Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) showed a double-header on 26 April 2012: the resulting documentary I Can Change Your Mind, followed by a Q&A panel session. You can also watch both programs on ABC iView till 10 May 2012.

In a post-show post on the ABC’s Drum, Anna Rose of the AYCC (Australian Youth Climate Coalition) shares her doubts about the approach:

Debating those who reject the science of climate change is a risky business. Was it worth it?

…Some people told me that I was naive to think I could ‘win' the argument; that the whole idea of the show played into the denialists' strategy of framing the science as disputed (when there actually isn't any reasonable doubt left) and that it was just an opportunity for Nick to place figures opposing the science into the mainstream media.

You can’t say she wasn’t warned. Graham Readfern had offered Anna his opinion beforehand:

…in my view the show’s format was flawed in that it would put non-peer-reviewed, pseudo science conducted by largely unqualified non-experts alongside decades of genuine peer reviewed scientific research. It might make for engaging telly, but it creates a false sense of balance.
If I were a climate sceptic activist or a fossil fuel lobbyist designing a format for a TV show, this show is what I’d probably come up with.

Twitter brought out the beast in many. Try searching ‘Anna Rose’, ‘Nick Minchin’ or #changeyourmind if you don’t mind personal attacks.

This exchange between Gavid Dwyer and Stu Moffat captures the combative tone of the whole exercise:

@gdfollow:

#qanda Anna Rose's expert Prof Muller hid research showing global warming has stopped. http://ow.ly/1LgkpS #auspol #pmlive #agenda

@stu_moffat:

@Gdfollow #qanda What rubbish! Looking at one 5-10 year graph of surface temps and saying that climate change has stopped is just ignorant!

@Gdfollow:

@stu_moffatt I agree. But if it's ok for Anna rose to sprout horrible unproven non science based rubbish to get point across so can I

@MrDenmore, who regularly blogs about the media at The Failed Estate, compared the show with another Aussie TV program about asylum seekers:

The SBS doco ‘Go Back to Where You Came From” was about challenging ignorance; the ABC's #changeyourmind #qanda is about legitimising it

The blogosphere have also been vocal. Quite a few were live-blogging. Simon of Australian Climate Madness gave up after detecting what he saw as ABC bias by using a pro-climate action scientist in the audience:

APPALLING BIAS to allow Matthew England act as Q&A's “appointed” climate scientist - WTF? Where's Lindzen for balance?

OK, sick of this now. ABC has abandoned any pretence of impartiality. Going offline. *fume*

Roger Jones of Understanding Climate Risk is aware that it’s easy to see what you believe:

What’s the wrap? I think this doco showed how important people’s values and prior assumptions are in influencing the way we view evidence.

He seems to prove his own observation in the next sentence:

I don’t think Q&A achieved all that much but I was glad Matt England was there to clarify a few things.

Loon Pond refused to watch the program but takes Nick Minchin to task about his follow up newspaper article:

Minchin presents himself as open-minded and willing to learn, but all you get in the piece is a repetition by rote of a few talking points, a mish-mash of ignorance and misinformation, all designed to reinforce the bee in Minchin's bonnet.

Tory Maguire, editor of News Limited’s online blogsite The Punch, has her own doubts about human nature:

Not only did they not change each others’ minds, it’s doubtful they would have changed anyone else’s minds either.

Climate researcher Ian McHugh seemed to agree at Crikey:

The sum total of useful commentary on ABC’s stultifying I Can Change Your Mind About Climate …was five minutes of British scientist and author Ben Goldacre. That the most edifying moments in the program included his admission that he’d rather slam his cock in a door than “debate” climate change probably tells those of you who missed it most of what you need to know.

Not everyone was as cynical. In the end Anna Rose Above it, according to Drillvoice:

In all, last night was some great programming. It was challenging, but Anna rose to it. Australia’s soft sceptics were exposed to a likeable, effective climate communicator. Australia’s climate-concerned were exposed to likeable, effective climate communication.

Wake Up 2 The Lies isn’t fooled:

Finally someone stands up to the Australian Youth Climate Coalition Cult and says what a lot of Australians have wanted to say. Climate Depot’s Marc Morano’s fantastic rant from the ABC’s documentary “Can I Change Your Mind About Climate”

Over at The Conversation, Astrophysics professor Michael Ahsley isn't a Morano fan:

Morano is a master of the Gish Gallop, spewing out a rapid-fire string of arguments – sea level is dropping, polar bear populations are increasing, temperatures are going down – which are impossible to refute on the spot in a television debate.

The ABC, as our national broadcaster, is supposed to help us to form our views by presenting competing ideas. Many feel that giving equal time to the small percentage of scientists and commentators who are climate sceptics, delayers or deniers provides unwarranted weight to their arguments not true balance. Academic Stephan Lewandowsky argues:

What would it take for a documentary to provide a properly balanced perspective on climate science? Simple: Anna Rose should have had 97 scientists in her corner to balance Minchin's sole climate scientist. Because 97 out of 100 actual experts know that the climate is changing due to human greenhouse emissions. Two are undecided and one in 100 opposes the mainstream science.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Club Troppo’s Don Arthur summarised:

On Tuesday mining magnate Clive Palmer fronted the media and announced that the US Central Intelligence Agency is using the Rockefeller Foundation to fund a campaign to undermine Australia’s coal industry.

His apparent confusion between the Foundation and the Rockerfeller Family Fund brought out a mixture of irony and sarcasm from JD Lang of Independent Australia in ‘Clive Palmer is rich so we should hear him out‘:

It is tempting to dismiss these allegations as the fantastical ravings of an obviously unsound mind; the preposterous and risibly demented squawks of a man possessed by a feverishly overactive imagination, complete lack of general knowledge, and a pitifully underdeveloped cerebral cortex.

…You don’t get to be so very, very, very, VERY rich by living in a complete fantasy world of spooks and conspiracies and reds under the bed all looking to take away your vast, vast, fortune (my precious), do you? Of course not.

In ‘Clive Palmer’s truth is really out there‘, Tory Shepherd seems dogged by conspiracists:

Clive Palmer’s conspiracy is amusing, but not harmless. Every time someone with influence squanders reason, a little truth puppy dies.

Palmer has his supporters. Barnaby is Right doesn’t trust the media to get the story correct:

I am certainly not jerking the knee in a self-glorifying display of imagined-witty insults, spewed bile, and general ad hominem abuse.

Like many journalists.

I am curious to follow up, to decide for myself whether there is any substance to Mr Palmer’s claims.

Especially since my own research over many years suggests there may be more than a little ring of truth in what he has said.

At Pure Poison Dave Gaukroger is also concerned about media, but this time it is lack of coverage by Murdoch platforms:

When a prominent, influential donor and supporter of one of our major political parties announces that the intelligence agency of a foreign power is orchestrating a campaign against Australian interests you think that’d be pretty big news. Apparently not if that person is Clive Palmer.

Colin of whatintheworld is worried about another world order, adding the United Nations to the CIA covert campaign:

It has started with the Carbon Tax and will continue until every resource property and industry is completely under the rules and regulations of the UN all in the name of sustainability.

Watching the Deniers must have been following Colin as he sees parallels with Palmer’s climate scepticism:

Conspiracy thinking and the fear of the “other” runs deep within the denial movement.

In the deniers world bankers, scientists, the UN, Freemasons, Greens and socialists are plotting to take over the globe and reduce our living standards on par with the stone age.

Cartoon from New Matilda: courtesy Fiona Katauskas

Palmer’s claims have raised a number of other conspiracies related to political power. He has a high profile in conservative politics as an active participant in and major financial donor to the Liberal and National Parties. He has been active in his opposition to the Gillard government’s Mining Profits tax. He also plans a High Court challenge to its Carbon price legislation.

His alleged misuse of and influence on the political process has given rise to an ugly war of words with Wayne Swan, Federal Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister. At the academic blog The Conversation, Jean-Paul Gagnon is clearly concerned that money speaks too loudly:

There is great anxiety among scholars over the influence of money, vested interests, and corporate lobbies in most modern governments.

… Swan’s position is more in line with the broad international and deep humanistic ethos of democracy. Palmer has no legitimacy and his comments have served to further erode the power of money, crass materialism and useless greed.

In addition, past accusations of CIA meddling in Oz politics have resurfaced such as Don Arthur’s reference to a right wing cultural journal:

While there’s no evidence that Australian green groups are being funded by the CIA there is one Australian organisation known to have received CIA funding — Quadrant magazine.

Twittter tag #clivepalmer has also added to the conspiracy theories with many wacky contributions.

Finally online advocacy organisation GetUp! has released a video parody of a CIA response:

As they say: One person's conspiracy is another person's reality.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (2)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Can she unite the party and make sure that her only opponent is Opposition leader Tony Abbott?

Image courtesy: Jon Kudelka

The blogosphere has been active in assessing whether it will be a fresh start for Gillard’s government. On his progressive blog Public Opinion, Gary Sauer-Thompson is pessimistic:

All the rhetoric about healing should be taken with a grain of salt. The wounds are too raw and deep, there is a fundamental disconnect between the Gillard Government and the broader Australian electorate, the Gillard Government faces the existential threat of being destroyed in the 2013 election, and the Abbott-led opposition will only increase the grenade throwing.

This is a government under siege. It is fighting issues of authority, legitimacy and trust in difficult times amidst the angst stirred up by its policy reforms.

At The Drum, former secondary teacher Malcolm Farnsworth sees it as a case of “sink or swim” together for the Australian Labor Party:

The Labor caucus has bound itself to Julia Gillard. It is impossible to imagine a Rudd revival.

… The message to the electorate is also stark and direct. Forget Kevin Rudd, he's not coming back. June 2010 was then. Now it's Gillard or Abbott. Make your choice.

Do not sell Julia Gillard short is the warning from government opponent Steve Kates at ‘libertarian and centre-right’ Catallaxy Files:

She wins, and is now the most powerful Prime Minister this country has had in years. There is nothing she wants that is beyond her grasp being in cahoots as she is with her soulmates in the Greens.

… I fear people misjudge Julia’s competence. She has shown herself incredibly able at the job of leading a party and it is she who is Prime Minister…

Cosimina, ‘Personal and Corporate Image Branding’, is aware of the dangers of highlighting a female politician’s appearance but does it anyway:

In order for her to successfully win the next election the Labor party must work extremely hard in rebuilding the Gillard Brand & Image.

…The changes in her appearance need to be subtle and continuous. julia needs to dress with authority…

… Julia needs to work on tone, speed, and breathing techniques. One comment I always get is “she is stiff” so body language and motion definitely need attention…

Politician should not be about clothes and fashion but unfortunately we are a society that judges – so accept it and work with it.

Business Spectator’s Rob Burgess is full of optimism in Gillard is now a real threat to Abbott, hoping a policy debate will replace personality politics:

So let the contest of ideas, and the communication of those ideas begin. If Abbott really rises to that challenge, Gillard is finished.

But if something like serious political debate emerges in this country in the next 17 months there's a good chance Abbott has a problem.

As a member of Abbott’s Liberal Party, The Red and the Blue’s Yale Stephens sees a glass less than half full for Labor:

People don’t like her; they don’t trust her; they don’t believe anything she has to say; and they certainly don’t support her.

There has been a lot of rhetoric from Labor types today about the imperative to all come together; to “heal;” and to “unify.”

All of that is noble sentiment, but the problem remains: Rudd might have been a disloyal troublemaker, but ultimately the government’s problem is its leader.

In contrast, Catching Up poses the question Do you know who our PM is?

I believe most do not.

Many do not know her, but they all know she is bad, sly and a liar.

The answer:

What we do know: Those who know her personally and are close, have nothing but praise for her guts, ability and loyalty.

Law professor James Allan, writing for the conservative think tank Centre for Independent Studies, is Looking for an analogy:

Then there is the federal Labor brand. If anyone thinks there can be unity after this, that the party can re-unite and get on with things, then I’d like to smoke what he’s smoking.

And how can Gillard deal with the Liberal election campaign when it repeats all the accusations first made by Labor people themselves?

Finally, the inevitable sports satire came from the White Maggot (the name refers to umpires who traditionally wore white) in Rudd set to challenge Gillard as Bulldogs Number 1 Ticket Holder. The Western Bulldogs is an Australian Football League club located in Footscray, part of Julia Gillard’s electorate. The prime minister will be hoping that her bark is at least the equal of her bite.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (2)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

As well as bloggers such as Lavartus Prodeo and their legions of commenters, Twitter users have taken to the task with gusto. #respill has been the tag of choice for many whilst the somewhat bizarre #kevenge seems to capture the mood of many others in Twitterville.

Kevin Rudd's daughter Jessica knows the value of a well-timed tweet. This one got plenty of publicity:

@Jess_Rudd: Effing proud of you, Dad. xxxx

The “effing” seemed to fit after the video of her father Happy Little Vegemite that was released earlier in the week. The video contains numerous expletives:

There were suggestions from both sides that the other had posted the video - either to embarrass Rudd or to humanise him. Cassie White could see both in the ex-PM's swearing:

@cassie_white: I get that this video is supposed to embarrass @KRuddMP but it just makes me like him http://bit.ly/w02qvX An Aussie who swears, SHOCK!!

A new pro-Rudd user appeared @Vote4Rudd which asks, “Follow us if you want Kevin Rudd back!” Despite Kevin’s supposed popularity it had only 141 followers after two days.

Parliamentarians who have not yet indicated how they will vote are being hounded on twitter. Journalists such as @ABCNews24’s reporter Latika Bourke seem relentless. After stalking Anthony Albanese MP for days she live-tweeted his whole radio interview:

@latikambourke: Anthony Albanese says he's old fashioned and told first the people he is NOT voting for. GIllard/Swan then he phoned Rudd. #respill

Her tweeting is a case study in itself in the use of social media for professional journalism.

The media have fallen back on the old cliché about soap operas, bur neither the prime minsiter nor netizen Tom Taylor were amused:

@TomTaylorMade: Gillard: ‘This is not an episode of Celebrity Big Brother.' We know. The public can vote in Celebrity Big Brother.

Some #kevenge tweets from today (25 February) seem appropriate:

‏@bennpackham: Rudd is well behind at this stage but this whole people power thing is pure evil genius #kevenge

@AshGhebranious: Julia , ever since you got this Kevin Rudd monkey off your back, you have been sounding really impressive. #auspol #respill #kevenge

@SuzyJacobs: Guillard will never escape the stink of her succession #auspoll #respill #kevenge

Captain Danger is clearly disillusioned with the mass media's groupthink:

@CaPtAiN_dAnGeR_: i follow too many Aussie journos. it's like a freakin echo chamber in here #respill #kevenge #albolove

The vote is 10.30 AM Monday 27 February, Canberra time. My next post will cover the fallout from Monday's vote.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (3)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

dana1981 at Skeptical Science ‘Getting skeptical about climate science skepticism’ was quick to share “major exposé posts on DeSmogBlog” in Heartland Insider Exposes Institute's Budget and Strategy:

Heartland's policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a “think tank” - it budgets $4.1 million of its $6.4 million in projected expenditures for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.

Jennifer Marohasy is a regular critic of climate change activists on her self-titled blog. She reposted Heartland’s denial and a statement by Bob Carter, the scientist in question, with a clear message in Tiny Budget for Heartland Institute Trying to Counter Global Climate Madness and Scientific Fraud:

The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Response from Heartland Institute

In the war on climate change ….. Your Democracy’s John Richardson was concerned about the sources of Heartland’s funding:

But the cache raises an equal number of questions – such as the identify of an anonymous donor that has been a mainstay of Heartland. The unnamed donor, who contributed $4.6m in 2008, has since scaled back contributions. Even so, the donor's $979,000 contribution in 2011 accounted for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, the fundraising plan says.

In a detailed post at Australian Climate Madness, Simon accepted Heartland’s claims that documents had been “fabricated”. He was also keen to dismiss comparisons with the email controversy Climategate:

In terms of moral equivalence, what Heartland is doing is not surprising; seems to be no different than what other advocacy groups do. The IPCC is a very different organization, and also the CRU/UEA, with explicit requirements for government accountability. So in terms of a scandal, I would have to say that Heartlandgate is nowhere near Climategate.

Online media site Crikey has reported on the leaks and raised the role of an Australian think tank:

The Institute for Public Affairs has previously sponsored Heartland’s climate change conferences — where Carter has been a regular speaker — which almost exclusively feature experts and academics who disagree that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases through burning fossil fuels represent a significant risk.

Jennifer Marohasy, quoted above, worked for the IPA as a researcher for 5 years.

In a follow-up on the Crikey blog Rooted, Amber Jamieson speculated about the identity of the alleged donor in Who’s the Anonymous Donor keeping a climate sceptic think tank afloat?

Meanwhile Joanne Nova, of JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax - Tackling tribal groupthink, seemed upbeat about the controversy:

The believers of man-made-weather-disasters are wetting themselves with excitement. It painful to watch grown men drool.

She saw Heartland as a very efficient operation and took a swipe at climate change advocates on the public payroll:

And if Bob Carter receives an honorarium type amount of $1500 a month, the pull of those big dollars must be powerfully tempting for people like Tim Flannery who struggle along on about $1200 each day he works.

Climate researcher Tony Rafter’s tweet seemed apt, given all the claims and counterclaims of hypocrisy:

@tonyrafter 12:26 AM - 16 Feb 12
“If you like your hypocrisy sandwiches served with a side order of double standards” check out the #Heartlandgate leaked docs! bit.ly/wBV2Kn

Issues related to funding of and by think tanks, and their independence and objectivity, are an ongoing source of online debate down under.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (2)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The fracas quickly turned to farce. Developments have included: that Mr Abbott’s remarks were misreported; the original tip-off came via Tony Hodges, one of the PM's media advisors (who has since resigned); accusations of a media beat-up of violence; a shoe lost by Ms Gillard was returned after suggestions of an ebay auction; a go-between was named followed by strong denials. At least that’s the best guess at the moment.

Preston Institute knew who to blame in Silly Advisers, Silly Media – This is Canberra, Today:

Yesterday’s “outrage” involving the PM and Tony Abbott has been one of the more diverting stories doing the rounds of our media. It appears to tell us more about the media and contemporary politics more than it does about Australia’s protesting spirit.

The story itself, of an escape from a Canberra restaurant besieged by unarmed protestors, provided some great footage for the TV print media to run around the world and back.

…The reality seems to be more prosaic, with Gillard and Abbott under little substantial threat.

In a very detailed analysis at the The Conscience Vote Marian Dalton argued that:

If no one remembers anything else from Australia Day, they’ll remember the footage of Prime Minister Julia Gillard being dragged to safety…

It was an ugly display, and it did nothing good for the cause of the Tent Embassy.

What remains, then, is a shameful display of behaviour that did nothing but harm the cause of indigenous rights, and the Tent Embassy in particular.

Skepticlawyer couldn’t resist the imagery of the abandoned shoe in her post When one’s IQ is less than one’s shoe size, and we’re only talking one shoe…

Tony Abbott gives me the screaming heaves, he really does. He’s the worst sort of godbothering big government conservative. But he did not call for the tent embassy to be ‘torn down’ and he did not ‘incite a riot’. Any rioting – as is usually the case – was the responsibility of the rioters.

There is speculation in the media that Tony Hodges misquoted Abbott, making his comments more aggressive. In a perverse way, I hope that’s true, because to respond to the above with violence suggests that at least some people in Australia have made their way into political cloud-cuckoo-land.

In the post, Australia Day 2012: Evil prevails, when good men say nothing, Gladly the cross-eyed bear defends the need for the tent embassy but not the manner of protest:

Indigenous Australians have every reason to be angry. They have every reason to defend their embassy. But this is Australia and, whatever our history, whatever the mistakes of the past, here, today, we do not fight political battles with physical violence.

…I am sickened and appalled at what appears to have been an attempt by some Aboriginal activists and their cohorts to bully and frighten Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday.

In the latest twist, johnboy revealed on RiotAct’s open forum that:

In the Canberra Times the Secretary of Unions ACT, Kim Sattler, is denying she was the one who riled up the Tent Embassy with news from the Prime Minister’s Office that Tony Abbott was in the nearby lobby restaurant.
When contacted by the Sunday Canberra Times this morning, Ms Sattler said she had been at the tent embassy but she was not the go between.
“I heard it from the crowd,’’ she said.
This is a bit tricky as The Age reports that Prime Minister Gillard is saying it was Ms Sattler.

Who knows the truth at this stage.

Mike Stuchbery captured the spirit of things on his self-titled blog:

There’s the soundbite, the outrage, the money shot and what’s left is for the carrion-eaters to blog and crow about.

Nobody comes away from today’s events in Canberra looking good.

Least of all, the protesters

He even has an eyewitness in his “little brother”, if you’re interested in an alleged firsthand account.

Perhaps modern politics is more about image than about reality. And a contest amongst both media and commentariat to be the most outraged. Ironically too many were ready to chastise the tent embassy crowd for reacting hastily to incorrect information, only to do the same thing themselves to media reports.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

There has been a contest for the worst pun following remarks by Teresa Gambaro, a Federal Member of the Australian Parliament. She called for immigrants on work visas to be taught ‘social norms’ such as the use of deodorants and waiting in orderly queues. (My post title is a poor contender.)

Teresa Gambaro

At Independent Australia, Tess Lawrence's post ‘Gambaro goes the raw prawn‘, is biting in its satire:

I am calling on Teresa to organise a Senate Select Committee so we can really thrash out this serious issue in the first session of Parliament. In fact, I want to see the wearing of deodorant become mandatory and written into our Constitution.

And shameless in its play on words:

You are clearly Prime Ministerial material by any measure, Dear Teresa. From henceforth, let the armpits be the electoral litmus test. You bring a whole new meaning to the hair of the dog.

Before any politician should covet the Upper House, we the People, should examine their Upper Lip.

Unless politicians pass the sniff test, they should remain on the nose of the Australian people.

The Castlemaine Independent’s satirist suggests that Politicians must wear deodorant:

Politicians should be taught about the importance of wearing deodorant…

Ms Gambaro said …she was concerned about politicians not integrating into the community because they were behind the eight-ball on health, hygiene and lifestyle, as well as on climate change, industrial relations, refugees and a host of other issues.

Marion Elizabeth Diamond of Historians are Past Caring doesn’t use deodorants and wonders during her musings on the “great unwashed”:

But I never knew before that my personal habits made me un-Australian.

Gambaro has her defenders. Dom looks at the broader issue of “cultural awareness training“:

… We can provide these people with assistance that they need in a way that respects them as people, and is flexible enough to see them as individuals and people capable of independent thought.
We're all so sensitive of difference, and its denial, that we're not willing to assist people with basic cultural training that could help them. Gambaro's right, she just needs some media training.

Speaking ‘In Support of Integration‘, Suzer, “an American expat living in Australia with her Aussie husband”, also supports her:

Taken out of context, one might easily judge Ms Gambaro. I'm dissappointed to see migrant advocacy groups take immediate offense, rather than seeing that Ms Gambaro might actually be an advocate herself for new migrants. Diversity training in Australian workplaces is not only a good idea, but a necessity, for both current and new Australians, so that we can learn about each other.

Your Democracy was less than kind to either Gambaro or cabbies when it reposted from Crikey:

Teresa Gambaro clearly encountered a smelly taxi driver or two over the festive period. It sparked a thought-bubble (to be generous) in the opposition citizenship spokesperson's mind…

Meanwhile, amid accusations of dog-whistling, Teresa Gambaro backs off migrant remarks after a rebuke from a senior Conservative parliamentary colleague. She claims to have been “misconstrued”. She can join the end of a very long, orderly queue of pollies claiming that!

(Dog-whistling “employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience”.)

Even the cartoonists are commenting, though it is probably not that kind of dog that Jon Kudelka has in mind:

Image courtesy of Jon Kudelka Cartoons

Finally, Opposition spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro has cracked the age-old question of why we all can’t just get along, and the answer turns out to be deodorant. Seriously. You can’t make this stuff up.

The Twitter hashtag #gambaro has more dreadful jokes and some serious comment. Check it out while the poop is still fresh.

This post is part of our special coverage on Refugees.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

In his post John Passant threw a left hook at both Obama and the local Greens Party:

The Greens support war criminal Barack Obama

Instead of welcoming mass murderer Obama, the Greens, as the biggest non-mainstream party, should be organising demonstrations against the war criminal.

On the right side of the political stage, the little known Australian TEA Party announced a rally of their own:

This is our big chance to impact the extreme left elites that are crippling our country and indeed the world.

…Julia Gillard and Barak Obama. These two deeply cynical Politicians are seeking to deflect disastrous domestic policies and unpopularity in their respective countries with a carefully choreographed - ‘photo op ‘ – propaganda event.

At Twitter Erin Riley warned against anti-US criticism:

@erinrileyau
And now for two days of reflexive, ill-informed anti-Americanism #obama #ObamaOz 16 Nov

Seamus’ message seemed to fit this category:

@deweyite
Good to see #obama taking the time to visit his constituents in the 51st state #auspol 16 Nov

Meanwhile the Northern Territory Insurance Office issued the President a free crocodile $A 50,000 insurance policy for his visit to Darwin on Thursday.

Obama Crocodile Insurance. Image courtesy TIO.

PR Warrior saw some merit in this gimmicky self-promotion:

In this age of digitised communications and ‘authentic conversations with your community of followers', it's refreshing to see there is still room for a good old-fashioned media publicity stunt.

A different, far more serious and potentially more deadly policy was the centrepiece of the visit. Your Democracy reposted an Op-Ed by Strategic Studies heavyweight Hugh White questioning plans to beef up America’s military presence in Australia. He concluded that:

Australia should tell Obama we take a different view on China.

A new Asia could evolve in which China exercises more power and influence than it has before, but does not dominate, and in which America no longer exercises primacy, but still plays a large and vital role. In short, an Asia in which the US and China share power.

This should be Australia's vision of Asia's future. We do not want to live under Chinse domination, but nor do we want to be squeezed by US-China rivalry. That is why, having given Obama a respectful hearing, we should explain why we take a different view. That is what good allies do.

Perhaps speech analyst and coach Dean Frenkel had in mind the Australian connection to the film The King’s Speech. Public speaking 101: A lesson in leadership from Obama was vocal advice for Oz politicians:

This is an opportunity for our elected representatives to listen to the outstanding professional communicator of our generation, the finest American political speaker since Martin Luther King. First and foremost, Mr Obama should trigger awakenings about the importance of communication skills to politicians. After listening to him, Australian politicians should clear their eyes, look into mirror, appraise their own abilities, commit to raising their standards and taking away some of Obama's qualities by osmosis.

Oz news aggregator, The Wall, had the top 100 tweets that it updated during the 27 hour charm offensive, plus a number of stories.

Twitter hashtags went viral, with #Aubama topping the trends and #POTUSinOz competing for the most obscure tag.

Fawning would be a fair description of many of the tweets, mixed with the usual fixation on his plane and his car. Barack certainly charmed much of the local audience. For the other view see the Aus TEA Party’s OBAMA /GILLARD … Makes Me Sick! or Gillard is worse than Obama ???

Barb is also not a fan, tweeting this link to Rupert Murdoch’s online new.com.au. The newspaper version has the less tacky title ‘Touching times for Julia Gillard and US President Barack Obama’:

@BabsNation
The Audacity of Grope: news.com.au/national/touch… Sums up this fawning, #Obama lovefest perfectly #Aubama #tcot #Auspol 17 Nov

On her blog Everyone is a Moon, Bron had her own ideas on this piece of ‘satire’ in THE AUDACITY OF TRIPE :

On a Presidential visit, there’s always plenty of news to, y’know, report. The US-Australia alliance. Security in the Pacific-Asia region. The expansion of US military presence in Australia. The implications of all this for China and India. Instead, we get this tedious, demeaning shit that I probably should come to accept from News Ltd by now, anyway.

Nick Condon was taken with the President’s speech to the Federal Parliament:

@nickcondon
Not gonna lie…. Obama is an incredible speaker. Amazing speech and only good things for Australia. #aubama 17 Nov

Two other hot topics fired some netizens: Julia Gillard’s intention to sell uranium to India and climate change action but there isn't room to cover those here.

As Airforce One left Darwin, the US was leading the rest of the world at the end of the first day of the Presidents Cup at Royal Melbourne golf course. We might wonder how long America will be the unrivalled world leader. (Incidentally, neither Obama, nor this year’s Honorary Chair, Julia Gillard, was scheduled to visit the Cup.)

P.S. President Obama didn't need his free croc insurance this time but it could come in handy when he retires or is retired.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Peter Campbell's blog on the state of the planet congratulated those involved in passing the legislation:

This is wonderful news. It is a shame it has taken so long for us to finally price pollution and provide leadership and and incentives for a clean energy future.

Well done Julia Gillard, The Labor Government, the MPCCC, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, all the Greens in the senate - particularly Christine Milne and Bob Brown and their advisors - and Adam Bandt in the House of Representatives.

Some opponents were quick to make negative comparisons. @marksharma saw parallels with the far right:

Australia is NOT a democracy anymore.We are now under the ‘occupation' of Nazis led by Julia Gillard & Hitler Bob Brown! #auspol #CarbonTAX 8 Nov

The No Carbon Tax post Injecting Carbon Tax preferred to use parallels with drug addiction in their attack:

In 2011 Australia started injecting carbon tax into our industry to make some of us feel good about ‘doing something’ against Climate Change. Like crack cocaine, it makes some of us feel good, like crack it it is an addictive source of income to the government, like crack it achieves absolutely nothing and like crack, you don’t feel the harm until some years down the track.

The rest of the world sensibly said NO to the hard drug of Carbon Taxing the whole economy. So Australia, enjoy…

The controversial pressure group @GalileoMovement rounded off the standard attacks with an appeal against the left bogey:

Waste, waste, waste bit.ly/vSLduV A trademark of socialism's central control 12 Nov

@ki_sekiya wondered about the possible contradictions in these ideological attacks, contrasting the Opposition leader’s support of direct funding with the government’s market-based emissions trading scheme:

Funny how the Self-proclaimed “Capitalists”, are supporting Abbott's “Direct Action” Plan and calling a Market-mechanism, Communist. #auspol 8 Nov

In supporting the legislation, Mark Banhisch used a non-emotive style to explore the political aspects at Larvatus Prodeo:

Finally, on the politics: much ink has been spilled, and will no doubt continue to be, over the implications for partisan politics. We need to think less about this, and more about what the ‘debate’ says about the power of unreason in public life, and sheer self-interest on the part of powerful actors. But I derive considerable hope from the fact that it’s been shown that amidst an unprecedented volume of noise, big things can still be done, and from the fact that it’s more than possible that reality may now prevail over irrationalism.

Well known climate skeptic Jennifer Marohasy tried to link the carbon price to the Global Financial Crisis in her post Australia to Become Involved in ‘Subprime’ Carbon Market? :

In addition to buying carbon units in the auction process, secondary markets and derivative markets will likely also develop in Australia also linked in to the international greenhouse-gas trading system.

So does this in effect mean Australia will soon be linked in to a type of ‘subprime’ UN compliant carbon trading scheme?

On ‘My blog for my rants, raves and thoughts!’ carbon tax advocate Alex Schlotzer hoped that vocal opposition is in decline:

There’s already evidence of this with the fervour that existed on the Conservative Action Network’s climate change group easing, and not nearly as rabid as it was during the height of the anti-carbon price ‘movement’.

Judge for yourself. The twitter hash tags #nocarbontax and #carbontax seem to have been less active during the last week than may have had been expected.

However, strong opponents of climate action at Catallaxy Files have not lowered their voices. One of several posts questioned the sources of funding for the new website yourcarbonprice.com.au an online calculator of the carbon price’s impact on individuals:

But an important question is who is paying for the collaboration of CHOICE, ACOSS (who alarmingly seems to be arguing for this package knowing full well that most of the green schemes are extraordinarily regressive – eg. solar feed-in tariffs) and the Climate Institute to produce yourcarbonprice.com.au?

Scientist Alan Marshall of SkepticalScience took A Moment to Savor! before reminding readers about what he believes needs to be done next:

While the Clean Energy Future legislation, and the actions by other nations listed above, are all commendable, international efforts will need to be ramped up if we are to have a chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. At Copenhagen, scientists were seeking a 25% to 40% reduction in emissions from the developed nations, and commitments to date fall well short of that target. In the upcoming COP 17 conference in Durban and beyond, the science needs to set the agenda.

The issue should be a central part of the 2013 Federal election, as Opposition leader Tony Abbott has sworn ‘a pledge in blood' to overturn the carbon tax.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (4)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The Australian government’s attempt to take a hard line on people smugglers and asylum seekers arriving by boat has hit a major snag. In December 2010, approximately 50 asylum seekers were drowned at Christmas Island when their boat was smashed on the rocks. A legal challenge has postponed a swap of the surviving refugees with Malaysia.

Amber Jamieson’s Malaysia deal in disarray summarises the latest situation for online media site Crikey:

The challenge, led by QC David Manne on behalf of 42 recently arrived asylum seekers (including six unaccompanied minors), focuses on human rights surrounding the policy and questions what protection Malaysia will offer to asylum seekers sent by Australia.

…Sixteen of the men were due to fly out to Malaysia yesterday, the first of the government’s new refugee swap deal with Malaysia, which will see 800 “boat people” swapped with 4000 refugees from Malaysia.

The plan has had some limited support in the blogosphere but has been criticised by both those wanting a stop to the so-called ‘boat people’ arrivals and those with concerns about human rights.

Laberal who claims to be ‘bored with trying to find the differences between the two parties, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party’ (the two major parties) presents his view in cartoon form:

Image from Laberal blog

Ian's cartoon harks back to the former Howard government’s Pacific solution of sending boat arrivals to Nauru, a policy that the current Gillard government has rejected.

In Border fantasies out of control, Kim of group blog Lavartus Prodeo looks at some disturbing poll figures that may help to explain the government’s tough stance:

Still, if the poll is right and fact would lower the number of “very concerned” Australians from 43% to 33%, it’s still a rather stunning figure. The beast seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Charitably, one might assume that at least some of this concern might be around a desire to avoid such horrors as happened near Christmas Island around Christmas last year.

Legal Eagle at Skeptic Lawyer is no fan of the latest solution:

I must confess to being sceptical from the beginning about the Malaysian “solution”. Deporting people to far flung islands or other countries does not provide much of a “solution”. There needs to be a total paradigm shift. The real problem, as I’ve said before, is about the perverse incentives our law sets up for asylum seekers — it’s easier for a person to get a visa once they are here on our soil than it is when they are off our soil, even though the asylum seeker’s circumstances have not changed one iota.

In Christians cannot accept Malaysia solution Rob Benson of iDigress ‘Musings of an antipodean contrarian’ looks at the issue from a moral standpoint:

The federal government’s so-called “Malaysia solution” looks like decisive action, but it’s abhorrent from a human rights perspective, and at odds with a balanced Christian view of justice and compassion.

The policy will send a message to prospective asylum seekers and people traffickers, but it is simply the wrong thing to do.

Peter’s Aussie Views News is primarily concerned with the children, especially those not accompanied by adults:

I do not know under what degree of anguish and suffering a mother might send her child in a small boat to a foreign land. But I do know what degree of callousness is required to send an unaccompanied child in a plane to Malaysia. It remains to be seen whether Australia will abandon its international responsibilities and any claim to the concept of “fair go” and send the recently arrived unaccompanied children to Malaysia.

John George has Had Enough at Had Enough. He neither supports the government or people who he calls ‘illegals’.

So the Malaysian Solution looks doomed; another Gillard debacle. We are now going to open the doors to 4000 so-called refugees regardless of whether any of our illegals are transferred to Malaysia. I mean the deal was lop-sided in the first place but now it is worse. I mean does this lot have a licence on stupidity or what?

Why on earth Gillard & Co have to be so darned stubborn as to turn their backs on the Naru Solution just because they might be seen as supporting a Howard Initiative is beyond me.

Prominent lawyer and human rights advocate Julian Burnside implores Australians to reflect on our national character:

So here we are: Australia in 2011. For convenience we have forgotten our origins, our good fortune, our blindness and our selfishness. In place of memory we have constructed a national myth of a generous, welcoming country, a land of new arrivals where everyone gets a fair go; a myth in which vanity fills the emptiness where the truth was forgotten.

Or perhaps it's not a myth after all. Perhaps our national image is true, but our politicians have forgotten what it is. If we value who we are, we should remind them. Because our true character as a nation is being reshaped each day by what our politicians do in our name. Tell Canberra we are better than that, lest we forget.

Whatever the result of the legal action, the issue of asylum seekers is not going away in a hurry, especially while there is no consensus between the political parties on how to deal with it.

This post is part of our special coverage on Refugees.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (4)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The aptly named Loon Pond tracks the former Australian with vigour. The last two posts by ‘Dorothy Parker’ are typical of the criticisms. In ‘News Corp, Jack the insider and blood on the wattle redux …‘ he started by comparing the way their online blogsite The Punch has treated the News of the World hacking scandal with their coverage of the carbon tax:

It's carbon tax all the way at The Punch, like a robo bunny with a heavy duty battery, plus the usual mindless frivolities and nary a bleat about the Murdoch follies which have entranced every other website around the world.

This was followed by a detailed analysis of other Murdoch media. His post on Friday 15 July, ‘John Hartigan, and time for some bold as brass strident coverage of all that strident coverage …‘ continued this theme:

The comedy stylings at News Corp get better and more entertaining by the day, and none more so than that adept humorist John Hartigan.

…Leading the way, naturally, is the anonymous editorialist, who explains how A medieval world view does not help the planet in Black, white and green all over. And who holds this medieval world view? Why greenies of course, as the anon edit flings around such finely balanced words as zealots, preconceived ideas, dogmatism, blinkered world view, monochromatic world, and so on and so forth…

Matt de Silva at Happy Antipodean ponders their aggressive editorial policy in an untitled post:

Watching John Hartigan perform on the ABC's 730 program… There's an exceptionalism at play here in Hartigan's words that probably serves a lot of the troops in the organisation well at different times, especially when they feel besieged as a result of run-ins with external entities. When the time comes to making a stand it's therefore easy for journalists to say “We're different and, yes, this will be unpleasant but we're performing a public duty here”.

He anticipates a backlash:

This attitude can only inflame the situation because a wild animal when cornered will always turn and fight. So every headline and every editorial, every story placement on the corporate website and every picture selection - designed to depict, say, the prime minister as domineering or cowed - is animated by a preemptive supposition that thousands of people out there in the Australian public sphere hate what you are doing.

In confession time at News Ltd Gary Sauer-Thompson at Public Opinion bemoans the level of public debate about climate change that results from the relentless pursuit of their own agenda:

News Ltd's newspapers are well known for them providing a platform for the denial of climate change, opposition to a carbon tax, hostility to making the polluters pay for the greenhouse emissions that heat up the planet, and their antagonism to using renewal energy. They are also partly responsible for the low standard of public debate on the need for Australia to shift to a low carbon economy. News Ltd basically want the taxpayer to pay the polluters big money to keep on polluting.

Open and Shut’s Peter Timmins links current scrutiny of News td in Australia with its UK implosion In ‘Murdoch's UK woes bring Australian debate centre stage‘:

The debate about ethics, responsibilities and journalism standards and broader issues concerning the media that seemed a long way off a week ago is now well under way, and unlikely to stop anytime soon.

…We have Greens leader Senator Bob Brown calling for a Senate inquiry into Australia's media ownership laws and into the ethical standards of journalists.

The Greens position is no surprise given the open attitude of The Australian, Murdoch’s flagship down-under. Jeremy Sears at Crikey, quoting their editorial argued last year that it wants to destroy the Greens (and hence the minority government):

You can take pretty much everything The Australian says about the Greens in that context: they are not interested in giving them a fair hearing, or listening to what they have to say, or presenting their arguments for public assessment: they want them “destroyed”.

At The Drum former Democrats and Labor parliamentarian Cheryl Kernot criticises:

…politicians in Australia who have been, and currently are, in thrall to the power of media proprietors and shock jocks; seeking to court support, in the belief that a newspaper's endorsement is one of the powerful keys to election success. The trade-off is timidity in the face of a newspaper's “policy line.”

She hopes for a change from past practice:

Many former and current Australian prime ministers and opposition leaders have publicly courted Rupert Murdoch with their ritual pilgrimage to worship at the Murdoch shrine on visits to the US. Media commentators have used this as a (perverted) measure of “success”.

Stephen Mayne, former publisher of Crikey, doesn’t pull any punches on their platform:

At some point, the creeping and insidious influence of the Murdochs over Australian media needs to be wound back and there is no better time to start than now. If the Pommy politicians can belatedly develop some spine with some US Democrats following suit, why not their jelly-backed equivalents in Australia?

There didn’t appear to be any posts on the Oz blogosphere defending Murdoch’s local media from these accusations. It’s hardly surprising given the kind of week Murdoch is having in Britain. However, Columnist Joe Hildebrand from News Limited's Sydney tabloid the Daily Telegraph has struck back on The Punch with ‘Gillard and Brown are shootin’ the messenger‘:

The argument … is that a Government which has driven itself into uncharted depths of antipathy in the public’s view, should still be treated generously by the newspapers, even though their readers and the electorate are overwhelmingly opposed to it.

…Governments can usually get by on good policy or good spin; the best have both, this one has neither. Using the appalling behaviour of UK tabloids as an excuse to pursue a political agenda against the Australian press is just more proof of that.

The last word goes to media specialist Margaret Simons in a short video for the InDaily predicting “the end of the big media empires”:

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Jeremy Sear of An Onymous Lefty laid on his customary sarcasm in ‘THE CARBON TAX THAT WILL DOOM US ALL‘. His target was Tony Abbott, the leader of the Opposition Coalition parties that strongly oppose the plan:

Worst of all, how unfair is it for the government to finally release the details of the carbon price package and undermine Tony Abbott’s ability to completely make stuff up about it?

PM Gillard launches the Clean Energy Future website. Photo: Clean Energy Future

In the post ‘Australia will tax its carbon emissions‘ on his self-titled blog, Harry Clarke was bubbly:

Of course I knew the announcement was coming but to find out the details of the proposal –in the link - and to hear such a clear and eloquent defence of the proposal from both was exciting. It is a political statement as well as an important application of the principle that markets are the best way of addressing carbon pollution problems. After a series of meandering twists Labor has finally got to the point it should have been at a year ago. Congratulations to all those who contributed to this outcome.

Open Your Eyes found lots to rail against in its ‘Editorial‘:

Bureaucracy will flourish as reams of pencil pushers calculate a web of tax and rebates.

That Goldman Sachs and their friends in the banking work will ultimately profit massively as the scheme moves into carbon trading, which is due to commence within 3 years, and if ultimately brought in worldwide will lead to the creation of a market, according to the Wall Street Journal to be worth $US 3 trillion per year.

And that despite all the tax, the impoverishment for most, and profit for a few, the world’s climate will not be affected a jot.

Chris White from Blogging from a life-long unionist is an advocate of a carbon tax, but wanted more action from his own political party:

It is a historic step forward for Australia to be finally taking action to price carbon. The time for talking is over as the damaging impacts of global warming become ever more apparent. By acting to reduce emissions, the politics of delay and denial will become a historic relic.

However the long delay in acting makes our challenge today bigger and more urgent than ever. The aspirations of the carbon pricing scheme are low in comparison with what the science community tells us we need to do to avoid great damage to Australia’s economy, our environment, and the way we live.

Clean Energy Future website

Climate Change Denier pounced on the real culprit in Australia the only country in the world with an economy-wide carbon tax:

And the rest of the world does not care.

…So how does our 160 million tonnes reduction compare to China’s annual production of CO2? China produces 7,031 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. Thats 2.2 per cent of Chinas output. So if China increases it output by the same amount it did in 2010, by ten percent, the 160 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide saved by Australia will be replaced by China in 3 months.

Billions of dollars in extra burdens on Australian workers, industry and consumers to be replaced by China in three months.

The hashtag #CP topped the Australian Twitter trending topics. There was lots of retweeting including this one by @dannolan who was busy during and after the media conference with quite a turn of phrase:

You can't spell ‘carbon tax' without SOCIALIST EUGENICS-LADEN MALTHUSIAN DEATH-PACT #cp

@GeordieGuy added a personal touch:

My son is due in November. There's still an outside chance I'll get to dive the Great Barrier Reef with him. #cp #cef

The cynics were out after Gillard’s hour long media event. @therevmountain was typical:

“PM, can you tell me your message again, but in a soundbite?” #cp

Former Davis Cup tennis player @JohnAlexanderMP, turned conservative parliamentarian, stuck to the party script:

So Aust companies can now move offshore, pay less to locals, avoid paying #carbontax and sell credits back into our market. Great reform #cp

@zinders echoed Gillard’s mention of a former British Conservative PM:

“The danger of global warming is… real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices” Thatcher, 1990 http://bit.ly/bDBNzG #cp #auspol

@SimonCopland seemed surprised at the Prime Minister’s performance:

Wow, Gillard is actually selling this quite well. #cp

More analysis and reactions will follow when the dust settles, although that could be years away.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Warning: If you’re easily shocked or object to so-called indecent or profane language, then please do not open any of the links or watch the video in this post.

Melbourne has just had a swear-in outside Victoria’s State Parliament to protest against new laws for on-the-spot fines for swearing. A YouTube video of the event captured by chllptr at the event was quickly posted on Melbourne Protests Weblog:

According to their report:

Media were present in force, whether hoping for police intervention or simply drawn by the novelty of the occasion, but there was no trouble. Reports can be found on The Age website and ABC online.

This issue has caused a lot of web chatter in places other than the usual suspects: mostly outrage or disbelief, mixed with a lot of humour.

At the Glitch Hop Forum, ‘a bunch of like minded techy geeks’ with an interest in music, kayhat posted the topic ‘You're not allowed to f**cking swear in Melbourne, Australia‘:

This is horrible, our human rights are being taken away from us blatently. Didn't we already have a perfectly functional verbal abuse law? This is ridiculous.

angryranchor responded:

This is possibly the dumbest thing I have heard. Really? Do police officers not have real criminals to find in Australia? Are there not real laws to enforce there against things like rape and murder? Do we really want them to be some sort of morality police?

No swearing sign. Image by Flickr user Alice Chaos (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

“Sergeant Brown?”

“Yes, Constable White?”

“There are 250 Sydney supporters chanting ‘F*** off Melbourne.’ What do I do?”

“Issue them fines, Constable White.”

“What? All of them?’”

“Yes. All of them!”

“What about the 1000 Victory supporters who have just started chanting “F*** off Sydney?”

“Fine them as well, Constable White. Well? What are you waiting for!”

… Let’s hope the Victorian Police apply this ass of a law with some common sense.

At off-roaders website 4WD Action the thread ran: ‘Fines for swearing in public !?‘

Angry6 who started this discussion lived up to his nickname:

Let me start by saying what the hell is this country coming to? Saw on the news a night or two ago that they will start giving $245 (dont quote me) on the spot fines to bad language in public.

If all the speed camera rage wasnt clear enough, then this will certainly open your eyes that all they are interested in is revenue any which way they can!

In reply Shaker4X4 took the side of the law:

I think cops are fed up with being sworn at in an abusive tone and they need something to book them for. How hard is it to kerb your tongue? Don't you think others are offended? I swear sometimes, but never out loud in public or among strangers. I've some respect.

Michael Vaughan at A single's survival guide likes a pun as well in ‘Obscene … and not heard‘:

Swear v.i. Use profane oaths to express anger or as expletives.

Well bugger me, move over speed-camera revenue, the Spring Street Mafia is introducing a new cash cow on the revenue-raising block – a potentially giant government swear box (oops, can I still say box?) at about 240 bucks a throw. Yeah, I said bucks with a B.

Freelance writer James Schloeffel continued the lighthearted approach with ‘Why Victoria’s swearing ban should be extended to politicians‘. He has a list of distasteful phrases that should cop a fine such as:

“Moving forward”…“Feeling the pinch”…“Un-Australian” …“Not ruling anything in or out”.

At J Man Talkback’s post ‘On The Spot Fines for Swearing‘, he sees some advantages:

…firstly it will help to free up our already overburdened courts so they can spend more time dealing with more serious matters and secondly it will speed the process up immeasurably for those charged with offensive language which is a good thing especially if the offender is a young person.

But he has concerns that:

…with every power comes the potential for the abuse of that power.

@Wil_Anderson is a popular TV and stand-up comedian. He tweeted about future Melbourne International Comedy Festival gigs:

@Wil_Anderson: Victoria announced on-the-spot fines of $240 for indecent language. Suddenly my MICF show is going to cost me a lot more next year…

So is this just a laughing matter? Not according to A f#@%ing stupid law from Aidan Wilson of Crikey's language blog Fully (sic). He checked on the old law that is being given new life by the instant fines:

I personally find it unbelievable that Victoria still has legislation against offensive behaviour and ‘obscene’ language. Being curious, I went to the legislation and found the relevant section (17):

17. Obscene, indecent, threatening language and behaviour etc. in public
Any person who in or near a public place or within the view or hearing of any person being or passing therein or thereon-
1. sings an obscene song or ballad;
2. writes or draws exhibits or displays an indecent or obscene word figure or representation;
3. uses profane indecent or obscene language or threatening abusive or insulting words; or
4. behaves in a riotous indecent offensive or insulting manner-
shall be guilty of an offence.

Image from Crikey's Fully (sic) blog

The highlighting has been added. Many fans of Scotland's famous bard Rabbie Burns will be grateful for this warning and forgive Aidan's lingusitic redundancy, ‘I personally' (sic).

The swear-in rally drew a smaller crowd than had indicated their intention to attend on Facebook. Perhaps the f**kwalk on 25 June, 2011, based on the recent slutwalk, will have more success.

This post is part of our special coverage SlutWalks 2011.

Written by Kevin Rennie · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper