Let me remind you: The Q&A program, supposedly a social/political forum format with a panel of 'well known' heads and an audience that is chosen to be 'fairly balanced' - chosen by the ABC that is - discuss matters of moment.
It is 'well known' by now that balance is totally missing.
Q&A has a doozy of a 'carpet-pisser' in their Q&A audience but was oblivious to its own offence. Perhaps they were not looking for him particularly. They usually choose such people for the panel. Waleed Ali - one of the many 'usual suspects' - can be relied upon for that role representing the Islamist, terrorist apologists and encouragers,
and an entire conga-line of suckholes (to use Paul Keating's diatribe description) from the left can be called upon to sit and abuse one, lonely centre-right person.
But they sat a convicted terrorist in the audience this time and let him have his say. Then they ran a repeat two days later while the nation was till coughing and spluttering.
To put it in colloquial terms: The shit hit the fan.
The ABC of course, refuses even to sniff the air, and to be fair to them it cannot do that readily when it's head is shoved firmly up its arse.
So it has been taken to task. Not just by the PM who has called for an enquiry, but by the hoi-poloi. Two were in the bar. Jennifer Oriel and Steve Kates. Both were fuming.
Jennifer had plenty to say, taking a favourite shibboleth of the left and shoving it right up there in the darkness with the ABC head: (Jennifer was 'paywalled' so JJ Ray brought her in). It was an indulgence to let her hold the attention as she sometimes starts to squat and I take care of my carpets. I hope she thanks me. So, linking her favourite rumble to this thunder.....
Jihadis and leftists, united in misogyny
I was invited to appear as a panellist on the ABC’s political talk show Q&A this month.
This week, Q&A featured a self-described Muslim activist who tweeted about gang-raping female columnists in January and pleaded guilty to threatening to kill an ASIO officer.
Why would I want to appear on Q&A following such an outrage against women and our nation’s protective forces?
The man who tweeted the idea of gang-raping female journalists also has expressed support for an Islamic caliphate. I consider him such an inferior example of manhood that I would prefer not to stain the page with his name, but here it is for the record: Zaky Mallah.
After hearing the standard Islamist narrative on the ABC — that is, Islamists charged with threatening violence are victims of government action to stop terrorism — Q&A’s audience applauded Mallah.
Oh? Care to name one, Jennifer. A man who promotes violence against women? One who is not, say, an islamist. One from the so many you say are out there?That tells us a lot about the state of left-wing politics today.
In the 21st century, the hard Left goes soft on men who attack liberal democracy and promote violence against women as long as such men belong to a Left-anointed minority.
Q&A host Tony Jones upbraided Mallah,
but only after he had blamed the government for jihadism.
And Tuesday’s limp corrective by the ABC falls well short of the explanation we need and the apology Australians deserve.
The terms of reference for the investigation into the ABC’s indulgence of Mallah must include why a man who threatened to kill an ASIO official was cast as a victim while criticising our liberal democratic government’s anti-terrorism policy.
The omission that Mallah threatened lethal violence against a member our security forces and sexual violence against female intellectuals demonstrates more than mere oversight by the ABC. Australia’s public broadcaster has put Australian citizens in harm’s way.
What might have happened, for example, if either of the two female columnists Mallah proposed should be gang-raped in January were on the Q&A panel this week?
Unlike those female columnists, I was actually invited to be on a Q&A panel this month. I have written extensively on Islamist terrorism and have been threatened for doing so.The thought that a man such as Mallah might have been sitting a few feet away from me on Q&A is, quite frankly, horrifying.
Er.... No man either. Be nice, now, Jennifer.No woman should have to fear for her bodily safety in Australia when she exercises her democratic right to free speech — especially on our public broadcaster. And yet, that is precisely what I now feel about the prospect of appearing on Q&A.
Hmmmm. Left wing women too. Feminists hate her with their usual vengance. There can be a little too much emphasis going on here, Jennifer. Keep it balanced and stay upright.There are serious questions which must be answered about the modern Left and its indulgence of Islamist terrorism and misogyny. We might begin by asking why the taxpayer-funded ABC indulged a man who promoted the idea of gang-raping female columnists.
Is it because the targeted columnists, Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi, are viewed as politically conservative and therefore deserved victims by Islamists and their left-wing allies in the West? Does the Left believe dissident women are asking for it?
We are bearing witness this week to a new form of political correctness — politically correct misogyny — where leftists and Islamists converge to shut dissident women out of public debate.
Author and human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali
has suffered the brunt of PC misogyny during the past decade following her trenchant criticism of Islamist ¬violence against women and girls.In his book The Flight of the Intellectuals, Paul Berman chronicled the rise of the new sexism crafted by left-wing men against Hirsi Ali.
Using sleazy sophistry to conceal their contempt for the woman who dared to refuse victim status and became instead a champion of the free world, PC misogynists claimed she only made it because she was attractive.
In the US as in Australia, the sneering disdain some left-wing men reserve for dissident women is becoming more overtly misogynistic and it seems to increase in direct proportion to dissidents’ public success.
After Hirsi Ali received a standing ovation at the American Atheists convention, left-wing activist journalist Sam Hamad described her as: “a perfect little brown-skinned conduit” for the views of “white males”.
One would have thought that describing a woman with African descent as a “little brown-skinned conduit” should provoke public furore. But there was no cry of hate speech from the progressivist media, no call of sexism from the ivory towers.Instead, the girl who survived female genital mutilation in Africa, assassination attempts in Europe and jihadist threats in America has grown to become a trending target of hard Left hate because by daring to live and tell the tale, Hirsi Ali has exposed their PC misogyny.While Mallah might lack the hard Left’s talent for sophistry, his effect is just as devastating. On social media, he described columnists Panahi and Devine as “whores” and proposed that they be gang-raped on television.
Men neither, m'dear. PLEASE get that.That is hard to write. No woman should have to read it.
She will wait a long time, I expect, although I would be pleased to see her storm the studio. Perhaps she can go in the audience. She would no doubt be on the panel as 'duty feminist' anti-male, head banger anyway.
It is little surprise to find support for misogyny among men who enthuse about an Islamist caliphate, where the unequal status of women and girls is enshrined as a rule of law and a cultural right.
But it should be a surprise to find self-declared progressives of the Western Left endorsing Islamist misogyny against any woman, let alone parading its advocates as paragons of sound citizenship.
In its response to the public furore about Mallah on Q&A, the ABC acknowledged his tweet about female columnists — in a single sentence of the last line of the final paragraph. The message could not be clearer.As a female political commentator who leans conservative, my right to free speech and bodily safety may not mean much to the ABC. But I did not spend my formative years fighting for women’s rights in the 20th century only to submit to an Islamist-Left alliance of misogyny in the 21st.I expect a public apology from the ABC for its outrage against women, female columnists and the basic security of Australians.Until such an apology is given, I will not consent to appear on Q&A
Meanwhile Dr.Steve, in the Cat corner gave an uppercut to the Chairman of the ABC, who is a vacant fellow devoid of sense or sensitivity. I doubt he will feel it on his chin unless Steve punches right up the ABC rectum.
What an insufferable hypocrite
It really is hard to credit such lack of judgement, but there you are. Now Mark Scott himself has gotten into it. From The Australian:
“As someone said to me this week, free-speech arguments would be easier if you were always defending Martin Luther King,” Mr Scott said at a Centre for Corporate Public Affairs’ function. “At times, free-speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree.
That is exactly the point, but it is precisely what you and the ABC never do.
Is he really that dense?
Does he honestly not see what the rest of us are saying. It is that the ABC does not give platforms to those with whom they fundamentally disagree, unless they first stack the deck.
The entire explosion over Zaki was that this was the typical ABC approach. Yes, see, we have the Minister whose views we fundamentally disagree with and have provided him with a platform. But of course, we then try to expose him to our own hit job, in a way that would never ever happen if he were someone from the left, or even better from the Greens.
It is insulting and disgusting to have to listen to such shallow reasoning. This is now the Thursday after the Monday and is this really the best Scott can do? Because you didn’t give Zaki a “platform”. You gave him an opportunity to sandbag a government minister, which you were hoping he would do. He was not there because anyone cared about his opinions.
The political side of the ABC is a wasteland of vacuity. It is an empty shell of green-left ignorance and the greenest and most left of them all appears to be its CEO. But the most disgusting part is this, from the opening para of the article:
ABC managing director Mark Scott has compared extremist Zaky Mallah’s right to appear on Q&A with the campaign for free speech that flowed from the jihadist murder of 12 journalists from the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
To even mention Charlie Hebdo in such circumstance is beyond maddening. If I follow this analogy right, Zaki, according to Scott, is like those poor journalists who were murdered by jihadi gunmen, in that he is being deprived of his right to free speech (really, how? when? where?). And the jihadi murderers at Charlie Hebdo are likened to the people who object to Zaki, a former jihadist himself, being brought in to confront a government Minister on national television.
This is so warped that really, it is time for the board at the ABC to ask for Scott’s resignation and set the Corporation off in a new direction.
He is a mouthpiece for the left and is too blinded by his prejudices to understand what he is saying and why what the ABC did was so fundamentally wrong.
OK, so I have a Bouncer yet I am firmly FOR free speech. I am in part quite glad that the little shyte had some exposure on the ABC. We need to know the measure of men - and women. By their fruits we shall know them.
But I do expect the famed yet invisible as yet 'Balance' claimed by the ABC to make an appearance one day.
That'll be the day.
(to those who earn it)