The ABC did actually find itself necessitated to give an apology:

"On Monday night, host Tony Jones said the Q&A team was not aware of Mr Mallah's "very offensive misogynistic tweet that he put out about two female journalists".

"Had we known [about the tweets], we would have rejected his participation," Jones said.

But Parliamentary Secretary Steven Ciobo, who was on the program and responded to the question from Mr Mallah last week, said the explanation was "very strange".

"So his tweets expressing sympathy for terrorist organisations, his tweets against me and others ... apparently none of that precludes him from being on the panel (sic)," he said.

Mr Ciobo said he "wasn't anticipating an apology" from the program, but was "looking for the ABC to simply get that [it] was an error".

So it was terrible to make misogynistic comments but no worries about threatening ASIO officials, keeping a firearm and ammunition, and to express sympathies with a terrorist organisation.

Good ol' Aunty, she's so kind! Makes no sense tho'.

---

@debra9275 wrote:
Do you belong to a sisterhood? What do you actually do there?


Me I just state my own opinions as I always have done, nothing new about that 🙂

---

We've already been told that she/he is a free agent.  

The Australian public don't need yet another radical Muslim being given a forum in which to sprout anti-australian sentiment and to whom young Muslim men busting for a fight can rally around.

Can anyone explain to me how this question does any of the above?

Zaky Mallah asked: As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22 hour lockdown, dressed most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence.
I had done and said some stupid things including threatening to kidnap and kill but in 2005 I was acquitted of the terrorism charges.
What would have happened if my case had been decided by the Minister and not the courts? 

I think it is a valid question which is being lost in the usual bluster and noise of our current policitial landscape.

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

The Australian public don't need yet another radical Muslim being given a forum in which to sprout anti-australian sentiment and to whom young Muslim men busting for a fight can rally around.

 

 

Can anyone explain to me how this question does any of the above?

Zaky Mallah asked: As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22 hour lockdown, dressed most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence.
I had done and said some stupid things including threatening to kidnap and kill but in 2005 I was acquitted of the terrorism charges.
What would have happened if my case had been decided by the Minister and not the courts? 

 

 

I think it is a valid question which is being lost in the usual bluster and noise of our current policitial landscape.

---

I agree Lurker the question itself doesn't but the corresponding response and subsequent responses may... I personally dont think the controversy is with that question and I think that Ciobo answers the question, and I think because of the answer saying he would be personally pleased if it meant Mallah was out of the country, in itself incites Mallah to respond like he did. (which I think has already been established in this thread...)

 Because regardless of your personal views towards this person he has just been told by a politician on behalf of the govt we'd be happy to see you out of the country. Bit of a slap in the face I'd reckon and he is clearly offended, as you would be if you'd been handed a serving like that from a politician.  So he responds with emotion rather than a level head.  I'm not advocating any of it, and the audience, surely they are being told when to clap etc.  In a proper debate the audience is usually instructed to leave their applause till the end...  I know this show doesn't claim to be a debate, but still they clap for absolutely every comment just about, it's kinda annoying...

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

---

@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 determination 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 supported on Q&A,-  then you become completely reliant on whatever government happens to be in power at 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. 

---

Sorry, Alexandra, now I'm confused. Which 'claim' are you referring to? I have only made two posts in this thread - one asking the OP which 'sisterhood" she was referring to and one pointing out that glee's comment didn't attempt to  justify anybody.

My Just A Thought thread was specifically to ask who makes the decision about what is or isn't a terrorist threat and the dangers inherent in handing that power to politicians 

Sorry She ele, that was meant for Julia. I hate this reply thing. 

All good. I thought it must have been  just a mix up.