S80.2 – the pilger stopper

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 27th, 2017 at 05:35 am

Much criticism lately of the Australian government’s planned anti-terrorism laws, which contain interesting new sedition provisions. Media Watch, of all places, presents a compelling argument for their immediate introduction:

This is journalist John Pilger speaking on the ABC’s Lateline programme last year, about the insurgents in Iraq:

Tony Jones: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

John Pilger: Well yes, they’re legitimate targets. They’re illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi’s point of view they are legitimate targets. They have to be, sure.
— Lateline, ABC TV, 10 March 2004

But do we think Pilger should be charged with sedition for comments like those? Our legal advice is that he could be found guilty under s80.2 of the Draft Bill … The penalty remember is a possible 7 years in jail. Now you may not be a Pilger fan, but would you really want to silence him like that?

Hmm. Judgment reserved until we hear of any alternative methods.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/24/2005 at 08:28 PM
    1. How about a good 30 minutes with the bastinado instead?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 10/24 at 08:36 PM • permalink


    1. Alternatively, we could just check him in to a complimentary suite at the Palestine Hotel.  Preferably one with a nice open corner window.

      Posted by cuckoo on 10/24 at 08:37 PM • permalink


    1. The ABC seem to think Tony Jones and Pilger being banged up to be a bad idea for some reason- this merely serves to emphasise their disconnect with the rest of Australia. What’s missing from the image posted is the presence of Bubba looming in the background, bar of slippery soap in hand…..

      Posted by Habib on 10/24 at 08:45 PM • permalink


    1. I don’t know, it would be difficult to charge such a world-famous journalist with treason. He’s even known in Canada where when Toronto’s CityTV’s 24hr news channel’s news crawl announced that he had won a prestigious international journalism award, they misspelled his name as “John Pigler”. (I guess that means he should be careful travelling to Britain nowadays, too.)

      Posted by andycanuck on 10/24 at 08:49 PM • permalink


    1. Actually, I’d prefer he be silenced in any one of a number of painful and nasty ways, just so long as he SHUTS UP.

      But I don’t wish to appear bloodthirsty, so, yes, I would “really want to silence him like that.” 😀

      Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 10/24 at 08:50 PM • permalink


    1. Repeated sessions of public mocking and ridicule would suffice.

      Pilgery is asinine, but should it be illegal?

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 10/24 at 09:14 PM • permalink


    1. I think Lateline’s crime, indeed the ABC’s crime, is that every bloody guest they invite on has the same Pilgeresque point of view. So much for diversity ‘eh??? Chuck ‘em in jail for rank HYPOCRISY, that’s crime enough!

      Posted by Brian on 10/24 at 09:17 PM • permalink


    1. Given today’s poll which finds a majority of voters in support of the anti-terror legislation, a sane jury WOULD find Pilger and Jones guilty. The only downside is that most wouldn’t support a police shoot-to-kill policy, so the two of them couldn’t be killed while attempting to escape. Pity.

      Posted by mr magoo on 10/24 at 09:34 PM • permalink


    1. I’m in favour of free speech in almost all circumstances, but I think that actively supporting the enemy in wartime is not acceptable.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 10/24 at 09:38 PM • permalink


    1. Well yes, he’s a legitimate target…

      Posted by Forester on 10/24 at 09:39 PM • permalink


    1. Agree with Evil Pundit. Perhaps Pilger could be locked up for the duration of the war?

      Posted by JSthecorrect on 10/24 at 09:44 PM • permalink


    1. Parachute him into the hottest hot zone of Iraq and let him explain to Mike Moore’s minutemen that he’s on their side. I’m sure they’d listen.

      Posted by Tommy Shanks on 10/24 at 09:45 PM • permalink


    1. I think the advice from the Senior Counsel re Pilger’s comments was:

      “there would certainly be an arguable case sufficient to place the evidence and surrounding circumstances before a jury.”

      That is very different from saying a conviction would follow. I dont see what all the fuss is about really. Even if he was convicted the penalty wouldn’t be the 7 years to which Media Watch refers. In Brackistan (Victoria) racial vilification can land you in the custody.

      Posted by lingus4 on 10/24 at 09:50 PM • permalink


    1. On the subject of lefty idiots in places of punishment, our little friend Wingnut, having been banned from this illustrious forum, is looking for other sites to which he can likewise contribute.

      He’s posting from the National Library in Canberra, so blocking his IP is a temporary fix at best.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/24 at 09:53 PM • permalink


    1. But if you want to do that:  He really is a nasty little swamp monkey.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/24 at 09:56 PM • permalink


    1. Surely, various Pilgers and Fisks can be allowed to speak ill of American, British or Australian foreign policies to their hearts’ content. That’s their business. And that’s their trademark too.

      However, the publicly funded ABC should not be allowed any longer to solicit, condone and uncritically broadcast Pilgers and Fisks’ falsehoods and idiocies. That’s our business.

      ABC’s Lateline badly needs to be hosted by a non-nonsense journalist (perhaps Mark Steyn, or Andrew Bolt?), i.e. by someone with a predilection for facts and analyses as opposed to pilgerisms and propaganda.

      Posted by tmciolek on 10/24 at 10:09 PM • permalink


    1. Scamper over on the Mediawatch link to their commments- there’s the usual moonbattery, but they must have the work-experience munchkin doing the moderation, as they are also allowing mockery and snide snickering at the expense of Australia’s favourite expatriate explodey apologist and booster for totalitarianism everywhere.
      Have fun, but play nice.

      Posted by Habib on 10/24 at 10:11 PM • permalink


    1. Crikey Habib, your comment has been put on the same page as the transcript!

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 10/24 at 10:16 PM • permalink


    1. Anyone seen the latest from another “antiwar” hero? :Galloway

      Looks like he might be in a little bit of trouble…

      Posted by JSthecorrect on 10/24 at 10:27 PM • permalink


    1. I’d hate to silence him like that.

      7.62mm Parker Hale, thats the way to silence him – if he wants to barrack for the other side, treat him as being on the other side.

      You know it makes sense.

      Posted by Harry Buttle on 10/24 at 10:37 PM • permalink


    1. You’ve all missed the big point of the ABC *seeking* or eliciting a seditious remark:
      Tony Jones: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

      He got the answer he wanted, but why is he at fault for asking?
      Full marks to Jones for putting Pilger on the spot and exposing him, but would he ask that question if he thought it would expose the ABC to sedition too?
      I think not.  He would choose his words differently, and we all might have to read the subtext and not the text..

      Posted by Barrie on 10/24 at 10:41 PM • permalink


    1. Lingus 4 Thank you, thank you, thank for raising that. I don’t usually get into reflexive nit-picking about the ABC; I do now.

      Last night, I was gobsmacked at just about every item on the News7.30 Report, and Media Watch.

      They showed footage of Australians in Cancun, then Downer saying Australians need to take SOME responsibility for keeping out of the way of hurricanes, then a whingeing mother, and THEN a totally un-announced, and un-commented on, American fundy nutter preaching what a wonderful day it was to be ‘in the house of the Lord’.

      Geddit, see how the current government, people stranded by a hurricane and Christian fundy nutjobs are ALL related to Howard?


      And you are spot on about Liz Jackson. She used all these sneaky rhetorical “logic” devices like “he would be convicted by a jury,” and yet her very own “legal expert” made such a qualified statement that he MIGHT under certain circumstances:

      Jackson: “Our legal advice is that he could be found guilty under s80.2 of the Draft Bill”

      There would certainly be an arguable case sufficient to place the evidence and surrounding circumstances before a jury.
      — Senior Counsel advice to Media Watch, pg 16

      Hullo Liz, it could also be an “arguable case” that David Marr is secretly gun-running from Phillip Ruddock to Hillsong Church!

      So Liz Jackson has got old Pilger doing 7 years in Long Bay before the QC’s even got a phone call that his client “might” be wanted for “questioning.”

      She did this several times.

      The woman is an absolute unethical disgrace.

      She should be working for Margostan and writing joint articles on Media “Ethics” with Lady Catharine of Skank Chic!

      Posted by Noelenet on 10/24 at 10:50 PM • permalink


    1. Well yes, they’re legitimate targets. They’re illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi’s point of view they are legitimate targets. They have to be, sure.

      Yes and ordinary Iraqis would like the Jordanian, Syrian, Iranian, Palestinian, Chechen invaders who are killing them to leave now.

      — Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 10/24 at 11:04 PM • permalink


    1. Jscorrect
      thanks for that Guardian link
      Ilove the “”There is not a shred of truth in any of these allegations. There has been no impropriety and I have not received even one thin dime from the oil-for-food programme.”
      reminds me of
      “I was never a member of the Nazi Party and my cheque is in the post”
      Galloway is like Peter Foster. those guys carry on as if nothing had happened and always get away with it.

      Posted by davo on 10/24 at 11:04 PM • permalink


    1. The antidote for stupid speech is ridicule.  How will we know what to make fun of if Pilger is silenced by anti-sedition laws?  Not that he would be.  He’d only move to the Great Satan where he could mouth off as much as he liked.  Oh, wait.  I forgot that civil liberties have been shredded in George W. Bush’s Amerikkka.  Which is why the prisons are already overflowing with members of MoveOn.org.  Come to think of it, we may not have room for Mr. Pilger over here.  We could barely fit Al Franken in the same cell with Michael Moore as it is.

      Posted by DanG on 10/24 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. Perhaps Mr. Pilger would like to spend some time with the American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces.  Would he justify their taking pot shots at him?  He has advocated killing them, so I suppose in their eyes he is a legitimate target after all.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 10/24 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. LOL DanG

      Is there enough reinforced concrete in a cell to house Michael Moore?

      — Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 10/24 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. #25 And Al would have to be Mikey’s bitch.

      Posted by cuckoo on 10/24 at 11:14 PM • permalink


    1. If I were an impressionable young extremist interested in having my guts sprayed and mixed in with those of the infidel, I’d listen to Pillockager’s idea and think “hey, even this scary looking, craggy faced whiteboy thinks that it’s OK to kill the scum violating my brothers in Iraq…” Sounds like an incitement to commit violence to me.
      Why does the ABC and SBS persist in giving this mongrel a voice – and a publicly funded one at that – when he has such an obvious and sickening contempt for his own country.
      And Liz Jackson’s miserable attempt to throw more mud at Bolt was laughable.  Tell me, what part of Bolt’s article, quoted by Liz, wasn’t actually true?

      Posted by pick-your-pun on 10/24 at 11:29 PM • permalink


    1. The phenominal thing about the Media Watch show was their effort at attacking Andrew Bolt. What relevance do his views have on the likely prosecution of John Pilger?

      Talk about publicly funded soapbox.

      Posted by JamesP on 10/24 at 11:39 PM • permalink


    1. Actually , i love to see these moonbats pontificating on the ABC (and that includes the rodent like Mr Jones, who reminds me of a welsh tax inspector i once had to deal with). Jones is actually quite likeable and although he appears in awe of the uber intelligentsia,he does snap back occassionally when provoked.
      i figure the more Aussie see the ridiculous levels left wing journalism has sunk too the better it is for Australia.
      So ABc bring ‘em on. Galloway, farrakhan, Omar Bakri, david hicks,orla Guerin… lets have em all and give tham as much public airtime as poss.
      that’l wake up the general public!

      Posted by davo on 10/24 at 11:43 PM • permalink


    1. Pixy, I forgot to mention here earlier that our friend the wingtard didn’t take kindly to being banned—he (“real” name “dan dsa”) sent me three emails full of obscene vituperation. In them he bragged about logging in from the library, and how he’s gonna re-sign up until I block all the library’s IPs, stupid bitch that I am, etc. He’s a real piece of work.

      So if I end up blocking the entire Australian public library network and some of you regular guys here use that to log on, sorry in advance.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 10/25 at 12:08 AM • permalink


    1. A Hannibal Lector mask might cramp his style……..
      Franny on rn am with mg…about ir laws and anti terror laws and senatorial scrutiny.
      “Its OUTRAGEOUS and an UNHOLY rush” then
      twice -“But why the RUSH.”
      Then with minister Kev Andrews..
      “But people do have QUESTIONS,why not give them MORE TIME.”
      Her next interview was with FOSTERS BREWING about the wine glut and new varieties.

      Posted by crash on 10/25 at 12:17 AM • permalink


    1. Does anyone else have a problem with Media Watch dedicating almost an entire program to “exposing” the supposed faults in a piece of Government legislation when clearly their charter is to watch the media? I certainly do.

      The show is called Media Watch, is it not? Since when did it become acceptable for Media Watch to stop watching the media? Since when did it become acceptable for Media Watch to turn its attention to our elected representatives in Canberra? In my view never. The only time Canberra should enter the equation is of course they are unloading on the Canberra Times or Paul Bongiorno etc for sloppy practices. Plenty of ammo there.

      The board of the taxpayer sponsered sheltered workshop (the ABC, in case you were in any doubt) ought to drag McEvoy and Jackson in and give them a severe bollocking for losing sight of their prime objective – the media, and allowing their obvious personal biases against the Federal Government to be exposed on the public broadcaster – at great expense to the taxpayer. Very poor form as far as a couple of self-confessed “professional” journalists are concerned I would have thought. Then again, this type of ranting and raving most certainly enhances their street cred amongst all their fellow lefty travellers.

      If they want to spout personal opinions they really should start up their own blogs at their own expense as opposed to misspending valuable taxpayer funds firing pot shots at targets other than the media. If they can’t get the basics right then they really should feck right off!!

      Posted by TruthHandler on 10/25 at 12:21 AM • permalink


    1. Andrea, I got much the same – and he thinks I’m a woman.  I didn’t bother to disabuse him of that, but I wonder if he saves his special posts for female victims.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/25 at 01:01 AM • permalink


    1. Andrea
      Commisserations on the nasty turd.
      This is what alittle exposure to the “left “ brings with it. The obscene language and the childich insult are part and parcel of it all.
      If you ever visited the defunct london Independant forum, you would have got an eye opener in the debating standards of these folk.
      perhaps we need a media watch bias blog site?
      yes quite right truthkander either change the title of the program to “government watch” or stick to the topics.

      Posted by davo on 10/25 at 01:03 AM • permalink


    1. He just sent me another obscene email, so I sent a note to Yahoo.com.au’s TOS people about him violating their member conduct rules. He still is reading Tim’s site obsessively, by the way, so now he knows. I wonder if he’s stupid enough to send me another obscene email. Note to wingie: all web-based email services have rules of conduct that ban members from using their sites to send people obscene, threatening, vilifying, etc. emails, under which your little love notes to me certainly qualify.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 10/25 at 01:10 AM • permalink


    1. The penalty remember is a possible 7 years in jail. Now you may not be a Pilger fan, but would you really want to silence him like that?

      I laughed.

      Posted by kae on 10/25 at 01:38 AM • permalink


    1. #34 You don’t realise that these post-adolescent agitprop ABC journos think they’ve got this gig to *save* the righteous media [them] from all the fascist repressors out here.
      Like Adamski, they really believe they *are* The Balance that guarantees media freedom in Oz.  Bias=Balance, don’t you know?
      Don’t disabuse them of their fantasies and stop our money coming in.

      Posted by Barrie on 10/25 at 01:46 AM • permalink


    1. Jus reading the transcript of last night’s show. It seems the ABC is worried that it could be punished for ‘inciting terrorism’ with the knowledge that by deliberately bringing a ‘Pilger’ onto the show, prompting him, knowing full well what he’ll say, is inciting behaviour.

      Well too bad. Of course they knew Pilger would make such a statement, after all Jones asked the questions. They admit as much here:
      But how could the new laws reach beyond the person who makes the seditious comments, to criminalise the media outlet that puts them to air?

      According to our legal advice:

      If a journalist or producer of a television programme invited such a commentator onto a program knowing that such comments were likely to be made and directly or indirectly invited those comments by directed questions … the producers of the program … could be equally exposed.

      So in our hypothetical case, Tony Jones and Lateline could be charged.

      let them all hang I say.

      Posted by Nic on 10/25 at 01:52 AM • permalink


    1. He still is reading Tim’s site obsessively, by the way, so now he knows.

      As always, knowing that he is on the outside looking in, stewing in his impotent outrage, is the sweetest knowledge in the world.

      Allow me to outrage him further!  Viva democracy in Iraq!

      Posted by Sortelli on 10/25 at 02:15 AM • permalink


    1. What’s their opinion on the two priests that are being tried for speaking the truth about islamists? I’m sure it’s not the same.

      Posted by zefal on 10/25 at 02:26 AM • permalink


    1. Nic,sbs shows seditious stuff from overseas every morning,let alone the “current affairs” agitprop in the evenings.They get around it by airing a disclaimer-that the views expressed are not NECESSARILY the views of sbs.
      Under these laws they could be gone for all money.

      Posted by crash on 10/25 at 02:42 AM • permalink


    1. Here’s an excellent post from Biasedbbc on who really has been supplying weapons to Iraq between 1980 and 2002.
      It is quite mind boggling to see that the USA is not even in the top 10 COUNTRIES !!
      Wriggle around that one Pilger and Galloway.
      (Incidently Hats off to the Guardian for detailing the payments made to gallaway in today’s paper).
      Just in case Caroline’s definition of “The West” unintentionally misleads anyone, here, courtesy of Scott Burgess, are figures he derived from those of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (an independent foundation established in 1966 under the auspices of the Swedish parliament), showing “actual deliveries of major conventional weapons” to Iraq between 1980 and 2002, expressed in millions of dollars, in relative terms, at 1990 prices:

      Vendors $Millions Percent
      USSR 17,503 50.78%
      France 5,221 15.15%
      China 5,192 15.06%
      Czechosl 1,540 4.47%
      Poland 1,626 4.72%
      Brazil 724 2.10%
      Egypt 568 1.65%
      Romania 524 1.52%
      Denmark 226 0.66%
      Libya 200 0.58%
      USA 200 0.58%

      Referring to the original source, we can see that the UK’s total for this period, according to SIPRI, was $79 million dollars. We can also see that there are no figures recorded for the period from 1991-2002


      Posted by davo on 10/25 at 02:51 AM • permalink


    1. Tony Jones: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

      John Pilger: Well yes, they’re legitimate targets. They’re illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from a Japanese person’s point of view they are legitimate targets. They have to be, sure.
      — Lateline, ABC, 2 April 1945

      Bang! – Firing Squad, 3 April 1945

      Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 10/25 at 02:57 AM • permalink


    1. slightly o/t
      Radio nasty’s show Big Ideas,Ramona Kovahl today visited a writer’s conference and just happened upon Andrew West of New Mathilda,Hilary McPhee of N.M. and Suad Almeeri(sorry if that’s not spelt right)who is the author of “Sharon and My Mother In Law–diaries from Ramullah”.(She is Palestinian I gather).
      They discussed blogging and msm, ms McPhee revealed that her readers were a very literate bunch and read two to three newspapers,subscribing also to “literary journals”.She explained how people who were willing to take risks and EXPOSE themselves got a much better response.
      Hope Andrew West wasn’t attending too closely…
      Dear Andrew said bravely “If I think a CERTAIN UNNAMED WORLD LEADER IS A WAR CRIMINAL I say so and not too many disagree with me.I am being passionate.On line I DON’T NEED TO WRITE WITH OBJECTIVITY.
      However-“I will not write about N.S.W. politics or Bob BLOODY Carr.”
      Kovahl explained that New Mathilda “campaigned for a Bill of Human Rights in oz and that they have a model bill on site”.
      Next week’s guests Robert Manne and Martin Flanagan.Lastly a promo for L.N.L. and guest is to be an ex advisor to Clinton.Topic “Is the Bush Administration pretty well knackered.”

      Posted by crash on 10/25 at 03:02 AM • permalink


    1. I realise that this is in relation to forthcoming legislation but surely advocating the murder of Australian servicemen is already a punishable offence? He clearly says “yes” to the question of approving the killing Australian troops in Iraq, there must be sufficient legislation on the books to collar him, incitement to violence, hatred something like that?

      I find that with most of this proposed new anti-terror legislation that it is totally superfluous and that the criminal offences are already there, but that the cops just want the extra powers to be used in completely inappropriate ways, like the woman walking in a bicycle lane through some Scottish naval base and who just laughed at the jobsworth security guard who tried to stop her.

      No there’s absolutely no need for extra powers just use the ones they already have more effectively.

      Posted by Harry Flashman on 10/25 at 03:05 AM • permalink


    1. Thanks to Media Watch for the best laugh I’ve had in ages.  These laws are supposed to be… bad?  John Pilger locked up for 7 years?  SBS producers dragged into court?  Leftoids gagged?  Yes please!  But then again, be careful what you wish for.  All the decent blogs would lose half their content if there was no lefty drivel to expose…

      Posted by rebase on 10/25 at 03:10 AM • permalink


    1. Guys, I think charging John Pilger with sedition would be a capital idea. But, if these laws are introduced, do any of you seriously think that would be the outcome?

      For that matter, what are the odds of any real terrorist supporters being successfully prosecuted? Abdul the AlQaeda recruiter will get a pro-bono QC, a sympathetic judge, a jury packed with University Professors and he’ll be back on the streets in two months with a million bucks compensation.

      Outspoken ordinary folk will be the ones who will run afoul of a law like this, for example anti-abortionists or those who may express cogent but unpopular opinions—like the entire Tax Office should be put to Fire and the Sword, or that we should all own guns (because if our Governing Class and fellow citizens can’t respect us they can at least fear us).

      Governments won’t abuse this law? Yeah, and I’m a Dutchman…

      Posted by kipwatson on 10/25 at 03:50 AM • permalink


    1. unpopular opinions—like the entire Tax Office should be put to Fire and the Sword

      Unpopular?  With whom?

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/25 at 04:14 AM • permalink


    1. It’d sure be fun trying though kipwatson– don’t waste you’re breath son.

      Posted by crash on 10/25 at 04:29 AM • permalink


    1. your…

      Posted by crash on 10/25 at 04:30 AM • permalink


    1. It seems that Fairfax is preempting the legislation.

      Posted by captain on 10/25 at 05:30 AM • permalink


    1. If Pilgers face is that wrinkly, imagine what his ballbag must look like??

      Hold that thought….

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 10/25 at 05:55 AM • permalink


    1. How about exile, spending the rest of his life on Phillip Adam’s farm would shut the bastard up, it certainly seems to have taken the steam out of Paul Keating.

      Posted by cjblair on 10/25 at 06:19 AM • permalink


    1. Yeah, I agree with those who say Pilger needs more exposure, not less, although there’s a good case for making him do it while living among his saintly islamic supremacists rather than from the comfort of the evil West.

      Here in the railway stations, SBS is advertising its foreign movies channel to commuters by having a muezzin loudly wailing about Allan for 30 seconds, while a caption whines about “doors closing to foreigners”. Nobody seems to have pointed out to the comrades in their ideological ghettoes that the effect on commuters would be similar to playing Hitler’s shrieking speeches. I have little doubt that this sort of campaign unintentionally helps to boost the conservative vote by constantly reminding voters of what’s at stake. I would like to see Pilger’s interviews being played as their next campaign, perhaps accompanied by the caption “Die, crusader infidel scum!”

      Posted by Jim Geones on 10/25 at 06:27 AM • permalink


    1. We should take a line from Gary Trudeau, and shout GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 10/25 at 06:32 AM • permalink


    1. Now you may not be a Pilger fan, but would you really want to silence him like that?

      Pilger the object of ridicule = good.
      Pilger the silenced martyr = bad.
      Pilger’s very stupidest and vilest remarks, in heavy rotation, with wide circulation on all available media outlets in USA, UK, & Australia = best chance of generating widespread scorn for this islamapologist asscake.
      Pilger’s own seditionist ass in a cell = bad use of law.
      ===== OTOH =====
      I hope I’m not being inconsistent, but Andrea’s pulling the plug on that screechy fucktard T-SAW is a gooooooooooooooood thing.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 10/25 at 09:14 AM • permalink


    1. Contrast Pilger with Clive James, on BBC Radio 4 yesterday

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml and click on the audio.

      Clive described Australia in glowing terms – as the best country in the world.

      The host, Andrew Marr said ‘collective jaws have dropped here in the studio’, in typical BBC patronising style (as if the colonies could be such a thing!)

      I originally thought Clive was taking the p**s, in that amusing sarcastic way he does. But no, Clive’s description of the movement of people into Australia (lots of people) and out (not so many) was compelling stuff.

      If you to decide whether a country is any good or not, judge it by the flows of ordinary people – a far more reliable source than the whinings of a few overpaid eejits (eg Pilger).

      Posted by Flying Giraffe on 10/25 at 09:21 AM • permalink


    1. Flying Giraffe

      “Britain has lost more skilled workers to the global “brain drain” than any other country, according to a report by the World Bank.

      More than 1.44 million graduates have left the UK to look for more highly paid jobs in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. That far outweighs 1.26 million immigrant graduates in the UK, leaving a net “brain loss” of some 200,000 people.

      The findings will fuel concerns that Britain’s failure to defend its manufacturing, science and university base is pushing highly skilled workers overseas and risks damaging long-term productivity.

      The scale of the emigration as a share of the total skilled workforce is also high. At 16.7 per cent – or one in six graduates – it is much higher than any other major industrialised country. In contrast, France has lost just 3.4 per cent of its graduates, the lowest level of any large country.”

      So I’m not the only one leaving.

      Posted by Rob Read on 10/25 at 11:15 AM • permalink


    1. Davo —

      Further, if you look at SIPRI breakdowns of systems, over half the U.S.-supplied “arms” in that 0.58% are unarmed civilian-model helicopters sold for police use, which were then repurposed by the Iraqi military.  In the U.S., those models of helicopter are owned by such dangerous groups as TV and radio stations.  That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be weaponized, but one can mount guns on pickup trucks or use school buses to transport troops, too.

      By the way, you’ll also hear it mentioned the U.S. gave Iraq “millions of dollars in aid” during the Iran-Iraq war.  That is true.  What you won’t often hear is that it was in agricultural export credits, only redeemable for U.S.-grown food.  That did free up Iraq to use its hard currency for other purposes, but then, so did Oil-For-Food.

      Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 10/25 at 03:40 PM • permalink


    1. Having re-read the proposed legislation, I don’t think Pilger would be charged or convicted for what he said.

      First of all, the Attorney-General must personally approve any action taken under that section—which is unlikely given the political considerations.

      Then there is the exemption for views put forward in “good faith” as a criticism of government policy. Pilger’s statements would probably fall into that category.

      I think in practice, this legislation will only be applied in extreme cases.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 10/25 at 05:58 PM • permalink


    1. Don’t just charge him.  Put him under house arrest at the Hotel Palestine, with a good view of the street…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 10/25 at 08:08 PM • permalink


    1. Pilger should be dropped into North Korea and left to try and explain the importance of the freedom of the press.

      I’m sure they will absolutely love to here his opinions.

      Posted by youngy on 10/25 at 08:27 PM • permalink


    1. # 63 …..and a pair of binoculars.

      Posted by noir on 10/25 at 08:28 PM • permalink


    1. warmongering lunatic—LIES! LIES!  The Iraqis used those credits to buy potatos– RAW! POTATOS!– which they then dropped on defenseless Iranians from high places!

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 10/25 at 09:46 PM • permalink


    1. Moderator please remove comment #20 by Harry Buttle. Not only is the comment a clear violation of the posting rules, it is illegal to make written threats of violence against another person in Australia. Mr Buttle suggests that John Pilger should be silenced using a 7.62mm sniper’s rifle. Obviously his comments were a joke, nevertheless, under the NSW Crimes Prevention Act 1916;

      “3 Printing or publishing writing inciting to crimes

      If any person prints or publishes any writing which incites to, urges, aids, or encourages the commission of crimes or the carrying on of any operations for or by the commission of crimes, such person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to a penalty not exceeding 1 penalty unit.”

      Not only has Mr Buttle exposed himself to legal action he has also exposed the owners and publishers of Timblair.net to the possibility of criminal prosecution. In this new security climate it is only sensible to treat these matters with utmost seriousness and ensure no further threats are published on this site.

      Posted by bfredrick on 10/25 at 10:27 PM • permalink


    1. moderator, could you please also remove Pilger’s comments from the ABC as they seem to incite crimes as well?

      Posted by captain on 10/25 at 10:56 PM • permalink


    1. bfredrick @ ‘noneofyourbusiness.com’

      If you’re going to be an officious busybodying twit, then don’t hide behind a fake e-mail address…

      NB. I think this proves that freedom of speech has already been curtailed too far. If one can’t express a desire to see the end of a traitor and scoundrel like Pilger, then what can one say…?

      Posted by kipwatson on 10/25 at 10:58 PM • permalink


    1. Flying Giraffe #59

      Thanks for the link.  Cheered me up.  Clive James says Australia ‘is the world’s dream of itself’.

      The world dreams of being a bunch of acquisitive, racist, white imperialists like us?

      James wrote a wonderful piece after the first Bali bombings.

      As for Pilger, something’s wrong with the new sedition laws if he get caught in the net.  The worst punishment for people like him is contempt.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 10/26 at 02:28 AM • permalink


    1. The worst punishment for people like him is contempt.

      Well, being ignored would be better, but harder to arrange.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/26 at 02:42 AM • permalink


    1. Pixy

      Yeah.  He’s a one man narcotics industry for addicts of self-hatred.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 10/26 at 02:49 AM • permalink


    1. bfred has been banned. I’ve never seen a comment by him before, so I suspect he’s a troll.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 10/26 at 07:33 AM • permalink


    1. I think bfredrick was serious, Andrea.

      Harry, stow the piece.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 10/26 at 11:15 AM • permalink


    1. Given that bfredrick didn’t even bother to ascertain whether timblair.net is hosted on an Australian server (it isn’t) before going into his spiel, I’m voting for troll.

      Posted by PW on 10/26 at 07:36 PM • permalink


    1. I have never in my life read such an array of half-baked, superficially thought out opinions. In the late 60’s a third of the Australian population would have violated such sedition laws as we opposed our country’s involvement in the Vietnam War. If these laws had been in place then we could not have removed the government that had us there under the pretext of the ‘yellow peril’. Don’t get distracted with pseudo patriotic emotions – look at the long-term ramifications of the censorship of “freedom of speech”, a fundamental element of democracy. The Australian public is not protected from our constitution by powerful documents such as ‘The Bill of Rights’ in USA or the ‘Magna Carta’ in the UK.
      TruthMIShandler, Media Watch presented the Pilger case as an example of how the media could potentially be ‘legally’ gagged this is completely in line with their subject matter. Harry Buttle, thank goodness we already have laws for the numbskulls with thinking like your’s.
      On the Media Watch program I saw Pilger NEVER said he thought the Iraq invaders should be killed. He said “And I would have thought from an Iraqi’s point of view they are legitimate targets”. The same as Australians would have thought the Japanese would have been ‘legitimate targets’ had they invaded us.

      Posted by BillWilson on 10/27 at 06:49 PM • permalink


    1. Now listen here BillWilson, you softcock lefty apologist. The program is called Media Watch – not Canberra Watch or Pollie Watch. Get it stupid???

      This program has a responsibility to watch the media – no more, no less. To embark on an obvious personal political campaign is to misuse valuable taxpayer dollars – something at which the ABC have become truly adept over time.

      Get your head out of your arse you ignorant moron.

      Posted by TruthHandler on 10/27 at 07:10 PM • permalink


    1. BillWilson.  Have you read the Magna Carta lately? The Brits have stupidly just signed on to an intrusive EU Bill of Rights, and now haven’t even got their sovereignty to change its errors.

      You also miss the point about Pilger. Like the Communist Oz journalist Wilfred Burchett, who sided with North Korea and the Chinese in 1953, Pilger sides with savage dictators against his own country today.
      Burchett was banned from our shores for decades for his treachery against our soldiers while they fought tyranny [which sadly remains].
      Pilger deserves no less for his abuse of our freedoms and contempt for our soldiers.

      Posted by Barrie on 10/27 at 10:23 PM • permalink


    1. Barrie, Pilger is NOT the issue. The IMPORTANT ISSUE is weather a citizen has the RIGHT to disagree with majority opinion or the government of the day. This is what is at stake with the legislation being sneaked through at the same time as a number of other highly emotive issues. This is a fundamental element of democracy. “I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me”- Voltaire.

      Posted by BillWilson on 10/27 at 10:51 PM • permalink


    1. Bill, Communist Burchett was a journalist who gave comfort to the enemy in time of war, encouraging the killing of our soldiers and inventing propaganda against them -and so wishing and working for the *death* of our beliefs and values too.  He was denied a passport by all sides of our government for a long time for this.

      Pilger has consistently and openly sided with our enemies too – Hussein being just the latest he favours.
      He may get away with it in Europe, but why should he visit our shores?

      You seem to think that we are not at war now.  Would you die for Saddam, for the Jihadists?

      Posted by Barrie on 10/28 at 07:33 AM • permalink


  1. Barry, Pilger IS NOT THE ISSUE here. Media Watch looked at a specific interview in a specific context to look at the sedition laws being proposed and weather or not a citizen and, of greater interest to Media Watch, weather the media could be prosecuted for interviewing someone who didn’t agree with some government decision.
    Within this interview Pilger spoke of issues in a particular “context” and then spoke of how he thought things would be from an Iraqi’s point of view. To any thinking person, the points of view are reasonably to be expected. Pilger’s other activities and attitudes have nothing to do with the point being made by Media Watch about the legislated removal of our rights to voice opinions. It is already bad enough that our media is unofficially censored by manipulation of media editors. History, now clearly shows that we should never have gone to Vietnam Laos and Cambodia, but the government of the day tried very hard to silence all the protesters then too. I’m glad we had the guts then to not give into politicians yelling “danger” trying to scare ‘sheep’ into their pens.

    Posted by BillWilson on 10/28 at 12:28 PM • permalink