Zaky Mallah on Q&A

[icyfroth]

I'm surprised there's no thread about this. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Q&A episode would be real comedy if it wasn’t so tragic

Nobody at the ABC seemed particularly worried that Mallah had spent time in prison due to a conviction for threatening the lives of ASIO officers.

On the contrary, the ABC fawned over Mallah as though he was a particularly sensitive and needy celebrity.

The former Goulburn prison resident was collected by an ABC-supplied minibus in Western Sydney prior to Monday’s broadcast.

As many as five senior ABC producers helped Mallah prepare for the show.

Host Tony Jones even whipped up a brief Mallah biography to accompany the young man’s appearance. And then the minibus dropped Mallah back home, all at taxpayer expense.

So let me get this straight.

The ABC give Mallah, convicted of death threats agains ASIO officers and various firearm offences, 8 minutes of air time during which he recommends 2 senior female journalists should be gang-banged. 

Has the ABC lost the plot?

 When an Islamic extremist who has called for female journalists to be “gang-banged” on live television and threatened to murder senior security officials wants to have his say on Q&A, the ABC not only welcomes him into the audience — for at least the third time, by the way — but they do everything possible to make his visit as amiable as possible.

Entire Article Here

He's just as erratic and threatening as Man Monis, and look what happened there. The ABC see fit to give him air time? What the F?

Why is the sisterhood not baying for his blood over his gang-banging comments?

[raptor_rebooted]

politicians talking about back stabbing/

heads rolling/throat cutting -  really?  

is there any doubt what they are talking about?

common sense indeed.

making direct personal death threat such as

i will cut your head off or i will stab you - 

you don't even need to be smart to make

the distinction  

and i think your hypothetical is absurd. 

[alexander*beetle]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

Common sense should prevail.

when politicians in australia talk about knifing in the back

or throat slitting - do you believe they are making

death treats?

at which point to you apply common sense? 

---

That's exactly the point I was making in my thread "Just A thought". .Who decrees what is or isn't common sense?  Once you take the determnation of what constitutes a death threat out of the jurisdiction of the courts and hand it over to a Government minister - a proposition Ciobo clearly suported on Q&A,-  then you become completely reliant on whatever government happens to be in powerat any given time to use that power honestly;  and if that government decides it would suit its purpose to conclude that saying something like "heads should roll" for instance, constitutes a death threat then you have no legal comeback.

---

But that goes against what you claimed on this thread. I'm confused. 

[gleee58]

---

@youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit wrote:

Just wondering how many of those who have an opinion actually watched the Q&A program?

---

I admit it. I watched.

[crosbystills]

Yes it's all a big plot by the ABC. They new in advance that Liberal frontbencher Steven Ciobo would defend the government's decision to strip terrorists of their citizenship by threatening to strip the citizenship of someone who's never been convicted of a terrorist act (although he's no saint, obviously).

Furthermore, they new that Mallah, who isn't media savvy by a long shot, would respond to this by saying something inappropriate. Cue government outrage. If this is a plan to build ratings, it's a pretty odd strategy.

The ABC isn't satisfied with the measly $500,000,000 the government pulled from their funding. They want Sloppy Joe to go harder.

I'm sure there are tons of Liberal supporters who grew up on Dad's Army, Man About the House and other innocent stuff (although the premise of Man About the House was a bit racy) who must be appalled by Abbott's bludgeoning of dear Auntie ABC. Why aren't we hearing from them?

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

I take your point and quote below. However, the comments are still vile. 

"the Prime Minister and her staff were in line to have their throats ''slit''.

''I think that if anybody had the opportunity to slit Julia Gillard's throat, Nick would be one of the first ones to be there.''

Peter Reith said that if I was her [Julia Gillard's] adviser I'd go and slit my throat too.

---

they're not pretty that's for sure -

but do they encourage violence against

women as gleee suggested?  of course not.

how many times have you heard the saying -

i'd kill myself if i was this or that 

[gleee58]

If Mallah had been the one to say heads should roll would that have been taken as a threat?

[aftanas]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

I'm surprised there's no thread about this. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Q&A episode would be real comedy ifitwasn’t so tragic

---

I think the real comedy here is the aftermath of the program.

There are arguments that can be made about free speech.  I support free speech and I note that censorship and control of the media is one of the most fundamental tactics used by tyrannical governments to suppress the general population. Free speech is dangerous because it upsets people, and it allows people to make unwise choices.  However, censorship imperils the freedom to make the informed choices that are the basis of a democracy. 

On the other hand, speech can be weaponized.  In my opinion to the right to freedom of expression does not justify hate speech as the object of hate speech is not the advancement of a rhetorical position, but an attack on a person or group of people.  Hate speech is a verbal assault. It has nothing to do with free speech.

The broadcast and print media is responsible for its content.  Arguably hate speech is news: if a public figure rants about Jews or homosexuals the ethics of the media outlet would not be called into question for publishing he rant.  That was not the circumstance of the Q&A broadcast.

The ABC cannot be held responsible for the views expressed by Zaky Mallah.  It can and should be held responsible for the decision to broadcast those views.  So the Q&A issue is a fair topic for public debate.

However, the debate about the ABC seems not to be about responsible journalism, or whether fundamentalists zealots should or should not be permitted to publicly air their views.  Rather, the Q&A incident has sparked another round of ABC bashing.  I think the current round of attacks on the ABC have got less to do with the hate speech of Zaky Mallah and more to do with a longstanding ideological disdain for ABC and its editorial freedom.

The Daily Telegraph article quoted by icyfroth proves my point.  The argument is not a statement of fact.  Rather, it is an argument based on a narrow selection of facts, half truths and innuendo to imply that the ABC, as a matter of policy, promotes pro-terrorist and anti-Government rhetoric.  No reasonable person could mistake the article for a balanced analysis of the issues.  It is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple.

---

"t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

---

I think you missed the point of my post, or maybe I wasn't very clear.

My point was that criticism of the ABC decision to air the segment is justified, because that criticism goes to the question of where to strike the balance between informing the public of newsworthy facts and giving oxygen to hatemongers.

But the attack on the ABC made in the Daily Telegraph article was not criticism on the issues: it was a specious argument directed towards harming the reputation of the ABC.  That is, hate mongering.  I guess you could argue that such attacks are justified if you hate the ABC and want it to go away.  However, the same argument justifies attacks on paedophiles, which is the same argument which justifies attacks on homosexuals and jews and catholics and so on.  We don't burn witches anymore.  Some people think we should, but I do not.

[gleee58]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

I take your point and quote below. However, the comments are still vile. 

"the Prime Minister and her staff were in line to have their throats ''slit''.

''I think that if anybody had the opportunity to slit Julia Gillard's throat, Nick would be one of the first ones to be there.''

Peter Reith said that if I was her [Julia Gillard's] adviser I'd go and slit my throat too.

---

they're not pretty that's for sure -

but do they encourage violence against

women as gleee suggested?  of course not.

how many times have you heard the saying -

i'd kill myself if i was this or that 

---

These sort of comments do and have encouraged a more violent, sexist, racist discourse.  

They are said figuratively but they're not always taken so figuratively and they do invite others to jump on the hate wagon and spread their vitriol.  They do encourage an undercurrent of violent speech either directed at women or minorities.

[gleee58]

---

"t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

---

so it deserved these?

[raptor_rebooted]

Why is the sisterhood not baying for his blood over his gang-banging comments?

interesting isn't it but not surprising