'The ABC has an internal hatred of Australia'

[nero_bolt]

Posted by: Tom Elliott | 1 April, 2014 - 4:15 PM        

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-drive-blog-with-tom-elliott/the-abc-has-an-internal-hatred-of-austra...                           

Last night I watched Q&A on the ABC.

I haven’t watched Q&A as much as I used to because it’s become a bit predictable, a bit boring and displays the same typical bias week-in week-out, but last night I did watch it and it made me bloody angry.

Last night it was all about human rights, so rather than get four or five Australians who might know something about human rights, Q&A got four people from overseas and one Australian.

The one Australian was Tim Wilson, our newly appointed Human Rights Commissioner.

But the other people on the program were Egyptian author Mona Eltahawy; Somali peace and human rights activist Ilwad Elman; ethics columnist with The Observer in the UK Lucy Siegle; and international director of Human Rights Watch in New York, Kenneth Roth.

That in itself isn’t bad, I think it’s great they’re getting good international guests on these sorts of programs. But then for the next hour, whenever they mentioned Australia it was always in the negative.

Honestly, if you knew nothing about Australia, if you didn’t live here or you had never encountered it before, by the end of that program I reckon you would have decided that Australia was pretty much on a par with Burma or North Korea in terms of what it was like.

- According to the various four foreigners, we are elitist because we have imperial honours that have recently been reintroduced: Yes but all honours are elitist – there is nothing wrong with that. You don’t just reward everybody, you reward the people who do a good job but ‘oh no, that sounds terrible!’

- We are all bigots because we’re having a debate about free speech: Notwithstanding the fact that in the US free speech is a constitutional right. The lone American on the panel decided there was something wrong with us because we contemplated having a debate about a particular issue.

- Apparently we’re all soon to be guilty of hate speak: Speaking out about groups that we don’t like and thereby vilifying them and making them feel bad about themselves.

- And again, when the subject of asylum seekers came up, as it does every week on this program, apparently we are a nation of human rights abusers.

Now, Tim Wilson did a reasonable job trying to stand up for Australia. But he should have done more.

LISTEN: Tim Wilson discusses his appearance on Q&A last night, says he won't be invited back anytime soon http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/wils...

The point is this: Australia is not such a terrible place. It is one of the best countries on earth, it really is. And I’m not just saying that as an Australian; I’m saying that because I’ve travelled to lots of places and I can tell you, you don’t have to go very far around the world to realise that we have a very good system.

We also have a very good lifestyle here; it’s a country that accepts people of all faiths and nationalities and by-and-large they get along pretty well, but you wouldn’t know it if you watched Q&A.

I think the ABC needs to have a look at itself about these sorts of things.

Simply slagging off Australia week-in week-out might appeal to a certain audience that thinks that there’s something terrible about being here and ‘we must write outraged columns about it in newspapers like The Age’, but have a look around the world.

You’d soon realise that we are not a country that massively abuses human rights; we’re not a country where people routinely engage in hate speak.

Judging by all the migrants who have made successes of themselves over here, we are not a nation of bigots otherwise why would so many people want to come here?

If you listened to the audience and more importantly, if you listened to the panellists on Q&A last night, you would think Australia was one of the most appalling places.

I think Q&A is full of bias; I think the ABC has an internal hatred of Australia and I think it was on display last night.

And just the question that these people from overseas do not seem to bother asking themselves is ‘why are people queuing up to get here if this is such a terrible place?’

[izabsmiling]

Boris , it's true ...they can and they do..absolutelty whatever they want and it's perfectly OK 

Australia is open for business our PM tells us.

[i-need-a-martini]

This is laughable.

The episode of Q&A  last Monday night showed Tim Wilson agreeing with most of the comments made by the other panelists. There was no dissent at all other than some slight differences of opinion.

In fact I thought it interesting that Wilson agreed with so much given his background. Yeah he was sitting next to a loud mouthed author. But even they were agreeing with each other fundaumentally. The author of the article says Tim Wilson should have stood up for Australia more. Well perhaps there was nothing to stand up for - the human rights discussion about Australia was all valid and Wilson clearly knows this.

And this idea that the show is stacked is ludicrous. That show was the first for months that there were more left leaning values than there were right leaning values. However, the show was focused on human rights. So that was to be expected.

And the audience stacked? I don't think so. For the last year that have been more Liberal members in the audience than not. Mondays show it was 41 to 31 Labor.

[polksaladallie]

---

@paintsew007 wrote:

reply to nero:

agreed

this is why I cannot watch this Q & A BS programme they

"STACK    THE PANEL" AND the audience!

 STACK

 STACK

---

The audience breakdown on Monday was:-

Coalition  45%

Labor       31%

Greens     14%

Stacked?  Don't think so.

---

[silverfaun]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

@paintsew007 wrote:

reply to nero:

agreed

this is why I cannot watch this Q & A BS programme they

"STACK    THE PANEL" AND the audience!

 STACK

 STACK

---

The audience breakdown on Monday was:-

Coalition  45%

Labor       31%

Greens     14%

---

Stacked?  Don't think so, defence of the ABC by many of the left on here  just confirms my point

---

[izabsmiling]

that's  only what we are told we are here Boris 

that and much worse

[izabsmiling]

The ABC has an internal hatred of Australia

This is meaningless statement 

It has no basis in fact 

[izabsmiling]

Defamation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the malicious statement. For the 2009 film, see Defamation (film).

"Libel" and "Slander" redirect here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation) and Slander (disambiguation).

"Vilification" and "Calumny" redirect here. For the hate crime, see racial vilification. For the Catholic sin, see detraction.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government,religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]

Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[3][not verified in body]. False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4]

In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong.[5] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violatesfreedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[6]

A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "famacide", "libeler" or "slanderer

    Australia[edit]

Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997).

Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Gutnick v Dow Jones is Berezovsky v Forbes in England.[116]

Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.

Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision.[117] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.

Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, e.g., Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit[118] or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.[119]

The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of truth with the condition that a public benefit existed.[120]

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

does this not apply to media publications and online content in Australia ?

[*crikey*mate*]

Not sure, could you summarize?

Please?

[silverfaun]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Defamation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the malicious statement. For the 2009 film, see Defamation (film).

"Libel" and "Slander" redirect here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation) and Slander (disambiguation).

"Vilification" and "Calumny" redirect here. For the hate crime, see racial vilification. For the Catholic sin, see detraction.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government,religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]

Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[3][not verified in body]. False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4]

In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong.[5] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violatesfreedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[6]

A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "famacide", "libeler" or "slanderer

    Australia[edit]

Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997).

Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Gutnick v Dow Jones is Berezovsky v Forbes in England.[116]

Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.

Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision.[117] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.

Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, e.g., Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit[118] or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.[119]

The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of truth with the condition that a public benefit existed.[120]

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

does this not apply to media publications and online content in Australia ?

---

Could you elaborate please.

[izabsmiling]

---

@diamond-halo wrote:

Not sure, could you summarize?

Please?

---

No. It's legal stuff .I am not qualified to do so.