It was a motivated and on top of his game PM we saw on The Insiders this past Sunday morning. All was going well, with the PM a paragon of practicality and focus, until the issue of sedition was brought up, it was here that he really rose to a new standard despite the ABC’s Barrie Cassidy’s sneaky attempts to derail his message. It’s more interesting to watch (4:54 in the video stream) than read. And by the way, is it just me or is the PM looking younger every day?
Now, some detractors would like you to think that the grand old man of Australian politics doesn’t get it, but by now I think we all know there isn’t anything the PM does not get. Typical of all those chic inner city types who take their marching orders from the MEAA union, Cassidy didn’t look up for a stoush when confronted with the facts as they were presented by the PM, his bags were already packed prior to the match and the jet was idling on the runway – no doubt ready to leave for France and join the car burning Islamist Intifada.
I also have it on good authority that Cassidy will soon be hosting a new sports wrap on Sundays, after The insiders, further polluting the minds of our sport mad youth with his insidious agenda. Our two vigilant Senators Santo Santoro and Eric Abetz should have a good look into this; it’s yet another example of bias by the ABC.
While watching Cassidy’s weak effort to derail the PM, I began thinking of Prof David Flint as a replacement for this muddle headed trendoid masquerading as a journalist, but after a mens room exchange during the past week, I now realise he’d be better suited for the vacant seat next to Dr. Janet Albrechtsen on the ABC board or alternatively (despite the recent appointment of Monica Attard who the ABC suspiciously sent to Moscow for two years), Media Watch.
BARRIE CASSIDY: The argument is there are laws that haven’t been used so there is no need for them.
JOHN HOWARD: Hang on. No, no, no with great respect, Barrie, the implication being touted and the implication left in the minds of anybody following this debate is that we are introducing these new draconian laws for the first time. And if, in fact, they are laws, and if your question acknowledges, they are laws that in substance have been there for years, and haven’t caused a problem, what is all the fuss about? See, I have yet to see – let’s talk about the substance of the issue, as distinct from the rhetoric. Where, in the drafting of the sedition provisions, where are they in substance different, in substance, not in language, but in substance, different from what is already in the crimes act?
Methinks Cassidy doth protest too much. In fact his words are highly seditious, lucky for him the PM stopped him in his tracks. If as they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then isn’t the PM just being vigilant? Cassidy along with other influential media mouth pieces like the SMH’s David Marr are typical of the soft left, who only argue like cry babies for a media exemption from these laws in order to push their left wing agendas on the more sensible Australian public, who would rather be watching Eddie McGuire on Channel 9 than listen to Kerry O’Brien on the 7:30 Report give airtime to some mad Mullah from Lakemba who calls for Jihad against Israel and our brave troops in Iraq.
The PM is of course completely right, the existing laws are exactly the same as the old ones in terms of substance. I mean no one has ever been charged with sedition since these new laws were passed have they? Former Communist Party member, Philip Adams, will still have a column in the Australian this weekend won’t he?
The reason why these sedition laws have to be reintroduced is that we are fighting the war on terror, and if, as strong leaders like the PM, Tony Blair and George Bush continue to remind us, everything changed after 9/11 and we are at war, how are we to be relaxed and comfortable without these sensible provisions? Have any of Australia’s taxpayer supported artists, writers, comedians, cartoonists and civil libertarians read the good faith defence clauses contained in the proposed legislation? Maybe they are too busy thinking of ways to offend decent society like Andres Serrano did with Piss Christ. As with all faith based initiatives, these laws have been intelligently designed, and as such the ABC shouldn’t be criticising them, they should be hosting dinner parties and special reports to honour their being cemented into Australian law.
I think Howard has gone soft Phil. He has lost his touch and has been obviosuly influenced by leftist Liberal party traitors.
Wilson Tuckey would be a better PM. He would iron out the ABC for good. He he. Iron? Geddit it? I bet the lefties won’t.
I must be rusty but I don’t get that.
Is he steeling other people’s jokes
Pravda had nothing on the ABC. At least with Pravda it was doing the government’s bidding, but ABC run’s the commie-islamo-fascist line without even being forced to by the government. However, its been shown that its only a bunch of echo-chamber bound ALP moonbats who watch that trash. Gives them something to do between protests.
I declare on Jihad on all people using unclean animals as gravatars
Ever since that interview John Pilger did with Hawkie, it’s plain for all to see that the ABC is irrevocably biassed one way only.
It’s clear that only Rupert Murdoch could straighten it out.