarder security to gay marriage. According to you not the kind of topics Australian want discussed. Then pray tell, what do they what discussed> Given your political slant there must be lots of subjects that are taboo, what can we talk about?

After the ridiculous claim that ""no-one would ever believe that the ABC has any regard for what the public wants", you now move to claim the panelists are scripted, and its all orchestrated by the manipulative lefty producers. Nonsense like "Tony Jones with the hidden, faceless puppeteers behind his earphone, the audience questions they have already 'helped'(sic) draft, the adroit stage-management (how much of Q&A isn't scripted? LOL) and the sly 'random'(another belly laugh at that) twitter messages an artifice to interrupt the viewers concentration will counteract the apparent normality of this one, rather unique concession to providing a public service."

Leo, from what part of your anatomy did you extract those "facts" from? Otherwise, where is the evidence.

The only thing funnier than a Greens Eastern Bloc Joker, is a rabid right wing Hansonite trying to present the "facts"!

cont

cont

Leo's mob in power and Q&A would be replaced with the long and tiresome rantings of the squeaky voiced fearless leader, occasionally interrupted by the mournful sounds of Wagner!

"Sad news that a tour of Australia is too dangerous for a human rights campaigner."

And to think, Australia has hosted PM's and Presidents, Popes and pop stars, without security problems. And someone who 99.9% of the population have never heard of, has "security" concerns. Just a cop out.

"....And to think, Australia has hosted PM's and Presidents, Popes and pop stars, without security problems. And someone who 99.9% of the population have never heard of, has "security" concerns. Just a cop out."

It's the small percentage within the population that is the problem.

Hi Paul & Is Mise,

I would suggest that the proportion of Australians who are familiar with either the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or at least with her proposed visit, would be far more than that of Islamist terrorists or would-be terrorists (who probably number more than we think).

If you checked out any uni campus, Paul, you would find that most know of her. The Muslim population would know of her. In fact, I would respectfully suggest that more Australians now of her, could recognise her picture, and/or would be broadly in sympathy with her views, than they would any jumped-up emir of sheikh or imam.

Yes, you might be right IF you mean what's left of the 'Left': they would generally have made every effort NOT to know her or anything about her. i.e. the standard religious approach to what believers regard as 'of the devil'.

It would be easy to do a survey, in the street, or at a uni campus - just ask people at random if they recognise pictures of: Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Lee Rhiannon; Bob Brown; Adele; Trumpf; and, say, Sir Henry Parkes.

Who do you reckon would come second last ?

Cheers,

Joe

I watched Q&A last night with some nervousness
I must admit. I thought that there might be some
sort of a disruption or demonstration. Much to my
relief there wasn't and things flowed along rather
well with some interesting questions. The editor
of "The Australian," was particularly impressive,
but then so were the others on the panel. Not
bad viewing all round.

I still don't quite understand why Ayaan Hirsi Ali
cancelled her Australian tour at the last minute.
She's used to "security" fears - she travels around
the globe under strict protection. She's been to
Australia before and appeared on Q&A previously -
and "security" fears have not stopped her in the
past. She is well aware of the type of attention that
her speaking engagements attrack and in the past she
has refused to be silenced. So what happened this time?

Security was given as just one of the reasons for her
cancellation. There was another statement that was
issued as well which stated:

"...She was left with no alternative following a
succession of organisational lapses on the part of the
event organisers - "Think, Inc"

Anyway, let us hope that she will return to Australia
sometime in the near future. In the meantime I recommend
that we all try to get hold of her latest book - "Heretic".

Tony Jones leapt in quickly, insistent and persistent int trying to bracket Ayaan Hirsi Ali's security concerns as probably minor to make her and her motivations the issue (and negative one would assume).

-Which Tony Jones would then have take taken further to diminish her credibility given the opportunity. However, it was made very obvious by some panelists, a woman ex-PM no less, that his attempt to question Ayaan Hirsi Ali's credibility just wasn't on.

So yes, the hidden secondary editorial policy of Q&A was obvious and Tony Jones' earpiece would have been running hot with prompts.

Just wait for the come-back by the ABC's hidden persuaders, with plenty of Muslim fundies and activist 'White Knights' to set it right, that is far leftist, again.

In closing, confidently expect more attempts by the ABC and other media, an example being SMH, to dirty-up Ayaan Hirsi Ali with the 'controversial' tag and more pejoratives to go with it.

Hi Foxy,

"nervousness", it turned out to be one of the best Q&A's this year, an excellent and knowledgeable panel. As a lefty I found myself in agreement with the conservative newspaper man Paul Kelly on a number of points.
One issue which was discussed, and unfortunately gets little traction in Australia is our foreign aid budget. I agree with Josh Frydenberg that our aid focus should be our near neighbors in the Asia/Pacific region. What I do not agree with is the appalling amount this government now commits to aid, 0.22% of GDP from an aspirational level of 0.5%. There appears to be little possibility of improvement without a change of government

Dear Paul,

Yes it did turn out well, I agree.

I too was very impressed with the rational of the
Editor, Paul Kelly, of The Australian newspaper.
He presented some very balanced views on a wide
variety of issues - and of course Josh Fridenberg's
explanation regarding foreign aid made a great deal
of sense. I also enjoyed the former Prime Minister
of Denmark's comments.

A good evening all round and I was glad that I watched
the program. It was fair and well balanced. We may not
always agree with everything on the show - but at least
it's a TV program where a wide variety of views is
represented.

Paul1405, "As a lefty.."

You and some others flatter yourself as 'Left'.

- Maybe before your own lunchtime washroom mirror, but apart from that don't be so ridiculous. LOL

Tony Jones, Q&A host appearing to play down the security risk as, 'a little bit exaggerated'. Why would Jones and Q&A's producers do that? However, if it came down to 'only demonstrators' as the sole matter affecting risk (which is not the case one would think), there is Q&A's own sorry record in protecting its guests and in giving a podium to at least one risky individual,

ABC's transcript,
TONY JONES
Josh... Josh, I’m just going to interrupt you there. I mean, you saw the petition. There are less than 400 signatures on it. It was hardly a kind of groundswell of opinion trying to stop her from coming here. And indeed, the police, who we spoke to, said that there was going to be a demonstration outside the ABC, but there weren’t enough people to actually make up a demonstration. So, it does seem the security issues are a little bit exaggerated.

JOSH FRYDENBERG
Well, if you look around the world, extremist Islam has been responsible for a number of very serious security incidents. So, you can’t take that lightly. I defer to the experts.

TONY JONES
I know, there’s no question. I mean, she obviously has a situation where someone who made a documentary film about her was murdered, but I’m simply saying there didn’t seem to be a huge groundswell here from what we could see from the petition, anyway
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4631140.htm

Leoj, your phony forum comments are legendary, you ran and hid from your previous posted rubbish, do you think the new tag gives you some sort of credibility, unfortunately it don't, garbage is still garbage, no matter what tag you give yourself, you can't escape the garbage, although I see no mention of the Fabians these days, are they off the radar? You kid us that you have insider knowledge on everything from The Greens to the ABC, when all you have to offer is your biased Hansonite opinions.

Good to see you were able to find the Q&A web site and access the transcript of Monday's program. What is the point of your last cut and paste post, does it prove something?

Paul1405,

Your contemptuous dismissal of the security threats affecting Muslim women's emancipation rights and human campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali and your disgusting disrespect towards her are NOT the actions of the Left that always prided itself on freedom of speech and choice for everyone, not just an elite.

You should not take any comfort or self-justification either that there are other more slippery but equally trenchant opponents of the emancipation of Muslim women who side with you in supporting the medieval totalitarianism that forces girls and women to wear the ISIL's all-enveloping black and blue garbage bags for women.

But then the NSW 'Eastern Bloc' of the Greens that you represent are notorious for such ill-conceived Trotskyist demonstrations as the gutless picketing of an innocent Brisbane chocolate shopkeeper in an attempt to destroy his business and using local government to wage a blockade against Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East.

Max Brenner's chocolate shop
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/protesters-target-max-brenner-cafe-20110826-1jeec.html

Obviously, the Greens are the haters of politics, the opportunist ambulance chasers and the cynical political elite who value getting their fat behinds on leather Senate seat before honesty and good sense. Hypocrites.

Your already poor credibility is not assisted by your forum 'Joker' and the other childish behaviour you carry on with.

Hi Leoj & paul,

I'm still puzzled why it is dreadful to offend someone by pointing out truths that everybody in the business knows, as the wonderful Bill Leak did, but it's quite okay to hector and harass and intimidate businesses like Brenner's, and to threaten someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali with five thousand violent demonstrators.

Also, while we're at it, isn't it bullying to stand over firms to make them adopt pro-homosexual policies ? And is somebody going to be sued for offending some homosexual in the street, when they refuse to accept one of those rings ?

And most of all, I'm puzzled, flummoxed really, how Islamists and homosexuals can work side-by-side to stamp out free speech: maybe because both are completely opportunist ? Somebody mentioned Trotskyites, so that's a slight possibility. Of course, they're both, in their own perverted ways, Utopian, (even if their notions of Utopia differ slightly) and therefore totalitarian. Totalitarians tend to get on well together, up to a point.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, Loudmouth,

1) Much of it is about money. Whitlam's government was the enabler and paved the way for them. There was the immediate realisation that sectors of dependency could be created and usefully farmed for votes in marginal seats.

2) The use of the devastating Hegelian Paradigm, both sides and to better effect by the leftists - devising a 'problem' to which they already have the 'cure'. That and concentration on the short term.

3) Cult of individualism. Selfishness. Egocentrism. Career politicians.

But cutting to the chase, knowing what you know about life and largely and gained experientially or so it seems to me where you are concerned, you wouldn't exchange places with any of them and nor would I.

Maybe I could add something there about the existential themes and how life has a habit of coming back to bite and when it is least expected and at the worst time.

Hi Leoj,

Yeah, I wonder if there's a sort of rule that crap ideologies will sometimes work together - so current post-modernist 'feminism', Islamism and homosexual ideologies seem to get along together. Weird. Thirty-odd years ago, I thought that feminists would have the sense to keep a distance from homosexual politics, in spite of the perceived slight overlap, because their trajectories were really quite different, but no. I got that wrong.

But on the bright side, check out: https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/inbox/rp

So now half-brained 'feminists' capitulate to both the homosexual lobby AND the Islamists. Truly, truly weird.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

The notion that certain groups in society tend to shelter under the same umbrella is true only to a certain extent, this can be said of groups from, for want of better terminology, left and right. In the above example it would be wrong to say in support for each others objectives, feminists = homosexuals = Islamists.

Got an old school reggae band tonight, so have to go for now.

Dear Paul,

Isn't it interesting that people who claim to be
proponents of 'Freedom of Speech" (only their own
it seems) are so passionate and against any
criticism that is raised on issues that don't agree
with their viewpoint. Why do they feel they have the
right to criticise everything under the sun, but
criticism of what they passionately believe in is
off limits. A bit one-sided isn't it? And what's with
the constant "labelling?" Most puzzling!

Hi Foxy,

What you say is entirely true, I think the George Brandis comment of 2014 sums it up "(people have) a right to be bigots", and to some extent I have to agree with that. What I do not agree with is peoples right to racially vilify others. On the "Muslim" issue many Australians cannot differentiate, or care not to, between, terrorists, refugees and ordinary people of the Islamic faith. Simply taring the lot with the same brush, and be damned with it. That is a simplistic, and oh so easy line to take, absolving them of all blame and responsibility.

Hi Paul,

No, I'm certainly not equating various opportunist trends, simply that opportunists of all shades will suck up to each other while it's convenient, simply because they perceive a common enemy - in this case, Western values, of a balance between freedoms and equality, the rule of law, democracy, all imperfect principles with a never-ending quest for improvement.

Opportunists may not kiss each others' arses for long: I recall a cartoon of David Low's, showing Mussolini rushing troops to the Austrian border as soon as the Nazis enforced the Anschluss and invaded Austria. No love lost there. And the way the Nazis invaded fascist Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary when it suited in 1943 or 1944.

More recently, the Russians and Turks were cuddling up to each other, but perhaps that opportunism has worn thin now that the US has bombed that Syrian air base. Perhaps, in the spirit of rank opportunism, Russia will junk Assad if they can get assurances that they can retain their air base and port facilities in Syria. The mutual arse-kissing of Duterte's Philippines and China may not last long, if Duterte grows a couple and occupies some of the shoals in the Spratleys.

Sometimes opportunism has a very short shelf-life, Paul :)

I hope the faux 'Left' can learn that. Nah, too late for that.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Paul,

No. People do not have the right to be bigots!
Not in this country - not yet!
And I trust they never will. The Senate did not
allow for changes to 18C - and why should they,
it's served us well for decades and we have 18D
that works very nicely with it, that protects
our freedom of speech.

The ultimate problem is the fact that some people take
this freedom and use it to belittle, demean, and
persecute vulnerable people.

What we must decide as a country is whether unfettered
freedom of speech is more important than protecting
vulnerable people.

Dearest Foxy,

How do you define 'bigot' ? The problem is that what may seem perfectly obvious to you may seem like bigotry to somebody else, and of course vice versa. There's no 'Big Brother' or government agency (nor can there ever be, I hope) to decide what is bigotry and what is not.

Yes, you're right: how to balance freedom of expression with the rights of people not to be harassed or humiliated, or to have violent action incited against them such as in the BDS campaign.

That's always going to be a very difficult balance to strike, since we are talking about the very edge of 'freedom' on the one hand and 'protection' on the other. Should, for example, companies be bullied into supporting the homosexual lobby by the threat of their getting boycotted by customers ? Should churches be stood over for issuing a pamphlet supporting the law ? If bigotry is not legal, then in that case, who are the bigots ?

It's a far harder, and constant, task than it may seem.

Love,

Joe

Hi Joe,

Its all a case of my enemies, enemy is my friend. You like to refer to the faux 'Left', exactly in Australia who are you referring to? Left/right such hackneyed and cliched terms, that are done to death, the French have a lot to answer for on that score. In the context of Australian politics I much prefer the terminology progressive and conservative, and when taken on a issue by issue bases the vast majority are a mix of the two. I can find very few who want to turn our whole social, economic and political structure on its head, those I would label as radical in the extreme.

On gay marriage for example, if you are pro gay marriage then you support progressive change, if you want to retain the status quo then you are conservative, neither can be termed left or right, up or down or whatever, because on the very next issue the two persons in question could be ass about, and so on.

In the case of the forums Hansonite, me thinks he reads too much, and gets all tangled up in hyperbole. Nothing in politics get up the nose of the "oh! so serious" crusty old conservative than a bit of humor.

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I don't see homosexual marriage as progressive - maybe it's not conservative either -

(although when I was much younger, I took it for granted that the English upper classes were all 'poofters', as we used to crudely call them, that they had contempt for women except to procreate an heir to their fortunes [once they had done that, they could bugger off with their boyfriends and any nearby little boys], actually a bit like the attitude to women that some Muslims had, hence the disgust at the notion of Allah being produced of a woman),

- but I can't for the life of me see anything progressive about it. Maybe I've become a conservative bigot :)

So maybe even the terms 'progressive' and 'conservative' are no longer much use ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Paul,

We often hear the argument that gay marriage undermines
western civilization. Personally, it is hard to see how
the promotion of love, commitment, sharing, and
commonality isn't going to strengthen civilization a lot
sooner than it is going to undermine it.

Hi Foxy,

I take your point, but I think what Joe has said is valid. How do you legislate against bigoted thinking. Fred in his mind hates black people, Fred has a sign in his shop window, "No Black People Served".We can legislate against Fred's blatant discrimination, but we can't legislate against Fred's bigoted thinking. When one causes harm then action can be taken.
Real example, an interview with Pauline Hanson, the reporter asked several times, did she agree there were good Muslims in society, Hanson refused to answer. An indication she is bigoted against Muslims, what could she be charged with, not loving Muslims. If Hanson was to belittle, demean, and/or persecute vulnerable people, then she should be prosecuted. Of course Hanson in power there would be no worries, about 18 anything it would be all tossed out like dirty dishwater to the cheering to some of our fellow forumites.

Hi Joe,

Gay marriage I see as progressive, in so far as it represents a change from the existing fixed position. If gay marriage was accepted, then down the track it was rescinded then that would be regressive, a return to the old values. Fluoride in the tap water was progressive when first introduced, as none existed before.
Some progressive changes are far more complex and slow moving, in education for example. I must say not all progressive changes are necessarily for the good. When society is divided or there are strong vested interests then the issue becomes political, global warming is really a scientific issue, but vested interests turned it into a political issue. I take a conservative, even regressive view on abortion, as I do not see progressive change as a positive.

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I still don't see it. Strange: fifty years ago, it was seen as daring and maybe even 'Left' for a man and woman NOT to get married, simply to live together. Of course, that always put the woman in a comparatively weak position, especially since she was the one who had the kids and the care for them while her 'Leftist' partner went out to work and did important things to change society. Marriage was looked on as a bit too stuffy and conventional for genuine revolutionaries.

So now, instead of defiantly staying 'out', homosexuals want to get 'in', by changing the meaning of the word 'marriage'. I don't care enough to worry too much about it, homosexuals can do what they like with each other, simply live together like so many normal people [go for it], but 'marriage' is - call me what you like - between a man and a woman. End of.

So, for me, what is 'progressive' these days ? Ameliorating any social injustices, bringing about equity (especially of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians) and being careful not to go down too many dead-ends, or be caught supporting bogus 'victims'.

What's a current 'progressive' issue ? Closing the Gap, (a) finding ways to employ as many able-bodied Indigenous people as possible in earning their own livelihood, like anybody else; (b) making sure that Indigenous kids get the best education [in order to meet the conditions for (a) ]; (c) making sure that Indigenous health is improved by heavy propagandising about the importance of diet and exercise, to facilitate (b) and (a).

Better wages for the lowest paid. Better social supports for refugees and their integration into Australian society. Much more analysis and promotion of 'Australian values'. Far more tree-planting, especially in the North where climate change will mean better rainfall, and the development of vast plantation forests into a multitude of Indigenous enterprises: nurseries, timber mills in the future, etc., and therefore vital need for a huge range of skills: genuine conservation management, forestry, plant biology, mill management, timber-working, hydraulic engineering.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Paul,

Of course there are people who see the world in
very rigid and stereotyped terms. Prejudiced people
are not concerned about genuine group characteristics,
they simply accept any negative statement that feeds their
hostility. The irrationality of prejudice shows that
prejudiced people may be hostile toward groups they
could never have met or even have heard of. And legislation
is not about to change their thinking, I agree. However
what it may do is curtail what they may say.

All societies, including democratic ones, put various
limitations on what people may say. We have laws covering
libel and slander, urging violence, and so on. And that is
as it should be.

Joe,

This is where your logic on same-sex marriage falls flat:

<<… marriage' is … between a man and a woman. End of.>>

The problem with this thinking is two-pronged. Firstly, it ignores that marriage is, and has always been, a fluid concept. Secondly, it fails to recognise that marriage is a social construct, not a divinely-dictated one. Societies determine what marriage is, yet you appear to be appealing to a higher truth that transcends us all. A higher truth that has set the definition of marriage in stone to what it just happens to be today (at least in Australia).

There is no reasoning in your position. It’s just the way you feel, and that’s not good enough if you want to argue against same-sex marriage. Your position is irrational.

Same-sex marriage is a very Left/Progressive issue, and your position on this issue is absolutely Right/Conservative, as are your stances on so many other issues.

Hi AJ,

There are no gods, so nothing can be 'divinely-inspired'.

Marriage as a fluid concept ? In what societies ? When and were ?

God, I wish I cared.

Joe

Joe,

Marriage has been a fluid concept in most (probably all) societies concept since its origins. The idea of marriage being about love is actually relatively recent development. It’s been a form of trade and a way of forming alliances at various times in various societies.

But even if marriage had never before changed, that still wouldn't be an argument against changing it, and to insist that it was would be a fallacious appeal to tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

<<There are no gods, so nothing can be 'divinely-inspired'.>>

Of course. So then how do you justify your insistence that marriage can never be inclusive of same-sex couples? From what authority or source is this supposed truth coming?

<<God, I wish I cared.>>

Obviously you do because you express your disdain towards such gay activism quite frequently. The question is why do you care? If the thought of two blokes kissing just irks you, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that your stance against same-sex marriage is in any way rational.

Hi A,

How do your examples show that marriage is fluid ? Do you mean, the social significance of it, or the legal standing of it ?

As someone in a society in which freedom of opinion is allowed, I really don't give a toss about changing the legal definition of 'marriage': 'leave it alone' is my opinion, which I am entitled to without some jerk trying to bully me on-line. No offense :)

And I am entitled to 'show disdain' for homosexual activity: yes, it can be legal, as long as nobody tries to run their hand up my leg. They can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes or back alleys. What actual activity would constitute 'marriage' that they haven't access to already ? And yes, I approve of heterosexual activity and other normal behaviour.

Nope. Still don't care.

Joe

Up until the very recent joining together of Gay Pride activists and radical feminists,

who believe that women on women with strapped-on super-large faux penises
is 'empowering' ('lesbian intercourse', we are now being informed . LOL) and
consensual heterosexual lovemaking is actually 'rape',

homosexuals and especially the many red-quaffing and Jazz-loving Left homosexuals, would have laughed and objected strenuously in good humour, few were like the angry, egocentric faux leftists of today, if anyone was silly enough to mention marriage.

Marriage was seen as one of society's, the State's, unmentionable, unfair restrictions on heterosexuals and never on the horizon for homosexuals who loved living on the edge and largely unaffected by the State.

Then along came the foxy Faux Redhead, Gillard and her faux Marxist, goose-stepping radical feminist push, who cozied up to the young and stroppy, attention-seeking, US Gay Pride inspired 'Gays' (who were anything but the dictionary's definition of gay) and soon had them believing that the revised de facto definition (desired by the womens movement) was good for gays too. The rest is history, err, make that 'her'story. The educated middle class public bureaucrats and politicians did well out of it though.

It is always interesting that so many who are behind the push for 'gay marriage', which finalises the State's institutionalisation and control of homosexual relationships, claim not to be homosexual themselves and are also NOT supporters of the institution of marriage. Feminists hate marriage and have never concealed their death wish for it.

To think that those cavalier, outlaw homosexuals once used to be able to make and break their own relationships without the 'support' of a State official or lawyer. So much for the freedom they had, but lost, through allowing feminists and some young attention-seeking activists to take over. -Short-sighted activists whose main interest is in forcing 'authority' and 'society' to bend to their wishes, a selfish power trip.

Joe,

By “fluid concept”, I mean marriage is always changing - in both its social significance and its legal standing (I’m not sure what difference that makes, though).

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what a fluid concept is? Either way, it doesn’t matter because whether or not marriage has ever changed says nothing about whether or not it should, hence the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. In fact, let’s agree that marriage has never changed in any way.

So what?

<<… 'leave it alone' is my opinion, which I am entitled to without some jerk trying to bully me on-line.>>

How does pointing out the fallaciousness of your reasoning, or your lack of reasoning, constitute bullying? If I ever express a view that is not grounded in reason, you can be damn sure I want others to point that out. Why would I not want to be alerted to that?

<<And I am entitled to 'show disdain' for homosexual activity:>>

Absolutely. No one has argued otherwise. Likewise, I am entitled to point out the fact that your disdain is irrational.

<<What actual activity would constitute 'marriage' that they haven't access to already ?>>

Probably none (that's a very pragmatic way of approaching your question, for someone who prides themselves on being a lefty).

I could still list a whole heap of benefits to marriage equality, though, such as, well, equality (being a big lefty, I presume you don't need me to expand on that one for you) and immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

<<And yes, I approve of heterosexual activity and other normal behaviour.>>

Strange thing to say but, okay, what do you mean by “normal” then? Do you mean ‘usual’ and ‘typical’ (and if so, what is wrong with homosexuality not being “normal”?), or are you fallaciously appealing to nature here?

<<Nope. Still don't care. >>

Your contempt for gay people (or their activities, at least) suggests otherwise.

Hi AJ,

Thanks for that Appeal to Newness fallacy :) Sorry, I can't discern much fluidity in the legal position of marriage: throughout the West, it's been between one man and one woman, and I can't for the life of me see any point in changing it: homosexuals have the rights to behave as they like, and to live together, etc. and I'm happy to leave it at that. I don't feel I have to be remotely interested in their battles. There are actually much more important issues in the world.

Otherwise, as the great Lionel Hampton used to say during recordings, 'Meeeeeeh.'

Cheers,

Joe

Sorry Joe, but I haven’t committed the Appeal to Novelty fallacy because my arguments for marriage equality do not rely on the fact that it’s new (or even appeal to that, for that matter). I have (here and in other discussions) presented many demonstrable benefits to marriage equality.

<<Sorry, I can't discern much fluidity in the legal position of marriage: throughout the West, it's been between one man and one woman, …>>

Well, I gave you a couple of examples. But that doesn’t matter because I’m happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that it hasn’t. As I pointed out earlier, appealing to tradition is fallacious.

<<… and I can't for the life of me see any point in changing it: homosexuals have the rights to behave as they like, and to live together, etc. ….>>

“For the life of you”? That’s a pretty strong way to put it given that I just provided you with a couple.

<<… I'm happy to leave it at that.>>

I understand. The problem is, however, that others aren’t. So if you want to argue against the changes they want, then it needs to be reason-based.

<<I don't feel I have to be remotely interested in their battles.>>

And you don’t either. No one is asking that you be interested.

<<There are actually much more important issues in the world.>>

Correct. But that doesn’t mean that marriage equality isn’t important.