Q & A, 22 June 2015


5 thoughts on “Q & A, 22 June 2015

  1. Zaky Mallah is a terrorist who got off on a technicality, there are many like him in our community who will go through the courts and get off on a technicality.
    It’s time there was a global genocide against all who follow the Islamic ideology.
    Does Mallah have a job and is a productive member of society, the Australian society, no he survives on Islamic funding and the generous Centrelink

  2. “It’s time there was a global genocide against all who follow the Islamic ideology.”

    Ian, you must have been very angry when you wrote that. If you really think of it, you would not mean it. We all say things in anger. Zaky Mallah was convicted, only after plea bargaining, of an offence that he wanted to kill someone.

    Please read this article from SMH in which the writer explains the situation very well.


    As you know, genocide has been practiced against people of another faith in Nazi-Germany. The people were told too that the Jews were the enemy of the German nation. That was just nonsense. I would even go so far as claiming they were the better Germans.

    For the Moslems who live in Australia, it is not easy. They want to become proper Australien citizens but are constantly pushed to choose between their own culture and the new culture.

    Have you seen the drama “Secrete River” on the ABC? There the main character, William Thornhill, was in a similar situation. He had to choose between the white settlers, his culture, who wanted to survive and the Aboriginals who struggled to survive also.

    We too, as well as the new migrants, have to learn to live side by side. That is why the policies of the Abbott government are so divisive. Any Australian government has the duty to bring people of different races and religions together. The present Minister for Immigration Peter Dutton is totally unsuitable to the job.

  3. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abc-seems-to-be-cowering-in-silence-over-qa-program-fallout-20150624-ghw8hs.html

    Jonathan Holmes says:

    “The ABC has silenced its program-makers from saying anything in their defence, but has anybody actually looked at what Zaky Mallah stands for?”

    ” . . . . Mallah did travel to Syria in 2012. The “jihad” he was interested in joining was the fight against the tyrannical government of Bashar al-Assad, and the outfit he joined for a few days – without engaging in any combat, he insists – was the Free Syrian Army. This is the force which the United States is now training and which Australia supports.

    As The Australian’s Adam Shand reported at the time, the former would-be suicide bomber realised “how misguided his anger towards Australian society had been…’Go to Syria where your brothers are dying for freedom, democracy and the true Islamic way, rights guaranteed in this lucky country,’ he says…. ‘We Muslims have so much freedom here (in Australia) yet we are causing so much trouble’.”

    Since then, Mallah has been outspoken in his condemnation of Islamic State. On Channel Ten’s The Project last October he said: “I’m on this program this evening to distance myself from the actions of these individuals, these idiots, these wankers, who are giving Islam and the Muslim world and the Islamic community in Australia a bad name and for those who are considering to join ISIS I hope ASIO is onto you, I hope your passport is refused and I hope you are arrested and locked up.”

    In one of numerous video blogs on YouTube, Mallah calls on Australia’s Salafist imams to join the fight against extremism: “You need to condemn terrorism. You need to condemn fundamentalism. You need to condemn those who are brainwashing our youth into believing that a group like ISIS is fighting for jihad. They are not fighting for jihad. They are fighting for bulls—.”

    Zaky Mallah has always been an attention seeker and a loose cannon. He was guilty of publishing appalling and inexcusable tweets about News Corp columnists Rita Panahi and Miranda Devine some months ago, and again today. But there was no reason at all for Q&A’s producers to suspect that he would suddenly become an advocate for Islamic State.

    And nor did he. His final, notorious comment was not a call to arms – although it’s easy to see how many viewers took it that way. It was, if you watch it again, the comment of an angry young man, a born and bred Australian with no other nationality, who has been trying for some years to counter the lure of Islamic State in his own community, and who had just been told by a member of the government that ideally he should be expelled from the country by ministerial decree.

    A few weeks ago the government convened a conference of experts in de-radicalisation from around the world to advise it how to counter the propaganda pull of IS. Two of those experts appeared on the ABC’s Lateline.

    It’s worth reading or watching what they had to say – in particular, Britain’s Abdul-Rehman Malik on the increasingly draconian legislation being passed in his country and in ours: “I think some of that language – the death cult language, the language of taking away citizenship – I think it’s headed in the wrong direction. And remember there’s going to be kids – and it’s already happening – who’ve gone out there, who survived, and who want to come back. Don’t take their citizenship away. They could be our best allies…. They’re going to be the best ambassadors to say, ‘You think you’re creating a utopian society out there? You’re not. I’ve seen it, its hell; let’s not go down that route’. ”

    Zaky Mallah never joined IS but, more than a decade ago, he was a radicalised would-be terrorist. He has since become an ally – or a potential ally – in the fight against IS. But he’s condemned because of his record and the ABC is excoriated for daring to give him a voice.

    The ABC has apologised for its temerity – and closed down the right of its program-makers to say a word in their own defence. Thus does the politics of fear divide us all, and conquer our fundamental liberties.

    Jonathan Holmes is an Age columnist and a former presenter of the ABC’s Media Watch program.

  4. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/qa-program-sparks-comparisons-with-abbott-20150624-ghwcf2.html

    This is what the SMH asks:

    Our Prime Minister asks our ABC, “Whose side are you on?” It is on the side of balanced informed debate – it is in its charter (” ‘Whose side are you on?’ Abbott lashes out at ABC after statements by jailed man”, June 24). Tony Abbott’s junior minister Steve Ciobo was certainly given every opportunity to make his point and did, albeit a little aggressively.

    So, if Abbott isn’t on the side of balanced informed debate, the question remains: what side is he on?

    Here I copy some letters to the SMH:

    Bruce Hulbert Lilyfield

    I would have thought that Tony Abbott and the others of his ilk would be happy with Q&A on Monday night and congratulated the ABC. After all, the comments by Zaky Mallah would have certainly reinforced in the minds of many the culture of fear and paranoia that exists and, best of all, no urging whatsoever from Abbott and others. In his wildest dreams, Abbott could not have done better himself.


    Wayne Stinson Merimbula

    I am not sure what the answer is to Tony Abbott’s question, although I believe it is imperative that Australians are kept informed of all news, but I am confident I am correct in saying that the vast majority of results of all opinion polls that have been published in the Herald since the 2013 election are not on the side of Abbott or his government.

    In relation to the ABC’s Q&A program, it is my opinion that it is a dangerous slope to loss of personal freedoms when a government attempts to muzzle free speech in this country, as this is what occurred in Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. It would be better if Abbott appeared to govern for all Australians rather than to be seen to be dividing Australians.

    David Vale Pymble

    Paul Keating was so right in his observations of the ABC’s Q&A program years ago when he said he would need a can of mace to keep back the “riff raff” that appeared with Tony Jones each week on the show. The ABC has once again flagged its history of reporting bias and it is now finally time for a culture change and this time right from the very top.

    Phillip Regan Aberglasslyn

    Tony Abbott has described Q&A as a “lefty lynch mob”. The policy of the Q&A program is to have an audience comprising a fairly even spread of left and right-wing supporters. There would therefore seem to be a problem with panelists selected to answer questions. May I suggest a solution to this dilemma – invite Janet Albrechtsen, Rowan Dean, Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson and Peter Reith to be regular panelists. Problem solved.

    Harry Polley Dural

    Having a robust discussion on controversial issues on Q&A is good for democracy. The biggest threat to our national security comes from the scaremongering and wedge politics of the Abbott government.

    Franz Reidel Umina Beach

    Whose side are you on, Tony Abbott? The truth or lies? Honesty or hypocrisy? The rule of law or whatever it takes? Responsibility or fear-mongering? Decency or unfairness? Knights, dames, and King Charles or dignified independence? The coal industry or future generations?

    Don’t lecture others about patriotism, Mr Abbott. Save that for yourself.

    Michael Hinchey New Lambton

    Tony Abbott is right to slam the ABC for its serious misjudgment of including a terrorist sympathiser as a vetted questioner on Q&A, a misjudgment that I think is comparable with Abbott standing in front of those misogynistic “Ditch the Witch” signs in front of our free speech palace – Parliament House.

    Ian Lothringer Whale Beach

    Sam de Brito is right to some degree in maintaining that a robust and open society should allow any viewpoint to be expressed in the media (“Q&A wasn’t wrong to bring on Zaky Mallah”, June 24). However, this freedom of expression should be tempered with protection of the vulnerable and the gullible to purveyors of hateful, regressive and dangerous ideologies.

    Greg Turek Killara

    Sam de Brito shows us the breadth of his tolerance by giving Fred Nile and Zaky Mallah five minutes of talk time from the naughty corner. By treating Nile and Mallah as moral equivalents, all de Brito really reveals is the moral bankruptcy of the prevailing cultural elites.

    Peter Barnes Revesby

    Tony Abbott doesn’t get it. If the ABC is truly independent, it should be on nobody’s side.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s