Australian National
(anotd)
Friday 3rd July 1998
This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the
National Library
of Australia
Subscriber's password
check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The
Strategy" on-line from April 1998.
Recent stories exclusive to
(how to)
subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day now at the
bottom of this page.
"ON NOW" weekly abbreviated anotd
fax-back
-
Dial: 1902 211037 and follow the instructions.
(Note: costs 0.75 c per minute will be billed to your phone account
under "ON NOW NEWS LETTER")
Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line
DISCUSSION forum] [One
Nation Federal Web Site]
Archive of weekly features (available to all
readers):
[The
Canberra Column]
[Economic
Rationalism]
Today's
Headlines
an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's
first daily Internet newspaper.
Since
October 1995
Between the One Nation lines
The media two-step with Matt Horan from News
Limited...
If there is one thing you learn when dealing with journalists from News Limited
it is that they are rarely what they seem and even more unlikely to report
what you say when you talk freely over the phone. News becomes their "twist"
on what you say.
Thus my demand in the
article carried
yesterday that my comments to News Limited be presented in writing
- to ensure no distortions. The article never appeared in The Australian
paper after I was initially relentlessly pursued for comment.
Take the case of one Matt Horan who called me yesterday after spending time
on my web site. Horan happens to be the son of Mike Horan a well know politician.
Like many journalists the ties between journalism and political allegiances
are worse than blurred they are overtly prejudicing what they write and how
they report in total breach of the
so-called
code of ethics under which journalists are supposed to be guided.
In the article below we start going on the offensive against the mainstream
media and we need your support. Every one of you. To start getting the
Australian Press Council to sit up and take notice of what the Australian
people are quietly thinking about the media and their sick, sick ethics.
Yesterday's cartoon in The Australian
ACTION: Please contact the Australian Press
Council in writing (contact details below) and lay a formal complaint against
those implicated in this article if you feel offended by the cartoon. It
is time to stop sitting back and taking this trash.
What if someone stood up in the middle of the street and said that most anyone
living in Australia who was not born here was a F****** Halfwit who can’t
read, or that most anyone who is employed by the public service is a F******
Halfwit who can’t read.
Would they be carted off to jail or to the nearest psychiatrist first, or
just shot! We can take for granted the hounding that the press would give
them.
So what happens when the press itself does something like this.
Well the illustrious cartoonist Bill Leak of "The Australian" (see
link above) did just that to everyone who supports One Nation in
‘The Australian’ newspaper of 2nd July, 1998.
He says "Don’t worry most of the F****** Halfwits
can’t read anyway".
The dictionary states that most means greatest in size, number, or degree,
so let us just take it as meaning more than 51% of supporters.
That means more than 1,170,000 Australians (working on 13% of population
as taken from last poll) were just obscenely libelled and defamed by Mr Bill
Leak of "The Australian".
The common law definition of defamatory imputation (defamation) is defined
as "a matter ... calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing
him/her to hatred, contempt or ridicule"
It is also noteworthy that whether a statement is defamatory or not involves
determining what the statement means or "imputes"(implies), and then assessing
whether that meaning or imputation satisfies the definition of defamation.
What the defendant intended his or her words to convey is generally irrelevant;
rather, most courts will apply the meaning that the ordinary, reasonable
person would draw from the material.
Also any person who intentionally or negligently takes part in, or authorises,
the publication of defamatory material is liable to be sued for defamation.
Thus in the case of a newspaper, the editor, writer, publisher, printer and
proprietor are all potentially liable.
This means the following individuals have now defamed 1,170,000
Australians.
Now what can we do about it.
Well we have a lot of choices.
1. Refuse to purchase the Australian newspaper and tell friends, relatives
and associates to consider this (remember this is for you to decide yourself).
2. Voice an opinion to the Australian Letters to the editor (see above email),
but since they are not obliged to print it it mightn’t do much good,
but if even 300 people email 1 might scrape through the cracks.
3. Complain in writing to The Australian
Press Council. The Council provides an independent, efficient
and free facility for hearing complaints against the press. In so doing,
the Council gives first and dominant consideration to what it perceives to
be the public's interest. The Council is guided by 12 basic principles contained
in its statement of Principles which, however, is not meant to be a precise
or exhaustive formula.
The 12 principles concern honesty and fairness: privacy; trust; rumour; the
obtaining of news by dishonest and unfair means; the necessary distinction
to be made between fact and opinion; gross breaches of taste; sexual, racial
and other discrimination; opportunity to reply; corrections and apologies;
as well as the obligation of newspapers to give prominence to adverse
adjudications against them.
"The
Australian
Press Council has a specific mandate to consider, investigate and
deal with complaints about the conduct of the press as well as the conduct
of persons and organisations towards the press."
The Australian Press Council contact
details:
Suite 303, 149 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Tel: 02 92611930 FreeCall: 1800 025721 9:00am – 4:30pm
There are a few more options that require legal means using either civil
courts (for defamation and/or verbal assault) or The Anti-Discrimination
Tribunal.
We could also go to the Office of Film and Literature Classification under
the obscene material/publication act, since a publisher has to first submit
it to the office for classification first. This legislation typically refers
to "obscene or indecent" material, which is interpreted to mean offensive
to contemporary community standards).
But lets see how we go with point 2 and 3 to begin with, and remember if
you can READ this our case is secure.
Alan Jones on Channel 9's Today programme:
Here
is an extract:
Some front pages of today’s papers carry the story
about a hundred and fifty school children between the ages of twelve and
eighteen, do you mind, marching on John Howard’s offices in Sydney in
a protest over Pauline Hanson and they were quoted as saying ‘I just
want to protest about racism’.
Who is responsible for this? Who has put this racism
flag up the pole?
Here is a
summary of Pauline Hanson's Immigration Policy - the full policy
to be posted soon.
Extract: Inappropriately high levels of immigration
combined with the policy of multiculturalism has led to a serious breakdown
in the social cohesion of Australia.
Subject: open letter to Graeme Samuel
Dear Sir,
This probably belongs in J-G Estiot's camp. What
the hell.
The Australian refused to publish a slightly shorter
version of the letter below. Occasionally the Letters Editor gives some helpful
hints to would-be contributors as to what she expects in a good letter.
Naturally, leading the wish-list is literacy. Then originality. A new angle
on a story. A fresh approach. So I'll ask newspaper readers of anotd how
long it has been since they read something like the following letter in a
mainstream newspaper. To my mind it's literate. It's original. It certainly
presents a new angle on competition policy. I'm not up myself so I'll leave
it to anotd readers to decide whether or not it is 'fresh'. But I do admit
it has been slightly expanded. I'm happy to provide the two versions to anybody
who'd like them. Finally I do have a pretty good 'strike rate' with the
Australian
........................
Can anybody give me one good result so far from Australia's push towards
globalisation? That is, apart from the obscene salaries being paid to CEOs
in the name of being 'internationally competitive'. Graeme Samuel says that
competition policy "is really designed to provide benefits to all Australians,
to remove protections for a privileged few".
IT'S NOT WORKING, GRAEME! It's quite the reverse: your 'competition policy'
has provided massive benefits for a privileged few, and has removed protection
for millions of Australians. Look around! Economic rationalist-inspired
competition policy has resulted in nothing for Australia but massive job
losses, under-employment, the selling off of once Australian-owned assets
and utilities to foreigners, the exporting of jobs to cheap-labour countries,
international indebtedness, reduced real wages, the crushing of unions, the
loss of sovereignty (now Orwellianly re-named as 'domestic denial'), the
decimation of the Australian manufacturing industry, the loss of government
and financial services in the bush, a dangerous reduction in social capital
with its subsequent running sore of rising criminality, the ruination of
rural towns, and cheap, shoddy, overseas-made clothes, shoes and other consumer
items.
It's not a good result. In this loopy world of economic rationalism (and
Hanson's critics have the hide to call *her* loopy!) Australia is forced
to import Danish pork, while Australian pork producers are given government
help to find overseas markets for their pork! The Canadians are demanding
access for their salmon into our market, which means that Tassie salmon farmers
will need government support to find overseas markets for their (cleaner)
salmon!
Why? Why can't we Australians eat our own Australian pork and salmon, and
the Danes and Canadians eat their own produce, and what either of us wants
but lacks - say Hungarian paprika, or Australian lamb - we'll trade if we
can afford to? It used to work. Why doesn't it work now? I am convinced it
would work. It is just an unfashionable idea which cuts into the profits
of multinationals.
In any case 'competition policy' is pure hypocrisy. The very justification
for it is that we must become 'internationally competitive'. Well why don't
the Americans have to do likewise? As Ian Henderson noted in the Australian
(2/7/98), US commodity producers still enjoy export subsidies and credit
programmes which undercut the markets. The US still restricts imports of
Australian sugar, dairy products, citrus, peanuts, licit opiates, textiles,
beer, wine and even ships! If Americans can protect their own industries
and limit imports, why can't we? Why do our citrus growers have to bulldoze
their trees into the ground? Why do we then have to import Brazilian orange
juice concentrate? It's lunacy. And immoral.
In this age of 'experts', a generation of ideologically-blinkered economists
has managed to dazzle governments with theoretical economic rhetoric (read
mumbo-jumbo). It has happened before, so there is no reason to think it cannot
happen again. In fact, the craven capitulation by governments is predictable
in cultures that give no respect to wisdom. Western societies are renowned
for their contempt for the wisdom of age. Yet precisely because he was a
very intelligent *old* man, I always read Santamaria's column with great
interest, realising that he knew a lot more about many issues simply from
the experience of a long life, than many of his gung-ho intellectual opponents.
There are no benefits from globalisation for the majority of Australians.
Nor will there ever be any. There is more to a civilised society than getting
the best bargain. Have we been so morally debased that we now define our
humanity by saying: "I shop, therefore I am." Do we really want to be a nation
of virtual serfs, our people reduced to waiting on tourists at pittance wages?
Once our industry and agriculture have been totally destroyed in the name
of 'competition', what will be left? Apart from the professions and the 'service
industries', there will be nothing but bureaucracies to soak up all the 'tertiary
educated' drones whose 'jobs' will be to monitor our every thought, word
and action for political rectitude. Let's face it, nobody cares about the
rest. No, according to an elite, international think-tank, the masses are
to be kept quiet with 'tittytainment'.
Yes, readers, go cold in anger and remember the sensation for later on. Be
outraged at their arrogance. Remember that our taxes keep these parasites,
for it has been shown over and over again that they definitely do not pay
their fair share. Tell your friends. Spread the word. Gweilo is so right:
"We have endured worse than you. You are just strengthening our resolve".
Just tonight as I was peeling the spuds I heard on ABC radio's PM that Pauline
Hanson herself, and One Nation generally, copped a real barrage of criticism
in the House today. Her opponents were cruel, nasty, and personal in their
attacks. And she is there, in the House of Representatives, alone. In the
House of Reps there is nobody to support her. No wonder she sounds quavery
and almost tearful. She is one hated woman in a House of over a hundred hostile
people. I don't know how she has endured. But my heart soared tonight as
I heard her say in slow, defiant (yes almost tearful) words, "I. Am. Not.
Going. Away". Bravo, Pauline.
I think that for millions of Australians the word 'Hanson' is eventually
going to be synonymous with the word 'courage'. In Australian political history
Pauline Hanson has been the little boy who tugged at his father's sleeve
and said, "But father, the emperor (globalisation) has no clothes". In the
fairy story people were eventually ashamed of their moral cowardice. But
that was only a fairy story.
Or was it? Is this the reason for the rise of One Nation?
Regards
Antonia Feitz
Liberals appeal result in Brisbane seat
The Queensland Liberal Party has lodged an appeal with the Court of Disputed
Returns about the election outcome in a Brisbane seat. The party lost the
seat of Mansfield to Labor by 76 votes, giving the ALP 44 seats in Parliament,
one short of a majority.
Labor was then able to gain Government with the support of Nicklin Independent
Peter Wellington. Liberal state director Greg Goebel says voters claim the
ALP handed out misleading how-to-vote cards. Meanwhile Alp State Secretary
Mike Kaiser tonight condemned the Liberal Party challenge and claimed it
would not succeed.
He said: "Given that the piece of material they complain about is very similar
to a piece of material which they were also handing out on June 13 - and
this is a move that would horrify the business community, horrify many of
the Liberal Party supporters and also is a move which would only be applauded
by One Nation because it gives them an opportunity to do what Labor has denied
them the opportunity to do and this [is] influence government.
It seems it was Howard who blinked, and few will
miss it
COMMENT by MICHAEL MILLETT
John Howard has secured a last-minute deal on Wik,
with the issue now dropped as the main trigger for a double dissolution
election.
That much is clear from the tumultuous events yesterday.
But still shrouded in confusion is the win-loss ledger.
Who blinked hardest in ending the Senate stand-off
which prevented the Howard Government enshrining its 10-point Wik plan in
law? And what does it mean for Howard's assertion that he has finally resolved
the issue which has dogged governments on both sides for most of the past
six years?
If you believe the Prime Minister, it was the Tasmanian
Independent, Senator Brian Harradine, who buckled at the last minute, abandoning
his support for a legislated right for native title claimants to negotiate
on mining and other activity on pastoral leases?
Howard argued last night it was this one concession
which was crucial to a negotiated outcome. Without it, the Government would
have been forced to march off to what even he admitted would be a "divisive"
double dissolution election, probably within weeks.
Harradine's retreat, driven by fear of a race-based
election with a rampant One Nation, allowed Howard to claim he had honoured
the "essential integrity" of his 10-point plan, yet delivering an outcome
which was "honourable [and] strikes a fair and decent balance".
But the fine print of the Harradine statement last
night and the initial response of Aboriginal lawyer Noel Pearson suggests
a different result.
Harradine may have conceded the Senate's original
right-to-negotiate model, but the State-based administrative system in its
place seems to offer as many protections for native title holders.
Howard seems to have given up ground on the other three
points - the threshold test for claims, the six-year sunset clause and the
application of the racial discrimination test.
Pearson, the chairman of the Cape York Land Council,
argued that Harradine had simply come up with a new process which gave Aboriginal
people the right to negotiate in a different guise. Outspoken National
backbencher Bob Katter took a similar view.
If that interpretation is true, then Howard may not
be over the line yet.
He assured his partyroom and Cabinet yesterday he would
be able to sell the deal to all parties, claiming the rock-solid support
of West Australian Premier Richard Court and Northern Territory Chief Minister
Shane Stone, the two leaders most concerned about a Coalition sell-out.
The partyroom certainly bought the assurances - without
seeing the detail. Government backbenchers are so spooked by the prospect
of a confrontation with One Nation they were willing to accept any compromise
to stave off a double dissolution election.
Nothing is easy to discern with Wik. But late last
night, it was John Howard, rather than the sly Tasmanian, who looked to have
blinked hardest.
Making the
news" -
an indepth exposé of media and political collusion at the highest
possible levels in Australia.
You say:
Subject:
GWB and One Nation
party issues
I would be VERY disappointed in GWB, as I am in many
other organisations, who fail to let a person be heard.
I believe, that you, as an ISP, have NO CHOICE, but
to let One Nation become a customer of yours.
To do otherwise (assuming all the activities promoted
through the O-N site are lawful) would be intolerable censorship.
Well done, not only have you let her become a client,
(as one should expect), but you are also supporting her.
Thank you.
A.Evans.
Subject: who are the fools?
The Australian's 'cartoon' today (2/7) was extremely
offensive. It depicted Hanson, Ettridge and Oldfield sitting around a table.
Looking at the newspapers Ettridge asks, "Oh my God! What will our supporters
think of this?" And Oldfield answers "Don't worry - most of the f***ing halfwits
can't read anyway".
That's fine. We live in a democracy. I believe in freedom
of speech. Just remember it at the next election and take sweet revenge,
fellow voters.
Antonia Feitz
See article above
Subject: ABC
This is a follow-up to the letter to PETER CRAVEN published
on July 2, 1998.
Wildside is not the only tool in the anti-Hanson arsenal.
Right now, the ABC is almost entirely dedicated to the vilification of Pauline
Hanson and One Nation. The question should not be "are they biased?" but
rather "How bad is the problem?"
One needs not be an alert and experienced media-watcher
like myself to see it. News and current affairs on the ABC always imply that
One Nation and its policies are racist. They do so by quoting the negative
comments from government and opposition as well as "community leaders," without
allowing One Nation to satisfactorily put its side of the story.
The tricks used are simple but effective. For example,
they almost always end a news story on a very negative point. Typically,
it would be something like this: "John Howard said today that Australians
were not prepared to tolerate racism." This kind of journalism is not good
enough. It is the journo's job to analyse John Howard's comments and verify
the imputation of racism. It certainly isn't the role of the ABC to give
free unchecked air-time to people who are in direct competition for votes
with One Nation.
Another interesting and effective weapon in the
vilification war is the so-called comedy programs. Somebody will have to
take a good close look at what is happening on TV shows such as "Good News
Week" or "McFeast Live". Their jokes are always at the expense of the
conservative side of politics. Another program with buzzing mono-dimensional
lefties is "The Panel". Do they really believe that their disguised satire
is fooling everyone? By the way, these shows are very funny - I am not
questioning the quality, just the boring predicability of the agenda that
infiltrates them. I must be deluded in thinking that good comedians make
jokes on the basis of the characters and events rather than political
affiliations.
JG Estiot
Media-Watch Interactive
Subject:
ASIO or
(?)
I'd get that car checked out by someone... Never know
it could be a fruity from internet. Give the rego to someone that works at
either a insurance company, the police force or Department of Main
Roads.
I know someone at the CJC who could help out, however
I don't think he'll want to touch this with a barge pole. I'm sure by midnight
you'll have at least 6 offers from other ppl.
Name withheld
Subject: Pauline's interview on Today
show.
Dear Scott,
Have just watched Steve Liebman grill Pauline &
the senate lady from Victoria (sorry, have forgotten her name), on the ON
immigration policy & figures. ON got their points across really well.
It did not matter that two demographers research figures were being quoted
by ON.
Pauline & the Vic lady took it all very well. What
was obvious was that after each of the two program sections, when it goes
to the ads, the camera rolls away from the presenters, who can be seen
briefly.
It was obvious from Tracey Grimshaw's grim look, short
sharp comment, and Steve Liebman's head shaking that the presenters' bias
was showing strongly. I suspect they were annoyed he had not succeeded in
rattling either lady.
I have sent a message to the Ninemsn site via a comment
feedback section expressing my disgust at their obvious bias. It is noteworthy
that, unlike most sites, there does not appear to be an E-Mail address given
for people wishing top contact any of the crew.
Sincerely,
Marshall Thornton
Subject: The John Laws Show
Hi Scott,
Yesterday morning I happened to catch part of the John
Laws Show while working on my car. How sick and bigoted can you get? Caller
after caller were spouting rubbish about ON being Nazi racists etc. those
people got a full hearing from his nibs, but when one person began to champion
ON he kept talking over her and eventually cut her off.
I seldom listen to that show because he is a fake,
and despite his denials, is a stooge for the establishment who have succeeded
in brainwashing some of the population into believing that ON is racist.
I wonder if they think that the Aborigines or the Asians are NOT racist.
Wake up, you people, you are have been conned. If you want to vent your bigotry
on anyone, try the Australian government out for size.
Alan Esson.
Subject: An Idea
Editor,
I have a suggestion. Why don't you harness the intellectual
and creative abilities of your readers, and run a competition for the best
One Nation banners and/or election slogans?
Maybe the winner could get 12 months worth of access
to your archive.
My
humble entry is attached. Admittedly it is light-hearted, but humour
can be a scathing tactic when used well.
Regards
Gweilo
Subject: SBS Insight program 2/7/98
HI on this program tonight which dealt with men's
liberation, featuring Steve Biddulph who has written books on men and boys,
an expert on something made the comment, and I am relying on memory, 'as
useless as Pauline Hanson trying to find a victim', a comment which to me
made no sense nor was connected in a way i could see, to the story
Col Easton
Subject: native title mess
Today's Australian sported the following banner headline,
"NATIVE TITLE: RESOLUTION AT LAST". What a load of rubbish. I feel so sorry
for people without internet access who have to form their opinions from the
mainstream media's drivel.
This native title mess has sordid origins. In 1980
the Australian Law Reform Commission chaired by Justice Michael Kirby (surprise,
surprise), refused to accept the recommendation of the Hon Bill Withers who
had been consulting with Aboriginal elders in the Kimberly and Pilbara areas.
What were his recommendations? He had been advised by the tribal elders that
traditional lands should be allocated on a tribal as opposed to a racial
basis. Why were their views discounted? Why were the views of the only people
who knew what they were talking about discounted?
Commenting on Wik, in April this year Withers gave
this answer, "Instead of accepting the wisdom of the tribal elders expressed
in the 1980 submission, the ignorant members of the church, bureaucracy,
judiciary and legislature used their influence with the avid assistance of
Aboriginal activists in the 'Aboriginal Industry' to establish racially
discriminatory laws. The racially discriminatory laws were then legally justified
by the Racial Discrimination Act".
The activists in the Aboriginal industry are non-tribal,
as we all know. This native title mess, which is crippling and will continue
to cripple Australia'a development, has nothing to do with justice for
Aborigines. It is about playing politics and furthering careers. And it enshrines
racial discrimination!
Antonia Feitz
Subject: Emigration
Keep up the good work. We Europeans are supporting
You, despite the media claims.
Regards
G.Kovacs
Subject: Dear Pauline
Having just read the budget proposals from the One
Nation party along with the Law & Order, Crime and Punishment I can only
say congratulations on having the guts and ability to try to obtain these
objectives. These are my own sentiments and a lot of other people too and
I hope they come to fruition. I also hope that one day I can vote Pauline
Hanson in as Australia's first Prime Minister.
I don't know if this e-mail is going to the right place
but it was the only e-mail address I could see.
I have printed all the speeches out and have a folder
especially for them which I will show to anyone who has doubts. People who
have branded you a racist have quite obviously not taken the time and trouble
to read everything.
I sincerely hope that there will be a candidate in
my area of W.A. when election time comes around. I have been speaking to
a lot of people and encouraging them to look beyond the media garbage and
there seems to be a lot of support here.
Onward and upward
Val Gamble
Subject: I love Pauline
I'm 15/female who totally thinks that Pauline
rules!!!
She has lots of great points.
If I was old enough I would vote for her!!!
Rebecca(Tasmania)
Subject: MULTICULTURAL WHAT?
Heng Ngai can't be real, can he? I've never been out
of the bush for years. Are there REALLY non -English supermarkets in Australia?
If so, then it is not multiculturalism to cause concern, IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE
COLONISATION
Philip Madsen
Social:
Another perfect day in paradise.
Have a good one.
Recent stories exclusive to
(how to)
subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:
The Barbara Hazelton
betrayal - 2nd July 1998
Pauline Hanson's
One Nation Queensland State MPs meet in Parliament - 27th June 1998
QANTAS censor Pauline
Hanson - 24th June 1998
"Paul" (Big "K")
Costello's lies - 22nd June 1998
Live coverage
of Queensland State Elections - 13th June 1998
Beattie's preference
lies exposed - 11th June 1998
Launch of
One Nation state policies - 8th June 1998
Sixty Minutes break
new barriers in unethical reporting - 6th June 1998
Ray Martin revelas
his spots when challenging Pauline Hanson on A Current Affair - 4th
June 1998
The backlash to
Ray Martin's unethical behaviour during his interview with Pauline
Hanson.- 4th June 1998
Return to Australian National
News of the Day
#
See GLOBE International for
other world news.
anotd
