on 08-03-2014 09:39 AM
This disgusting swan song from a Green was lauded on here as a milestone and a rival to Gillards misplaced misogyny rant.
The people who support this type of hate speech are not indicitive of the wider Australian people and to applaud this type of hate is appalling.
I will stand up to this type of thing and so will the majority of Australians. This person is not fit to be in parliament and he should be rejected wholeheartedly by everyone, which he will be come the WA re election, and good riddance to him and his ilk:
SPORTING dark suit and speaking in a calm, measured tone, Scott Ludlam is the acceptable face of the Greens.
He has spoken out previously against the “people’s revolt” against the carbon tax that sparked the “Ditch the Witch” nastiness.
Ludlam’s style is the antithesis of histrionics such as the current appalling rock concert concoctions of a fake prime ministerial beheading.
This week the West Australian senator rose to a near-empty chamber and delivered a prepared speech without raising his voice and with no one around to interject. Later, the 7 1/2-minute speech went viral on YouTube, a hit with the young Green Left crowd, attracting 400,000 hits within a few days.
But forget the style of the speech; it merely disguised a message that was divisive, vindictive and in the end subversive.
“We want our country back,” he said, just six months after a federal election. This is a senator who, with his colleagues, holds the balance of power in the Senate on about 10 per cent of the vote.
Yet he told supporters they were somehow disenfranchised.
Ludlam spoke of “predator capitalism” and a “murderous horror unfolding on Manus Island” as he launched an attack on the Prime Minister and his government. He suggested Abbott treated WA as a “caricatured redneck backwater” and that it was “kind of revolting” that the Prime Minister consulted with “mining billionaires and media oligarchs on the other side of the world”.
Ludlam provided no serious evidence or justification for his slurs. He even talked about Abbott - who I first met 20 years ago through a mutual gay friend and who has been publicly loving and supportive of his gay sister - as “waving (his) homophobia in people’s faces”.
We know the Greens are a party of protest but this invective was simply hateful.
“Prime Minister,” said Ludlam, “you are welcome to take your heartless and racist exploitation of people’s fears and ram it as far from Western Australia as your taxpayer-funded travel entitlements can take you.”
So Ludlam used the Senate to denigrate a freshly elected Prime Minister who is implementing his agenda - to the extent that he isn't blocked by Ludlam’s party - as racist, cynically manipulative, heartless and exploitative.
On what evidence?
This vitriol is subversive because it suggests a democratic government has somehow stolen the country. If Ludlam and his supporters want their “country back” surely the way to do it is through fair-minded criticism and a viable alternative.
No matter how calmly it is presented, unhinged hatred can’t help anyone.
Solved! Go to Solution.
09-03-2014 09:23 AM - edited 09-03-2014 09:27 AM
Silverfaun, I take great care now to make sure I write your full id and spell it correct ...not as your avitar suggests.I have learnt that if i do otherwise it will be corrected and quickly .I'm sorry that upsets you as you expressed when I get it wrong ..please feel free to refer to me as Iza if you wish ...I don't see doing that (shortening my id or even getting that wrong like say isa as unfriendly) as a problem for mod attention.If I got such an error edited and made a fuss ..that imo would be unfriendly and would make others cautious .
09-03-2014 09:50 AM - edited 09-03-2014 09:50 AM
@silverfaun wrote:Luddite Ludlum, the termination the Greens had to have, opening many people's eyes as to just how poisonous the Green/Labor pact was, making sure no more Greens will be spawned.
The hate is appalling and anybody who aligns themselves with this type of thing is to be condemned in the wider community.
groups of Australians should be condemned in the community ? In what way ?
what would that suggestion and act be a display of ?
on 09-03-2014 10:08 AM
@izabsmiling wrote:Silverfaun, I take great care now to make sure I write your full id and spell it correct ...not as your avitar suggests.I have learnt that if i do otherwise it will be corrected and quickly .I'm sorry that upsets you as you expressed when I get it wrong ..please feel free to refer to me as Iza if you wish ...I don't see doing that (shortening my id or even getting that wrong like say isa as unfriendly) as a problem for mod attention.If I got such an error edited and made a fuss ..that imo would be unfriendly and would make others cautious .
This new restriction is not anything I reported but has seen many left posters getting people either edited or s.... if they have shortened their name.
I could name them but that would not result in a good outcome for me.
This has been happening lately because some want to distort an id for insult. I made a typo on an ID and even though I pointed out it was a typo I was ......
Now whether this is a new way of getting posters banned or something the powers that be have been instructed to do then we will never know.
For the many years I have been on here I have never been pulled up by another poster for shortening their ID.
So I would not refer to you with the dimunitive you so kindly offered, others could take it as an excuse and let's face it some don't need much of an excuse.
on 09-03-2014 10:12 AM
@izabsmiling wrote:
@silverfaun wrote:Luddite Ludlum, the termination the Greens had to have, opening many people's eyes as to just how poisonous the Green/Labor pact was, making sure no more Greens will be spawned.
The hate is appalling and anybody who aligns themselves with this type of thing is to be condemned in the wider community.
groups of Australians should be condemned in the community ? In what way ?
what would that suggestion and act be a display of ?
Twisting my words??
What I referred to is the hate blogs and sites out there. If you agree with what they are saying and printing then they should be called out for the hate they support.
on 09-03-2014 10:14 AM
one of the great things about our Country is that we have freedom to vote as we wish without people with guns (fear of political persecution) standing over us.Our Laws uphold that right ... I for one value that and would HATE for that right to be lost .
on 09-03-2014 10:22 AM
@izabsmiling wrote:one of the great things about our Country is that we have freedom to vote as we wish without people with guns (fear of political persecution) standing over us.Our Laws uphold that right ... I for one value that and would HATE for that right to be lost .
All very good qualities but that is not what was being discussed.
The studied cry of Ludlum of "I want my country back" was an insult to all the people who voted him out and voted the the party of their choice in.
His mindset is that we all made a mistake by voting the way we did.
on 09-03-2014 10:28 AM
International law[edit]
As part of the Nuremberg Principles, crimes against humanity are part of international law. Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles states that
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:...
(c)Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Telford Taylor, who was Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials wrote "[at] the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the tribunals rebuffed several efforts by the prosecution to bring such 'domestic' atrocities within the scope of international law as 'crimes against humanity'".[2] Several subsequent international treaties incorporate this principle, but some have dropped the restriction "in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime" that is in Nuremberg Principles.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which is binding on 111 states, defines crimes against humanity in Article 7.1. The article criminalises certain acts "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack". These include:
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender[3]...or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph [e.g. murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, apartheid, and other inhumane acts] or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution
It's relevant if and where condemnation of a group based on Political opinion (that which is within the bounds of the law) is advocated.See ^^^^
on 09-03-2014 10:30 AM
09-03-2014 10:33 AM - edited 09-03-2014 10:33 AM
From the OP:This disgusting swan song from a Green was lauded on here as a milestone and a rival to Gillards misplaced misogyny rant.
The people who support this type of hate speech are not indicitive of the wider Australian people and to applaud this type of hate is appalling.
I will stand up to this type of thing and so will the majority of Australians. This person is not fit to be in parliament and he should be rejected wholeheartedly by everyone, which he will be come the WA re election, and good riddance to him and his ilk:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
It's good to learn what is and what isn't classed as hate speech before claiming it is such imo
on 09-03-2014 10:36 AM
@lurker17260 wrote:
His mindset is that we all made a mistake by voting the way we did.
And, of course, he is perfectly entitled to think and say just that, whether you or I agree with him or not.
it is the same as what is written in the OP imo.that his opinion is
not indicitive of the wider Australian people
that is merely a personal opinion ...nothing more